Re: a fine kettle of fish

On Tue, May 16, 2000, James Rogers <jetan[_at_]ionet.net> wrote:
>
> On 5/14/00, Pete Lukacs <p.z.lukacs[_at_]city.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 11 May 2000, John Lederer <johnl[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > So, here is the background. Kerberos is an open specification
> > > [...]
> >
> > Unfortunately I think this is a legitimate and reasonable attempt
> > by Microsoft to protect their copyright. I note that they are not
> > asking for damages or anything, they are just asking for removal
> > of messages that violate their copyright or messages that offer
> > others the opportunity to violate copright restrictions.
>
> Will someone please clarify for me whether Microsoft is asserting
> a trade secret theory, a copyright theory, or both?

Good question. It's not too clear at this time. I would guess "both" since that is what previous attempts to call up the DMCA have used (cpHack, DeCSS). Note that in addition to removal of the one message they cited as copying the entire document, they also demanded removal of other postings that referred to ways that anyone could use readily available software such as WinZip to read the document without seeing the EULA first -- as well as postings that simply discussed the whole affair and that contained no part of the document. Furthermore, the document that I read contained language that indicated that Microsoft considered it to be a trade secret. Yet Microsoft on its web site headlined the point that it was "publishing" the document for review and comment.

So I disagree with the conclusion that "this is a legitimate and reasonable attempt" to protect Microsoft's copyright. Referring to Winzip as a way to open a file without risking damage from viruses ought IMHO to be no violation of the DMCA, and certainly not a copyright infringement in the UK.

Stay tuned to Slashdot.

-- 
"Eric"  Eric Eldred  Eldritch Press
mailto:Eldred[_at_]EldritchPress.org
http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf