Re: [dvd-discuss] UK ruling against Playstation mods

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

When I read your reply, I was struck by the fact the Kaplan's 
Functional swords cuts both ways. IF <note the BIG IF> software 
is judged to have less FA protection because of its "functional 
aspects" , should it have the same protection under copyright as 
well? It's not expressive! It's functional. Functional stuff doesn't get 
copyright protection - that's what patents are for (and CODE, 
recipes, and clothing don't get patented). Then It's only ONE form 
of functionality and anybody can modify it to get another form ("the 
two step in the hall....." <ELO>). Copyright doesn't apply and 
neither does the DCMA.


> On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:54:03AM -0500, Andy Oram wrote:
> > Judge Jacob stated that Sony licensed games for the territory that they were
> > issued, the licensing of these games did not allow for their use in other
> > territories, therefore whether they were imported for private and domestic
> > use by personal purchase for instance via the internet, or purchased abroad
> > on holiday, they were not allowed by Sony to be played outside of the
> > licensed territory, this argument should be upheld.
> > 
> > So any restriction put by any company in any license can serve as the excuse
> > for enforcing a ban on circumvention.
> 
> more importantly: the ludicrous notion that the manufacturer can tell
> his customers where and how to use something POST SALE is upheld by a
> court.
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
> pub  1024D/D88D35A6 2001-11-14 Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
>      Key fingerprint = 276B B7BB E4D8 FCCE DB8F  F965 310B 811A D88D 35A6