Re: 17 USC 1201 (circumvention) cases?

On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Robert A. Kreiss <kreiss[_at_]odo.law.udayton.edu> wrote:
>
> The first is the anti-circumvention provision of 1201(a)(1), which
> prohibits individuals from circumventing technology measures that
> control access to copyrighted works. According to 1201(a)(1)(A),
> this provision doesn't take effect until after a 2-year grace period.
> This is the only one of the three prohibitions with a 2-year grace
> period.
>
> The second is the anti-trafficking provision of 1201(a)(2), which
> prohibits trafficking in devices or services for circumventing
> technology measures that control access. There is no grace
> period for this provision. It is in effect today.
>
> The third is the anti-trafficking provision of 1201(b), which
> prohibits trafficking in devices or services for circumventing
> technology measures that protect the rights of a copyright owner
> (i.e., such as devices to prevent or inhibit copying of a work).
> There is no grace period for this provision. It is in effect today.

What is the difference between

1. technology measure that controls access to copyrighted works and a
2. technology measure that protect a right of the copyright owner?

If you "access" a work in a digital environment, your computer will make a copy of the work. According to the MAI decision this copying is covered by the right of reproduction of the copyright owner. Therefore any access will affect a right of a copyright owner. Is this correct?

I would be happy if I am wrong...

Stefan

--
#   Stefan Bechtold      stef[_at_]n-bechtold.com    Tuebingen, Germany   #
#              http://www.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~s-bes1              #
#       Time is what prevents everything from happening at once.     #