<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: No Exemptions for Copy-Protection? Huh?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/10/14/no-exemptions-for-copy-protection-huh/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/10/14/no-exemptions-for-copy-protection-huh/</link>
	<description>by Derek Slater</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:07:35 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ravi Nanavati</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/10/14/no-exemptions-for-copy-protection-huh/comment-page-1/#comment-4451</link>
		<dc:creator>Ravi Nanavati</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:03:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/10/14/no-exemptions-for-copy-protection-hu#comment-4451</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

A second point is that most archivists are not technical wizards. Therefore they will not be able to develop the circumvention tools they need for archival purposes without help from a technical expert. But no technical expert will help becauea they would be guilty of trafficking in a circumvention device.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>A second point is that most archivists are not technical wizards. Therefore they will not be able to develop the circumvention tools they need for archival purposes without help from a technical expert. But no technical expert will help becauea they would be guilty of trafficking in a circumvention device.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ernest Miller</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/10/14/no-exemptions-for-copy-protection-huh/comment-page-1/#comment-4450</link>
		<dc:creator>Ernest Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:02:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/10/14/no-exemptions-for-copy-protection-hu#comment-4450</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

You are correct, the WIRED article is not.  However, there does remain a problem for archivists with regard to the ban on the circumvention of access controls.  The way most courts have interpreted the DMCA, virtually all copy control (and certainly the most common types of digital copy control) are also access control devices.  Thus is you circumvent copy control, you are also circumventing access control.  Thus, in order to backup a copy legally, you need an exemption to access control from the Copyright Office.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>You are correct, the WIRED article is not.  However, there does remain a problem for archivists with regard to the ban on the circumvention of access controls.  The way most courts have interpreted the DMCA, virtually all copy control (and certainly the most common types of digital copy control) are also access control devices.  Thus is you circumvent copy control, you are also circumventing access control.  Thus, in order to backup a copy legally, you need an exemption to access control from the Copyright Office.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
