RE: [dvd-discuss] Would this consistute circumvention.

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

Good points But if you change it "for the purposes of copyright 
infringment" it becomes an irrelevant law since that is already a crime.




Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/09/01 09:51 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Would this consistute circumvention.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
...
> PS.  You know, if they just added "for purpose of copyright
> infringement" to the "primary designed to circumvent" 
> language the DMCA
> would be alot less dangerous.
> 

Absolutely.  The legislation was written to protect
the _mechanisms_, not the _material_.  Since the focus
was wrong to begin with the entire law is fundamentally
flawed.  If you corrected the basic error the rest might
not be so bad.  The focus should be on the _material_
not the mechanisms that some half-assed programmer dreamed
up that might-or-might-not a) do the job of protecting
the material at all and/or b) overreach and protect beyond
the bounds of the rest of copyright law (i.e. preventing
fair use as well as infringement) 


(although some people might believe that 'a' and 'b' above
are mutually exclusive, we here all know that CSS is an
example of a protection mechanism that manages to be
both ineffective and overreaching)




-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!