Re: Teen Offers Way to Crack Blocking Software

On 4/28/97, Karen Coyle <kec[_at_]dla.ucop.edu> wrote:
>
> On 4/24/97, Richard Hopkins <rhopkins[_at_]activision.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yesterday an article appeared in the PointCast version of Wired:
> >
> > " A Tennessee college student has posted a software program on the Web
> > that can be used to decrypt a list of sites blocked by the prominent
> > blocking software Cybersitter.
>
> What I think we've been missing here in this discussion is that the
> student did not post the decrypted list - he/she posted a software
> program that supposedly can decrypt the list. So the question is: what
> rights are violated by the posting of the program, as opposed to the
> use of the program?

Wouldn't any infringements that occur from using the program be contributory infringements associated with the posting of the program?

I have some bonehead questions about how to analyze the situation.

I don't understand whether the "list" is part of CyberSitter for copyright purposes, analyzed in isolation from CyberSitter, or both.

The program at issue decrypts the encrypted list, so there's a modification of the list itself. If the list's part of CyberSitter, then the program modifies CyberSitter, right?

I assume the law on modifying/decrypting programs is well-settled after the years of computer game "cracker" and "booster" patches? These programs disable copy-protection or allow you to alter game parameters beyond normal.

If it's not part of CyberSitter, it's still arguably an unauthorized derivative work. I've never heard of anyone claiming decrypting an encrypted text is an infringement of copyright, but I guess it could be.

That assumes the list is protected, as Solid Oak seems to think. On the face of it it's copyrightable as an original selection -- someone decided which sites to block, just as someone decides the order of songs on an album. It could be a trade secret. So the student could be violating copyright by facilitating the copying of the decrypted list and trade secrecy by enabling people to read the list.

Other possible claims: some economic tort like interference with economic advantage; a shrinkwrap provision of some kind.

Personally, I think it's protected speech under the First Amendment -- but I'm curious as to whether there's a claim he has to defend against.

Lee

Lee Tien
<tien[_at_]well.com> Received on Tue Apr 29 1997 - 22:15:36 GMT