[free-sklyarov] RE: FJIA etc

[Will Janoschka]

 Matthew Russotto russotto at pond.com wrote:
> Will Janoschka wiljan at pobox.com wrote:
>>...    (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? 
>> Can I ever exercise YOUR right?

>...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.

You are probably  correct at least at the trial court level.  The US Supreme
may very well invalidate a "law" written with words that reverse the
intent of congress.

If I am copyright owner, I can exercise my (copy) rights.
You cannot, in either a linguistic or legal sense, "exercise".
You can infringe on my rights or exercise your own rights.

Only if the technological measure limits, in some way, the copyright owner
"under this title" can it claim to "effectively protect a right of
the copyright owner under this title".

Circumvention then, would remove the limits imposed on the copyright owner.
The user or "circumventee" isn't affected, except he can go to jail.

The word should have been "infringement" rather than "exercise".  The
substitution clearly reverses the meaning of (B) above.