Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology

246 internationalization and localizationit not being generally known to competitors, and that “reasonableeffort” is undertaken to maintain its secrecy. Thefamiliar confidentiality and non-disclosure agreementssigned by many employees of technical firms are used toenforce such secrecy.First Amendment IssuesIn a few cases the government itself has sought to limitaccess to software, citing national security. In the 1996 caseof Bernstein v. U.S., however, the courts ultimately ruledthat computer program code was a form of writing protectedby the First Amendment, so government agenciesseeking to prevent the spread of strong encryption softwarecould not prevent its publication.However, First Amendment arguments have been lesseffective in challenging private software protection mechanisms.In 2001 a U.S. District judge ruled that PrincetonUniversity computer scientist Edward Felten and his colleagueshad no legal basis to challenge provisions of theDigital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The scientistshad claimed that a letter from the Recording Industry Associationof America (RIAA) had cast a “chilling effect” ontheir research into DVD-protection software by threateningthem with legal action if they published academic papersabout copy protection software used by online music services.The RIAA had withdrawn its letter, and the courtsruled there was no longer anything to sue about. Critics ofthe decision claim that it still leaves the academics in a sortof legal limbo since there is no guarantee that they wouldnot be sued if they published something.In another widely watched case the U.S. Court ofAppeals in New York affirmed a ruling that Eric Corley,editor of the hacker magazine 2600 could not publish thecode for DeCSS, a program that would allow users to readencrypted DVD disks, bypassing publisher’s restrictions.The Court said that the DMCA did not infringe upon FirstAmendment rights. This decision would appear to conflictwith Bernstein, although the latter has to do with governmentcensorship, not copyright. The Supreme Court islikely to hear one or more computer-related copyright casesin the years to come.Fair Use and Copy ProtectionAlthough the purchase of software may look like a simpletransfer of ownership, most software is accompanied by alicense that actually grants only the right to use the programunder certain conditions. For example, users are typicallynot allowed to make copies of the program and runthe program on more than one computer (unless the licenseis specifically for multiple uses). However, as part of “fairuse” users are allowed to make an archival or backup copyto guard against damage to the physical media.Until the 1990s, it was typical for many programs (particularlygames) to be physically protected against copying(see copy protection). Talented hackers or “softwarepirates” are usually able to defeat such measures, and“bootleg” copies of programs outnumber legitimate copiesin some Asian markets, for example (see software piracyand counterfeiting). Copy protection and/or encryptionis also typically used for some multimedia products such asDVD movies.Challenges of New MediaBy the mid-2000 decade, the biggest intellectual propertybattles were not about esoteric program codes but ratherrevolved around how to satisfy the ordinary home consumer’sappetite for music and video while preserving producers’revenues. Increasingly, music and even video is beingdownloaded rather than being bought in commercial packagingat the local store.In the Sony v. Universal case (1984) the Supreme Courtruled that manufacturers of devices such as VCRs werenot liable for their misuse if there were “substantial noninfringinguses”—such as someone making a copy of legallypossessed media for their own use. However, in 2005 theSupreme Court ruled that Grokster, a decentralized filesharingservice, could be held liable for the distribution ofillegally copied media if it “actively induced” such copying.By 2006 media industry lobbyists (particularly theRecording Industry Institute of America, or RIAA) werepromoting a number of bills in Congress that would furtherrestrict consumers’ rights to use media. Such measuresmight include requiring that devices be able to detect“flagged” media and refuse to copy it (see digital rightsmanagement), as well as adding stricter provisions to theDigital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). These measuresare opposed by cyber-libertarian groups such as theElectronic Frontier Foundation and consumer groups suchas the Home Recording Rights Coalition.Further ReadingChabrow, Eric. “The U.S. Patent System in Crisis.” Information-Week, February 20, 2006. Available online. URL: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=180204145. Accessed August 12, 2007.Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Unintended Consequences: SevenYears under the DMCA.” April 2006. Available online. URL:http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php.Accessed August 8, 2007.Gilbert, Jill. The Entrepreneur’s Guide to Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks,Trade Secrets & Licensing. New York: Berkley Books,2004.Home Recording Rights Coalition. Available online. URL: http://www.hrrc.org/. Accessed August 8, 2007.“Intellectual Property Law News.” FindLaw. Available online.URL: http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/scitech/ip/. AccessedAugust 8, 2007.Klemens, Ben. Math You Can’t Use: Patents, Copyright, and Software.Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2006.LaPlante, Alice. “Media Distribution Rights: Here Come the Judges(and Congress).” InformationWeek, June 29, 2006. Availableonline. URL: http://www.informationweek.com/story/show-Article.jhtml?articleID=189700173. Accessed August 8, 2007.Wilson, Lee. Fair Use, Free Use, and Use by Permission: How to HandleCopyrights in All Media. New York: Allworth Press, 2005.internationalization and localizationInternationalization and localization are ways to adaptcomputer software (often created in the United States orEurope) to other languages and cultures. The abbreviations