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

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott A Crosby [mailto:crosby@qwes.math.cmu.edu]
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 9:19 AM
> To: steve bryan
> Cc: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU.
> 
> 
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, steve bryan wrote:
> 
> > At 11:46 am -0500 12/1/01, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> > >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.
> >
> > I apologize for being slow but I don't understand how this is a
> > successful refutation. The First Amendment protects speech from the
> > desires and whims of minorities and majorities and the laws they
> > might pass. I don't have to avoid "breaking the law"; laws have to
> > avoid breaking the First Amendment. I remain mystified how the DMCA
> > has not been held up to scrutiny based on conflict with the First
> > Amendment.
> 
> I'll try to restate the claim, as I see it. The claim is that 
> it doesn't
> restrict the speech, but rather it restricts the form of the 
> speech. (You
> may not be able to shout 'fire' in a crouded auditorium, but 
> you can write
> it on a napkin; this example is mine.)
> 
> Thus, the law doesn't have to accept your whim of stating 
> circumvention
> software in a 'functional' format. You can still state it, 
> but must make
> sure to state it in a non-functional format.
> 
> (Though, inventing a format that will remain non-functional when
> computers understand english is left to an exercise to the reader.)


The standard "non-functional" format would be pseudo-code.

But ... what happens when somebody creates an interpreter
for pseudo-code?

I'm sorry.  The definition of "functional format" is too
fluid to be codified into law.


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

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