Re: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU.

[Scott A Crosby <crosby(at)qwes.math.cmu.edu>]

On 1 Dec 2001, David Wagner wrote:

> Scott A Crosby  wrote:
> [...]
> >What Shamos claims is that it is wrong to distribute things with
> >functional aspects. Shamos says that instead, one should just make sure to
> >distribute it as something that DOESN"T have functional aspects.
> [...]
>
> In my declaration, I argue that oftentimes, code is a useful form of
> communication precisely because it is functional: it is useful because
> it is precise & unambiguous, and it is precise & unambiguous because of
> its functional nature.  (Computer tolerate no ambiguity, so writing in
> code is an effective way to avoid ambiguity.)
>

His refutation of it is that you can easily avoid 'breaking the law' by
not distributing code. The law doesn't have to mold itself to your
convenience.

Personally, I am far more interested in the non-viability of the exemption
of research.

I'd have to 'get the authority of the copyright holder'---a small and
bitchy hoop to go through--- to get the exemption, but, nobody, not
myself, not the DVD/CCA, or digital-CP (HDCP)  can assure me that I have
that authority, first, because the scheme may not be deployed yet, or, who
knows who ELSE might distribute something. Say, I get disney's permission?
I can still get sued by AOL, or any two-bit company that won't be founded
for 15 years. Thus, this would effectictivly chill ALL research in ALL
practical and deployed systems.


Thats one of the things I realized after talking to Catherin Copetas, and
confirmed after hearing Shamos; they can basically refute most of the
arguments we're coming up with by `The law doesn't have to mold itself to
your convenience', or, 'nobody says that a law has to make sense or be
understood for it to be the law'.

IMHO, the most straightforward way to get rid of the DMCA is
legistlatively.

Scott