Re: EOT-Lite File Format

Vladimir (and Tab):

Thanks. This is how I understand it as well.  -Christopher


On Aug 3, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:

> Tab has got it absolutely right!
>
> I am not a lawyer, but I had once been involved in a case related to  
> alleged DMCA violation. Here is what I learned from it:
> - let's assume there is a specification that calls something a  
> "technological protection measure" and mandates implementations to  
> enforce it by strictly following the process specified in the  
> document. If implementer decides to violate the specified procedure,  
> another party *may* be able to claim that technological measure is  
> circumvented;
> - let's assume the opposite - there is a specification that does not  
> define any technological measures, and specifically calls for an  
> opaque data chunk to be ignored even when one is present. In this  
> case, there is *nothing* to circumvent - there are no technological  
> measures, nada, period, end of story. Any compliant implementation  
> is mandated to ignore a chunk of data it knows nothing about - how  
> this case could possibly raise any DMCA concerns?
>
> This is exactly what EOT-Lite specification is about. Classic EOT  
> standard does not exist - it was merely a proposal that was rejected  
> for various reasons. We used it as FYI document to create the EOT- 
> Lite solution that is backward compatible with existing EOT  
> implementations. Again, there will be _no_ technological measures  
> defined in the spec, and all implementers are specifically mandated  
> to ignore the chunk of data they cannot process. There is nothing to  
> circumvent, and any attempt to bring DMCA into the picture is a  
> scare tactics that, IMHO, only hampers the constructive discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Vladimir

Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 22:04:21 UTC