- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:47:00 +0300
- To: Henrik Dvergsdal <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Mar 29, 2007, at 13:17, Henrik Dvergsdal wrote: > * Media protection. By embedding media as attachments, users can > raise the barrier towards theft or abuse, especially if they are > also provided with mechanisms to disable right-clicking etc. in the > client. (First, I should stress that this is my personal opinion only and IANAL.) To avoid putting implementors and users at risk of having anti- circumvention legislation invoked against them, I think this WG should not specify features whose most obvious use case or, more importantly, stated intent makes the features plausible candidates of constituting effective technical protection measures (even attempted) under the DMCA or the EUCD. (Please note that "effective TPM" is a legal beast. As a gross simplification, the intent of the protection measure counts, not measurable effectiveness or objective technical hallmarks. A computer scientist considering the dictionary definitions of words might conclude that TPM is always ineffective due to the technical absurdity of the concept. Computer scientist reasoning does not render the laws harmless, though. The safest way is not to spec any TPM at all, not even TPM designed to be legally ineffective.) -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 10:47:16 UTC