| 1 |
>On 26 September 2011 20:29, Jonas de Buhr <jonas.de.buhr@×××.net> |
| 2 |
>wrote: |
| 3 |
>>>> between a fully-signed system (Windows 9 / OS XI or so) or a |
| 4 |
>>>> cracked boot, with little in the way of switching between the two, |
| 5 |
>>>> at least initially |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>>And you really need not worry about it, some geek (Torvalds?) will |
| 8 |
>>>surely find out a way. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> yes, there will most likely be a technical way to circumvent it. the |
| 11 |
>> problem is that involved companies might try (and likely succeed) to |
| 12 |
>> make that illegal. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>Unfortunately, under the DMCA, breaking any encryption / |
| 15 |
>copy-protection mechanism is illegal under US copyright law of all |
| 16 |
>things (and by extension, globally :-/ ). I listened to a pretty |
| 17 |
>interesting debate about this related to the "Right to Repair" act in |
| 18 |
>the States, which relates to the right to access car firmware / |
| 19 |
>software. The consensus seems to be that the pitifully easy-to-crack |
| 20 |
>encryption is only there so that the software becomes covered by the |
| 21 |
>DMCA. What a mess. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
agreed. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
still there might be different ways. replacing the whole bios |
| 27 |
chip (or software) with something different for example. then you |
| 28 |
technically didn't break any encryption, so no dmca. |
| 29 |
but i still think that would sooner or later get you in trouble if you |
| 30 |
offer that service commercially. |
Archives