|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:20:58 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:52:06 -0400, Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay wrote:
>>
>>> It's entirely legal (again, DMCA not withstanding).
>>
>> I would like to see a reference for that, though - because I've never
>> heard this before Darren mentioned it.
>
> Copywrite v. Prolock.
Are you talking about Vault v. Quaid Software Ltd? (Vault made software
called Prolock that was used to provide copy protection of computer
software)
I don't know that that is applicable here, partly because the case in
question predates the DMCA (which would supercede, I believe, but like
you IANAL). In the case I cited above, Quaid Software licensed Prolock
for the purpose of defeating Prolock's copy protection features.
But the fifth Circuit Cort of Appeals did hold that the license
agreement's provisions were unenforceable because federal copyright law
pre-empted the Louisiana License Act.
That would seem to set a precedent that federal law trumps state law;
DMCA, being a federal law, prohibits reverse engineering, and whether you
or I or anyone likes the DMCA, it is a current law on the books that
specifically prohibits circumventing technological measures put in place
to prevent illegal copies from being made.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |