On Friday 22 September 2000, Charles Lindsey <ch...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:

I would've thought that was the case, too, but I'd be happier if I could point to a judgement saying so. It doesn't matter in this case, of course, since the copying itself would take place in the context of making use of recorded material which you already have an implied licence to use (I suppose you could attack that by claiming that the DVD logo implies that you don't have a licence to use it with anything but an authorised DVD player, but I imagine that would go down like a lead balloon.)

I don't see why, per se - length and substantiality aren't linked...

.. unfortunately, I believe there is case law (though I don't have it handy) that says that random numbers (in that case lottery numbers) aren't sufficiently expressive to be copyrightable. I wonder if you could successfully argue that your keys were cunningly chosen to be crackable by the NSA, and were therefore protected .. :-).

[snip]

Well, quite :-),

Richard.