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

Re: [dvd-discuss] Copyright Office to Consider Anticircumvention Exemptions

On 11 Oct 2002 at 19:59, D. C. Sessions wrote:

Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Copyright Office to Consider Anticircumvention
From:           	"D. C. Sessions" <dvd@lumbercartel.com>
To:             	DVD-Discuss <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Date sent:      	11 Oct 2002 19:59:20 -0700
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 10:11, Seth Johnson wrote:
> > 
> > (Not sure exactly what this is, or what to make of it, but
> > it appears the Copyright Office is entertaining input on
> > types of works that would be exempt from anticircumvention
> > rules.  From U.S. Copyright Office NewsNet Issue 171.  --
> > Seth)
> What possible difference could it make?
> As long as the "trafficking" clause is read as
> broadly as it has been in the /2600/ Court, all
> forms of "circumvention" are effectively proscribed,
> even for material not under copyright.

D.C. is right- How can one have a legal right to access something if the means 
of doing so has been declared illegal. One cannot exercise a legal right and so 
one has one less legal right to exercise in practice even if one can do so in 
theory. (and that fallacy can be traced back to Plato!)

> They could declare that there are *no* works covered
> by the "circumvention" clause and as long as it's
> illegal to trade, create, or discuss the means to do
> so it's all dead letters.
> -- 
> | It's the heart afraid of breaking that never learns to dance  |
> |  It's the dream afraid of waking that never takes the chance  |
> |   It's the one who won't be taken who cannot seem to give     |
> |    and the soul afraid of dyin' that never learns to live     |
> +------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -----------+