[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DeCSS Court Hearing Report
Here's my translation of the law Eivind Eklund describes. Note that,
while I am a fluent speaker of Swedish, Norwegian is a similar, but
not identical language. This is a really quick translation and should
not be relied upon for judicial opinion. It's free, and worth what
you paid for it.
S/S 39i It is permitted to create examples of a computer program's code and
translate the code's form when this is a requirement for obtaining
the information that is necessary to provide functional compatibilty between
an independently developed computer program and other progrmms, where
a) The operation is performed by a person who has the right to use an
example of a computer program, or for the benefit of a person who
has this right. [Sorry, sloppy: I think this means that an employee
or consultant can do the work, not only the "person who has the right."]
b) The information that is necessary to achieve functional compatibility
has not previously been readily available for those named in section a and,
c) The operation is limited to those parts of the original program that
are required to achive functional compatibility.
The information obtained under the first paragraph may not
a) Be used for other purposes than to provide functional compatibility
with the independently developed computer program.
b) Be given to others, except from when this is necessary to provide functional
compatability with the independently developed computer program, or
c) Be used for development, production, or marketing of a computer program
that significantly duplicates the form, or in other fashion damanges
the copyright of the program.
These paragraphs cannot be revoked by contract.
Eivind Eklund wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 11:46:48AM -0800, bram wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Lucky Green wrote:
> > > 1. CSS was reverse engineered from Xing's DVD player.
> > > 2. Xing's player requires the user to click on a button accepting a license
> > > agreement prohibiting reverse engineering.
> > > 3. Reverse engineering could not have been performed without accepting this
> > > license agreement.
> > This may be reiterating the obvious, but isn't (3) just plain wrong?
> Yes, but there are other errors, too. The license agreement was not
> valid for the person doing the reverse engineering, because he is a
> norwegian, and this license agreement is in violation of paragraph 39
> section i of the norwegian copyright law ("┼ndsverskloven"), active
> from june 30th, 1995. That's available from the following URL (in
> norwegian) http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19610512-002-029.html#39i
> This section specifically allows reverse engineering to get
> information for product interoperability as long as you have a legal
> copy to start from, and cannot be revoked by a license.
> Oh, and AFAIK, click- and shrinkwrap-licenses aren't considered valid
> here, either.
Please reply to <mailto:[email protected]>