Thanks for the explaination. Even if this is a protected and valid use of DMCA, it doesn't strike me as a strong move for a company confident in its product.
This isn't what I would consider "technologically sophisticated cryptattack", but instead just looking at some screenshots or slides and doing a quick observational analysis on them.
If the analysis were wrong, it might just come down to "well that's how our designers ended up making the slides/video" (replacing each word with a hash of itself), then I think it might make more sense to issue a statement that the advertising materials weren't exactly matching how the encryption works. Not sure if that would open them up to libel though.
Comments
Thanks for the explaination. Even if this is a protected and valid use of DMCA, it doesn't strike me as a strong move for a company confident in its product.
This isn't what I would consider "technologically sophisticated cryptattack", but instead just looking at some screenshots or slides and doing a quick observational analysis on them.
If the analysis were wrong, it might just come down to "well that's how our designers ended up making the slides/video" (replacing each word with a hash of itself), then I think it might make more sense to issue a statement that the advertising materials weren't exactly matching how the encryption works. Not sure if that would open them up to libel though.