proven to only provide limited and narrow exceptions in respect of technological protection measures. Parker Higgins comments: 1201 is a draconian and unnecessary ‘Section restriction on speech and the time has come to set it He concludes that future of aside’. ‘the cultural participation and software-related research depends on it.’ Parker Higgins of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has detailed a number of the other dimensions of technological protection measures. He commented: day, your life may ‘Some depend on the work of a security Parker Higgins observed: a researcher’. ‘Whether it’s simple malfunction in a piece of computerized medical equipment or a malicious compromise of your networked car, critically important that people working in security can find and it’s fix the problem before the He lamented: 1201 means that you can be worst happens.’ ‘Section sued or even jailed if you bypass digital locks on copyrighted works—from DVDs to software in your car—even if you are doing so for an otherwise lawful reason, like security Parker Higgins also notes that such measures also impact upon education, creative testing.’ arts, and remix culture: It gets worse: Section speech restrictions also apply to scholars, artists, and activists that are 1201’s seeking to comment on culture or make it more accessible. The tools to make engaging remixes, annotations, or interactive commentaries are in the hands of more and more people, but the law has created a while using that source material is legal, getting access to it might run “gotcha” situation: afoul of these additional legal hurdles. Parker Higgins noted: Congress passed Section 1201, the hot-button copyright debates ‘When were about the terms under which people could copy and consume music, movies, and He observed that law be casting a legal shadow over activities as books’. ‘copyright shouldn’t basic as popping the hood of your own car, offering commentary on a shared piece of culture
proven to only provide limited and narrow exceptions in respect of technological protection measures. Parker Higgins comments: ‘Section 1201 is a draconian and unnecessary restriction on speech and the time has come to set it aside’. He concludes that ‘the future of cultural participation and software-related research depends on it.’ Parker Higgins of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has detailed a number of the other dimensions of technological protection measures. He commented: ‘Some day, your life may depend on the work of a security researcher’. Parker Higgins observed: ‘Whether it’s a simple malfunction in a piece of computerized medical equipment or a malicious compromise of your networked car, it’s critically important that people working in security can find and fix the problem before the worst happens.’ He lamented: ‘Section 1201 means that you can be sued or even jailed if you bypass digital locks on copyrighted works—from DVDs to software in your car—even if you are doing so for an otherwise lawful reason, like security testing.’ Parker Higgins also notes that such measures also impact upon education, creative arts, and remix culture: It gets worse: Section 1201’s speech restrictions also apply to scholars, artists, and activists that are seeking to comment on culture or make it more accessible. The tools to make engaging remixes, annotations, or interactive commentaries are in the hands of more and more people, but the law has created a “gotcha” situation: while using that source material is legal, getting access to it might run afoul of these additional legal hurdles. Parker Higgins noted: ‘When Congress passed Section 1201, the hot-button copyright debates were about the terms under which people could copy and consume music, movies, and books’. He observed that ‘copyright law shouldn’t be casting a legal shadow over activities as basic as popping the hood of your own car, offering commentary on a shared piece of culture
subdr611-intellectual-property.docx