Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [DMCA_discuss] Linux kernel securityfixes censored by the DMCA

["D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>]

On Thursday 25 October 2001 19:16, you wrote:
> y?" Is it
> a device... no, that is seperately listed, same for component, and
> part.  Earlier in our parsing exercise of the DMCA a point was made by
> the lawyers in the group that when two terms exist in a list of things
> in the law, they cannot be interpreted to have the same meaning.  So
> technology is some non-device, non-component, non-part -- sounds like an
> inkblot into which "other" including documentation could be lumped.  For
> example if I post a simple
> set of "push this button, then that button" sequence that unlocks a
> cable box to display all channels (I have no idea if this is possible)
> -- that could be considered a technology (ology == writing or study)
> that would circumvent.

Strictly from etymology, "technology" is the study of _technique_:
the way of doing things.  So banning a technology is banning a
study, a field of inquiry.

There really are some things that Man is not meant (at least by
Congress) to know.

-- 
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+