Key or certificate could be used to decode encrypted copyrighted material and key or certificate is copyrighted are different.
Answering in this way has done nothing to further my understanding of the topic, you haven’t explained the difference or why there is a difference and you haven’t offered a counter-example.
I can only surmise that you’ve answered in order to feel superior, but that doesn’t make sense because while I have examples of behaviour that can be explained by my statements, you haven’t added anything to explain yours.
So, your statement stands alone, undefended and without context or explanation.
What were you trying to achieve? A key that is used to decrypt copyrighted material being /itself/ copyrighted means it cant be distributed which is what we see.
> A key that is used to decrypt copyrighted material being /itself/ copyrighted means it cant be distributed which is what we see.
But nobody (at least in this sub-thread) has shown that the keys are copyrighted. All we know is that they apperently "can't" be distributed. You are proffering one explanation as to why, but you haven't supported it.
"Key or certificate could be used to decode encrypted copyrighted material" is presumably why distributing the keys is banned by the DMCA[1]; "key or certificate is copyrighted" is apparently not true, because they can't be[2]. Those are, or are at least purported to be, statements of fact, so asking for examples is irrelevant; kind of like "So you claim two plus two equals four? But you haven't provided an example!".
The immediate consequence, which was presumably what the previous poster was trying to show (and trusted that people would understand the obvious implication), is that distributing these keys may well be a violation of the DMCA, but not of copyright per se. So even if one is all for copyright, but does not support the DMCA as a means to protect it — which, AFAICR from online discussions back when the DMCA was first legislated and implemented, is potentially quite a lot of people — one would be ethically justified to distribute the keys. Unless you can show that they actually are copyrighted.
AFAICS you haven't. So the statement that stands alone and unsupported seems to me to be yours.
___
Edited: Got the attributions wrong, hopefully correct now.
[1]: As per user "pseudalopex", in the GP comment.
[2]: As per user "wmf", a bit upthreads. Because they're just mathematical artifacts and contain no artistic / intellectual human input, AIUI. (Addition on edit: Slå upp "verkshöjd".)