Re: [dvd-discuss] The power of a click

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

ANd they have created a very slippery slope....Where does one 
draw the line?

execuable = functional speech
object code = possible functional speech
make file and all necessary source code files = maybe possible 
functional speech
source code = maybe someday sometime possible functional 
speech
 
Or do they rule that ALL source code is not functional speech but 
that teeeny tiny part of code you write in ASM when you bootstrap 
a compiler becomes speech that must be controlled, regulated and 
REGISTERED. Organleggers? <sorry just reread Dangerous 
Visions after nearly 25 yrs from first reading it> We can have 
KernalLeggers. Who wants the streets safe? We gotta protect our 
intellectual property!

Date sent:      	Sun, 2 Dec 2001 18:50:21 -0600 (CST)
From:           	Steve Stearns <sterno@bigbrother.net>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] The power of a click
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> > Part of the problem Kaplan and the appellate court have been
> > grappling with is the ease with which something can be done
> > (mouse click) and disseminated (internet). While I can understand
> > their concerns, creating the fiction of "functional" speech is not
> > the answer.
> 
> Right, they've basically eliminated the distinction between compiled
> binaries and source code.  The only distinction between them from a
> legal perspective, it seems, is that one can be consiered expressive
> and one cannot.  But given that they don't seem to think that
> consideration overrides the functional aspects of it, it becomes
> essentially meaningless which seems like a major shift in the courts
> stance on computer code.
> 
> ---Steve
> 
>