|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Are you talking about Vault v. Quaid Software Ltd? (Vault made software
> called Prolock that was used to provide copy protection of computer
> software)
That's the case I'm thinking of, yes.
> 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.
Right.
> 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.
Right. That's why I said "DMCA notwithstanding".
"Illegal copies." Now, is it OK to circumvent to make legal copies? That's
what I was trying to say before - I think there's specifically language in
the DMCA to allow circumvention of necessary to use the material as intended.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |