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