RE: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....

["Ballowe, Charles" <CBallowe(at)usg.com>]

Even if it takes an MD to do a tattoo, I don't think they can say a
person isn't allowed to take a tattoo gun to their own body in the
privacy of their own home. Nor does it prevent one from telling others
how to do the same. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mickey [mailto:mickeym@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 11:29 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....
> 
> 
> 
> I see the cases as similar because of the authority issue.
> 
> How do I become authorized to perform the conduct required to apply a 
> tatoo (or watch a dvd)?  There is an FA right to bear a 
> tatoo, but there 
> is a process to make a tatoo that requires legal authorization. 
> Similarly, there is an FA right to fair use access, and there is a 
> process to access the content that requires authorization.
> 
> The difference is that, in the first case, there will be a documented 
> legal process that clearly defines how one becomes authorized. In the 
> case of fair use access to content, however, the process to become 
> authorized now requires the consent of a private party.
> 
> Before the DMCA, a doctrine of law authorized the conduct of fair use 
> access, to which the copyright holder likely would not have 
> consented. 
> After the DMCA, the consent of the copyright holder becomes 
> the key to 
> authorization.
> 
> mickeym
> 
> 
> Steve Hosgood wrote:
> 
> >Mickym wrote:
> >
> >>"State attorneys argued the law, which prohibits tattooing 
> by anyone 
> >>other than a doctor, is a public health issue. The justices upheld 
> >>White's conviction, saying the First Amendment right to 
> have a tattoo is 
> >>a separate issue from the process of tattooing."
> >>
> >>How does one argue against that?
> >>
> >
> >You probably don't. I can think of quite a few scenarios 
> where a "right"
> >is only there under certain provisos. You have a "right" to 
> be a doctor, but
> >you can only practice as a doctor if you get qualified to do 
> so by certain
> >institutions.
> >
> >You have a "right" to drive, but if you want to do so on 
> public highways, you
> >must have a valid driving licence. Etc.
> >
> >Public health/safety issues will always infringe a bit on 
> "rights" but
> >hopefully, under a sensible regime, both can co-exist 
> without excessive
> >conflict.
> >
> >( In the UK, tattoo artists don't AFAIK have to be doctors, 
> but if they're not
> >members of the Guild of Tattooists (or whatever) I suspect 
> no-one would go
> >near them! )
> >
> >                             --------------
> >
> >The question is, does the US tattoo case (above) have any 
> influence on whether
> >your DVD player has to be approved by the DVDCCA in order to 
> play the DVDs *you
> >bought* (in the US)?
> >
> >No public health/safety issues there, surely? :-)
> >In fact, I'm having trouble seeing any parallels at all 
> between the two!
> >
> >--
> >
> >Steve Hosgood                               |
> >steve@caederus.com                          | "A good plan 
> today is better
> >Phone: +44 1792 203707 + ask for Steve      |   than a 
> perfect plan tomorrow"
> >Fax:   +44 70922 70944                      |              - 
> Conrad Brean
> >--------------------------------------------+
> >        http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve         |  ( from the 
> film "Wag the Dog" )
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>