Re: [OT] DMCA loop hole

[Paul G. Allen]

Joseph Pingenot wrote:
> 
> >From Paul G. Allen on Wednesday, 01 August, 2001:
> >To take another angle, those of us who actively look for exploits in software (because companies like M$ fail to do so themselves) risk being sued for doing so.
> 
> Hrm.  Very good point.  However, under most EULA's I've seen, reverse
>   engineering is already a no-no.

Under copyright law, under fair use, once I purchase something - ANYTHING - I can use it however I damn well please as long as it's for my own use, for
educational purposes, and I do not make a profit or significantly cut into the copyright holders profit. Copyright law outweighs EULA's, so along came so-called
"license agreements", harware to circumvent our fair use, and DMCA.

> 
> >This makes jobs like mine EXTREMELY difficult because on the one hand I don't want my company using software that will allow Joe Cracker to take over our
> >machines, and on the other I don't want the company sued just because I did some necessary reverse engineering in order to prevent it (again, because the
> >software mfg. can't be trusted to do it themselves).
> 

The one and only reason (that I know of, but don't take my word for it as gospel, since I am only an admin/programmer/setwork security person) we use Windows is
because there is no support for Windows Media on anything other than Win-Tel (Windows on Intel) platforms. Most of our reliable servers are Red Hat Linux (and
we have over 11,000 servers across the 'net), including Real Media servers, ftp servers, and web servers. (One of the reasons I am now getting involved with the
kernel is because we use Linux so much.)

Also note that even though Linux is Open Source, much of the other software that we (and other companies) have to use is not, so much of it still falls under
this DMCA BS.

PGA

-- 
Paul G. Allen
UNIX Admin II/Programmer
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
www.akamai.com
Work: [phone]
Cell: [phone]