[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] [dvid-discuss]petition by Static Control Components,Inc. for DMCA Exemption
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] [dvid-discuss]petition by Static Control Components,Inc. for DMCA Exemption
- From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee(at)rahul.net>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 21:15:40 -0800 (PST)
- In-reply-to: <3E441642.27775.956D31@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Well, this is interesting. I guess we no longer have to wonder whether we
can find some excuse to mention this case in a reply comment, though.
The biggest problem I see is that the ruling doesn't apply to the creation
and distribution of circumvention tools, only the act of circumvention itself.
This company wants to be able to sell chips--chips are circumvention tools.
So even if the LOC grants the exemption, it will be useless.
Of course, the best result is that the LOC recognizes this and finds some
reason for why the ruling in this rulemaking should apply to tools after all.
I wonder if it's possible to get that in a reply comment somehow.