[kwlug-disc] Fwd: Re: [WLSG] Letter-writing meeting [urgent-ish]

[unsolicited]

Paul Nijjar wrote, On 06/14/2010 11:19 AM:
> - One core phrase that was floated around a lot was the idea that 
>   "circumvention of digital locks should be allowed for non-infringing
>   purposes". That is, if the use that you would be using media for 
>   would not be infringing copyright ordinarily, then breaking a
>   digital lock should be okay. It seems like an elegant way of
>   expressing the issue to me, but maybe I am on drugs. 

I confess I'm not up on things, but, personally, I've found things are 
better when explicitly stated rather than implicitly assumed.

To that end, the paragraph above implies that mere possession of 
digital lock breaking tools, let alone developing or sharing them, is 
OK. Perhaps that should be explicitly stated (permitted) rather than 
implicitly assumed?

No doubt this is laid out elsewhere in that document, but just in case 
it's not.