[free-sklyarov] RE: FJIA etc That is supposed to be

[Matthew Russotto]

Will Janoschka wiljan at pobox.com wrote:
>Dimtry is being charged under a part of the DMCA with a different
definition.

>    (B) a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a
>        copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the
>        ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or
>        otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner
>        under this title.

> What right of a copyright holder is being restricted?    (owner is a new
word)
> Can I ever exercise YOUR right?

Ugh, I get those sections confused too frequently.  In order to parse this
so
it has any meaning (and the courts only consider clauses meaningless when
that's a bad thing, in my cynical opinion), "right of a copyright owner
under
this title" must refer to the rights reserved to the copyright owner by 17
USC 106 and
106A.  That is, the reproduction right, the right to prepare derivative
works,
the right to distribute copies, the right to perform the work publicly, and
the right
to display the work publicly.  (the 106A rights are for visual arts and
don't seem
particularly relevant).

The only rights possibly implicated here seem to be the reproduction right
and the
right to prepare derivative works.  The encryption, combined with the
rights-management information, limits the ability of the user to make copies
of the
work in the clear, and to make modified copies.  Unfortunately, this is
likely to
be enough for the courts, despite the sloppy language.

BTW, "owner" isn't a new word; that's the language used in 17 USC 106.