Scripsit Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:49:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the > > Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties > > in possession of the Document the authority to gain access to the > > work by descrambling the work if it is scrambled, decrypting the > > work if it is encrypted, and otherwise avoiding, bypassing, > > removing, deactivating, or impairing any and all technological > > measures effectively controlling access to the work. > I think it is still too widely scoped. If I place a copy of the > document in a gpg encrypted e-mail along with something not for > public consumption, all the ISPs on the way are in possession of > a copy. This clause allows them to crack it open. Yes, but if gpg works as intended (and I'm reasonably certain that a lot of smart people have tried without success to demonstrate that it does not), they *can't* crack it open, irrespective of the right they get. Notice that it is not a right to demand that you supply a key. > Also even in the intended case of allowing people to decode CSS > like protection on a copy, the clause may make the whole > document non-distributable due to a conflicting obligation to > obey a DMCA-like law. Is there any "DMCA-like laws" anywhere that say that a copyright holder can *not* authorize other people to access his work? -- Henning Makholm "Ligger Öresund stadig i Middelfart?"
