On October 12, 1998, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).It Prohibits the "circumvention" of any effective "technological protection measure" (e.g., a password or form of encryption) used by a copyright holder to restrict access to its material. Expressly states that many valuable activities based on the "fair use" doctrine (including reverse engineering, security testing, and privacy protection and encryption research) will not constitute illegal "anti-circumvention"
According to Bill Hagen, manager of the IEEE Intellectual Property Rights, “The Digital Millennium Copyright Act has become a very sensitive subject among our authors. It’s intended protect digital content, but its application in some specific areas appears to have alienated large segments of the research community.”
I firmly believe that the government has no vested right in restricting The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. Example is as in the case in chapter 9, Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Eric Corley. (“- An injunction against the defendant for posting a source code “DeCSS” to other web sites was warranted. The posting restriction is justified - because the GOVERNMENT has a substantial interest in preventing unauthorized access to encrypted copyright material-“ The chapter continues to explain; “-the essential purpose of encryption code is to prevent unauthorized access. Owners of all property rights are entitled to prohibit access to their property by unauthorized persons. Homeowners can install locks on the doors of their houses.”) So I ask you, ok then who is responsible for leaving the door open?
Legally, I do not advocate stealing someone’s sandwich, but then I could make a copy for my personal use and without the intent to profit it, I would be justified but for “fair use.” Personally, I would not break into someone’s property to take something of any value for my own use. That would be considered trespassing and conversion according to tort...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document