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

Re: [dvd-discuss] New DMCA case: ACLU sues filtering software maker N2H2

While it shows that the DMCA is not well written, the court can resolve this 
quite simply. I'm certain that the court can rule that "Of course he can do 
that under 1201(a), so 1201(b) does not apply in this instance for his nobel 
purposes....now as for the rest of you filthy degenerate hackers...."

This leads to the "nickel and dime to death" strategy. Nobody can interpret the 
law but lets keep a steady flow of cases to determine what hte interpretation 
of Congress was rather than saying "look if we can't figure out out then 
probably you didn't know what you were doing when you did it" The presumption 
of the law that congress had some legal purpose in mind in enacting a law may 
not be valid these days.

On 27 Jul 2002 at 7:00, D. C. Sessions wrote:

Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] New DMCA case: ACLU sues filtering software 
From:           	"D. C. Sessions" <dcs@lumbercartel.com>
To:             	DVD-Discuss <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Date sent:      	27 Jul 2002 07:00:45 -0700
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 12:02, James S. Tyre wrote:
> > D. The Two Exemptions
> OK, there's an exception under fair use from 1201(a) for
> decrypt*ing* lists of blocked sites, but none from 1201(b) for
> the means to do so.
> Is this more, or less, the "smoking gun" case we've been looking
> for to challenge 1201(b)'s making it illegal to have the only
> available means to do things that, if they were illegal under
> 1201(a), would be unConstitutional?
> -- 
> | May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, |
> |  the strength to change the things I cannot accept, and the   |
> |    cunning to hide the bodies of those who got in my way.     |
> +------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -----------+