[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Yeah..and I once wrote a bunch of code that took my comments 
and module headers and reformatted them into data dictionaries 
and pseudo code for documentation.

"Functional" seems to have about the same definition as 
pornography. The judges will know it when they see it but the rest 
of us won't! Functional ...schmunctional


From:           	Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>,
       	steve bryan <steve_bryan@mac.com>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU.
Date sent:      	Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:44:31 -0800 
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> 
> > -----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!