[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Here is the relevant text in the law:

> No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

The inclusion of “work protected under this title” makes it clear in the law, though I doubt a judge would rule otherwise without that line. (Otherwise, I’d wonder if I could claim damages that Google et al. are violating the technological measures I’ve put in place to protect the specificity of my interests, because it wouldn’t matter that such is not protected by copyright law.)

Also not an attorney, for what it’s worth.

[roywiggins]

It seems clear from this definition especially:

> (A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner

In this case there is no copyright owner.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Right, that’s what I was getting at with my parenthetical. Obviously the work has to have an owned copyright in order to be protected by copyright law.

[rusk]

This is interesting. I wonder could you use it as a basis for “legally” circumventing a technology by applying it to non-copyrighted works.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

If you mean that you might be able to decrypt a copyrighted work because you used that same encryption method on a non-copyrighted work, then definitely not. The work under protection will be considered. (Otherwise, I am unsure what you meant.)

[rusk]

From what I recall, it was the actual protection method that was protected by DMCA - when DVD protection was cracked it was forbidden to distribute a particular section of code so they just printed it on a Tee-shirt to troll the powers that be.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Presuming you are referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controvers...

> Outside the Internet and the mass media, the key has appeared in or on T-shirts, poetry, songs and music videos, illustrations and other graphic artworks, tattoos and body art, and comic strips.

Using the encryption key to decrypt the data on a DVD is illegal “circumvention” per DMCA 1201, if it’s done without authorization from the copyright owner of the data on the DVD. If it were really illegal to simply publish the key on a website, then printing it on clothing that they sold instead would not be a viable loophole.

I’m glad it is still referred to as a controversy that they were issuing cease and desist letters for publishing information when the actual crime they had in mind, which was not alleged in the letters, is using the information to decrypt a DVD.

[jazzyjackson]

Better yet just print the colors that represent the number, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

But then again, knowing the number is a far cry from using that number to circumvent DRM

[roywiggins]

sorry, yes, reread your comment and dirty-edited mine