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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

Yes. It demonstrates that one must circumvent to access the content for a legal 
purpose. The danger heres that the case is decided against the DMCA for 
circumventing of filter lists but everything else stays intact. So.. NEXT 
case...next exception...next case...next exception...etc. The DCMA stays intact 
until every possible part of it is chipped away unless the opponents run out of 
money.

On 27 Jul 2002 at 22:11, Ken Arromdee wrote:

Date sent:      	Sat, 27 Jul 2002 22:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
From:           	Ken Arromdee <arromdee@rahul.net>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] New DMCA case: ACLU sues filtering software 
maker
	N2H2
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > 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...."
> 
> But if a court does that, we still got a very important step taken.
> 
> If you look at the MPAA's excuses in the DeCSS case, they say that fair use only
> applies to the content itself and that fair use of the content doesn't imply
> that you're permitted to circumvent in order to access the content.
> 
> If a court says that being allowed to circumvent implies that you're allowed do
> the things necessary to circumvent (even though the law as written denies that),
> it's not so far to saying being allowed to use the content implies that you're
> allowed to do the things necessary to get the content.
>