Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom
I quoted this from the case: [DMCA specifically prohibits] "decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner.” Id. § 1201(a)(3)(A).
Since this was just a key, it didn't disable or remove any protection. It appears this involved somekind of computer repair, and the key was needed to run the software already on the machine. No one was pirating the software, they were providing the key to legitimate owners.
|
GE admitted to five counts of copyright infringement of this software. So yes, it
was pirated, and disabling the dongle played a critical role in enabling them to do so.
The purpose of the dongle was to verify that the copy of the software being run was an authorised copy. The right to decide whether or not a copy is authorised is clearly a right protected by the Copyright Act, so the absence of encryption in this case is immaterial.
As I said before, the judge's reasoning was sloppy. Encryption does nothing to prevent a copyrighted block of data from being copied, it prevents it from being accessed without the key. The distinction between access control and copy control is indeed subtle, and it doesn't apply here. Both of the cases he cited (Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Techs., Inc and Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.) involved circumstances in which access to the software was controlled primarily by the purchase of a device (a printer or a garage door opener), and without that specific device the software was useless. Obviously the situation is very different when the software in question can be run on any PC.