Re: [dvd-discuss] Draft of upcoming article

[mickey <mickeym(at)mindspring.com>]

If there must be a law that prohibits circumvention, then it should be
tied to an *act* of infringement.

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/reports/studies/dmca/reply/Reply010.pdf

mickeym

Andy Oram wrote:

> I'm not convinced that tying anti-circumvention laws to
> intent will solve the problem (after all, what's the intent
> of the DeCSS creators and promoters? Who determines?) But
> I'm considering adding the following paragraph to the
> article that's at
> http://www.oreilly.com/~andyo/professional/ruling_2600.html:
>
>   Some defenders of DeCSS suggest changing copyright law so
>   that anti-circumvention is illegal only "for the purpose
>   of copyright infringement." This would make the
>   anti-circumvention law less of a radical imposition on the
>   course of technology. Perhaps it would change an
>   unconstitutional law into a constitutional one. But it
>   would leave it up to courts to decide what the intent of
>   programmer is, something that is hard to determine even
>   with DeCSS.
>
> Andy