I broke the law in the spring of 2001.
I was giving a two day course on interactive video development at the NY School of Visual Arts, when a student asked how he could protect his work from being played when not viewed from his Website. He didn't want anyone downloading it and watching it from their desktop or worse posting it on their own Website as their own.

Well, I provided the students with a very clever solution developed by Matthew Peterson, but went on to add that this DRM wouldn't be able stop people like myself who knew enough about the technology to break it, but it would stop my mother and the average to above average user. I then went on to say DRM strategies don't work and that I could break most any video DRM within 3 hours.

At the break Eric Hamilton (Apple Computer), concerned for my welfare, pointed out that I shouldn't say such things in public as the very comment was illegal under the DMCA. I had no idea. I certainly did not want to be flouting the law. I thanked Eric, and wondered how in the world could such a law came into being.

Now a recent post from a Princeton student has got me thinking. If a technology inhibits fair use, but does not inhibit illegal copying and distribution should the technology be legal at all? That is what DRM technologies do. They severely inhibit fair use, while doing nothing to stop illegal copying and distribuition.