'component, or part' of a circumvention device, almost certainly
Posted May 3, 2007 10:52 UTC (Thu) by
kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281)
In reply to:
'component, or part' of a circumvention device, almost certainly by tetromino
Parent article:
EFF: 09 f9: A Legal Primer
>> 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).
(
Log in to post comments)