Re: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?

[Ernest Miller <ernest.miller(at)aya.yale.edu>]

Unfortunately, that is not how courts define access, or a "work," for 
purposes of the DMCA.  I'm not sure that the distinction is all that 
clear to begin with when it comes to computer programs.  In any case, 
you don't achieve much with the distinction.  All you do is force garage 
door companies to create transmitters that cause some copying and 
distribution to occur.  For example, when you press the button on your 
garage door transmitter, it plays a happy little copyrighted tune it 
gets from the garage door mechanism.

The problem isn't finding clever ways to distinguish Reimerdes from 
garage door openers (which I don't believe possible).  The issues is 
getting rid of the DMCA.

Richard Hartman wrote:

>The DMCA states that at TPM is a measure protecting
>access to copyrightable content.  A program's source
>code would meet that standard, a program performing
>a function would not.
>
>Title 17, Sect. 1201.A.1.a
>No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
>
>What is "a work protected under this title"?  Well ... unfortunately they never do define "a work".  They start in Sect. 101 with "An ''anonymous work'' is a work ...".  However it seems to be generally accepted throughout that "a work" is some sort of expression fixed in a medium ... not a function, such as opening a garage door.
>
>
>
>  
>