In addition to our concerns that "there is no circumvention without copyright infringement", two other things immediately spring to mind when I read the proposed Act: 1. There are words to the effect that a region coding device is not a TPM, yay. But there are no words to say that if a device is effectively for the purpose of subverting the Doctrine of First Sale, it is not a TPM, an there needs to be. I.e. if the consumer is supplied with a time limited "key" for the "lock", and must pay a fee to obtain another time-limited key (effectively turning a copyright sale into a copyright rent), then it should not be a TPM within the Act, and circumventing it should not be an offence. Think of this as "time coding" not being protected, just as "region coding" is not to be protected. 2. The proposed Act fails the public library test. When a library's client reads/accesses/displays a work, it is not currently a copyright infringement. While the proposed Act provides some exceptions for libraries themselves, it provides no exceptions for library *clients*. That is, if a library asks a publisher "please give us a key that all of our clients may use without further cost (to us or to them)" and the publisher refuses, it should then be a allowed that the library tell its clients how to access the work (how to circumvent the TPM) and the clients should be allowed to access the work (that is, allowed to circumvent the TPM). -- Regards Peter Miller <millerp@canb.auug.org.au> /\/\* http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~millerp/ PGP public key ID: 1024D/D0EDB64D fingerprint = AD0A C5DF C426 4F03 5D53 2BDB 18D8 A4E2 D0ED B64D See http://www.keyserver.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part