'component, or part' of a circumvention device, almost certainly

Posted May 3, 2007 8:06 UTC (Thu) by cate (subscriber, #1359) [Link]

For the part private medical records of the residents of Minneapolis, I think it is because of privacy laws. And I don't think distribution of HD-DVD or they keys has something to do with privacy: the purpose of DVDs is to be distributed and to be shown.

The credit card number is more interesting. I think tat the owner, the shop and the bank cannot distribute the number, per contract. But IMHO, IANAL, if you distribute the credit card number (you break the contract), the other people (that obtained the number legally, they are not binded to your contract) can distribute it. But maybe also this is in some commerce, money, payment laws.

The laws are not so general as you think, so every new application give interesting results (both in interpretation of old laws and in the rules of new laws), until it stabilize in something intelligent.

Posted May 3, 2007 10:52 UTC (Thu) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]

>> Credit card numbers, expiration dates, and PINs are numbers - but distributing those isn't exactly legal. In fact, any file is a finite sequence of bytes, and hence a number.

Of course you are technically right, any file is a number. But from a more practical point of view, let's say that the AACS number was "76" (which is certainly possible in theory). Surely to prevent websites from posting "76" makes no sense. On the other hand, posting the number representing an .mp3 file of a copyrighted song is different somehow.

The actual AACS number is somewhere in the middle, I would say. It is so short that it qualifies for what a (non-mathematician) judge would call a 'number'. A number representing an .mp3 file doesn't, it is only a 'number' to people like you and me.

The problem is that preventing people from saying "76" is just ridiculous. People _need_ to say that number in their normal lives. Perhaps the AACS number is not exactly that, but it is so short that certainly large portions of it are uttered in normal life. To restrict stating the AACS number is therefore dangerously close to restricting free speech. This risk is not present with .mp3 'numbers'.

In addition, you mention credit card numbers as things that are illegal to distribute. Well actually it is perfectly legal to distribute them, such distribution happens all the time when a waiter swipes a card at the table and carries the imprinted number to the cash register. What is not legal is to use them to steal the owner's money, and I presume the law has some clause wherein copying credit cards in bulk is 'with intent to steal' or something along those lines. Yet if a child copies their parent's credit card number, without permission, is this a crime BEFORE it is used to steal money? I'm not sure. And, importantly, regardless of the result here, this is completely different than the AACS number, which cannot be used to steal money - it *might* be used to infringe on copyright or circumvent anti-circumvention measures, but those are handled by completely different laws than credit card numbers. So these matters are not necessarily related, even though in both cases we have numbers (even of about the same length).

So, in summary, I am not sure how a judge would act, when ruling on this case. Perhaps the AACS-LA won't want to risk a negative judgment, which would have far worse consequences than the benefits of winning such a case (the number is already out there).