RE: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Australian Court rules: Films aren't software

["Dean Sanchez" <DSanchez(at)fcci-group.com>]

Isn't this the argument that the US courts accepted when the software industry made the same claim? They claimed that since a copy of the software is stored in RAM, the individual purchasing the product needs to have permission to make a copy.   That's how they can 'license' a product that is actually sold.

-----Original Message-----
From: Arnold G. Reinhold [mailto:reinhold@world.std.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 12:37 PM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Australian Court rules: Films aren't
software

..
>Warner recently got smacked down by an Australian court for introducing
>"two-tiered" titles: one for rental and one for sell-through.
>
><http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,3392008%5e15391%5e%5 
>enbv%5e,00.html>
>
>Outrageous excerpt:
>In addition to claiming that a video on DVD is actually software,
>rather than a movie, Warner tried to convince the court that simply
>playing a DVD movie should be considered an act of "copying":
>
>"Warner said a person playing the DVD was actually making a copy of the film
>because images and sound from DVD films were stored in the random access
>memory (RAM) of a computer or a computer contained within a DVD player."
>..