[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(b)
- To: "doug.hudson" <doug.hudson(at)cox.net>
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 1201(b)
- From: Scott A Crosby <crosby(at)qwes.math.cmu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:24:34 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- In-reply-to: <003201c1b896$d8eb50b0$12920544@SHADOWFAX>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, doug.hudson wrote:
>
> Its even less likely that a court could read in the betamax requirement
> since other parts of 1201 actually have three disjunctive requirements for
> banning decryption devices, where only one of them is the betamax case.
>
Bad-word-choice-nazi:
What decryption device? I thought we were talking about a playback device. :)
Whats wrong with selling a playback device thats more flexible,
powerful, and useful?
Scott