[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Postage Meters and the "Right to Tinker"
We could arrange a mass mailing of padlocked books (inside which are
coupons for free stuff or lottery tickets for a few prizes that we could
pool together a buy). Then we could compare the list of "redeemers"
with the list of those who order the combination (something tricky like
'1234') and sue under the DMCA.
The EFF could then defend against our suit and challenge the law. We'd
have to make sure the suit matched the current precedent from Sklyarov
Just exactly how much trouble could we get in. Given that combination
sales would be real revenues to us as a LLC or whatever, the cause of
action wouldn't be specious, invented or imaginary. The defendants
would not be related to us, and we certainly would get a good lawyer to
defend our "locked lottery ticket box" business model under the DMCA.
The fact that we, as private citizens, want to overturn the law
shouldn't be relevant, should it? We as corporate officers of the
"locked lottery ticket box" company would have a fiduciary duty to
aggressively pursue those who infringed on our rights under the DMCA and
would have no choice.
<evil_twin strangelove="level 7" laugh="evil and piercing">
If the lawsuit succeeds and the the DMCA wins, the worst that could
happen is that we and lawyers split the take from the poor saps that
thought unsolicited goods were their property.
Wait, first we have to patent the business model...
"It is not enough that one path lead to victory, but that all paths lead
Stephen L Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 13:04, Sham Gardner wrote:
> > How about another example. If you were sent an unsolicited dead-tree copy of
> > a book that had a padlock on it. Would you say it should be illegal for you
> > to remove that lock using whatever means you see fit, when the copyright
> > holder is offering to send you the key for a fee?
> I just had a disturbing and sickening thought. That example may actually
> qualify as a protection mechanism under the DCMA.
> I just reread section 1201. I didn't see anything which would disqualify
> it. Nothing in the section says anything about the technology having to
> be digital.
> Stephen L Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>