Comments: Blizzard v. BNETD circumvention, permission, and reverse-engineering

If the situation can be read the way you say it: There is a Right to Copy and a Right to Decrypt, then we can have the Right to Decrypt sued out of line as inconstitutional.
A recent case, I think it was the garage opener one, said that if something worked as a copyright tool, then it fell under Copyright laws, never mind if it was a contract or whatever. Therefore, if the Right to Decrypt works a a copyright tool, we indeed can sue to declare it inconstitutional because it grants perpetual copyrights and perpetual copyrights are forbidden by the Constitution.
Like in Grokster, even if the original game producer went belly up, the encripted content will remain encripted, contrary to the copyright statute.

Posted by Javier Perez at October 3, 2004 09:25 PM

Seth, wrong place to contact you, but couldn't find an email link.

Thank you for your comment at Jay Rosen's thread on Nick Coleman. I think my trolls made my point quite well, but given our recent back and forth at Dan Gillmor's blog I thought it was very courteous of you to step in.

You are clearly a scholar, but more important, a gentleman as well.

Posted by Mark Gisleson at October 3, 2004 11:12 PM