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

[Seth Finkelstein <sethf(at)sethf.com>]

>> D. C. Sessions wrote:
>> 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.

> microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> D.C. is right- How can one have a legal right to access something if
> the means of doing so has been declared illegal.

	No. This is quite incorrect. It makes a difference. Much of my
recent anti-censorware work *would* *not* *have* *been* *done* if the
Library of Congress DMCA exemption had not been granted.

	The provision at issue is "doing", which does not necessarily
extend to "let others do" (trafficking). So it is by no means a total
solution or a panacea.

	But even if it is 1/10th of 1% of what is needed - if that
1/10th of 1% is purchased at so small a cost - trivial, WRITING A FEW
LETTERS - not a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign, not a lawsuit
which grinds someone's life, not anyone going to jail, not blood and
sweat and tears - BUT JUST WRITING A FEW LETTERS, as happens every
single day on so many mailing-lists and weblogs -

**********************************************************************
T*H*E*N *T*A*K*E* *I*T*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
**********************************************************************

	Take it for whatever tiny benefit it is. Take is as a
beachhead to launch a policy initiative later. Take it as something 
to use in court in the future lawsuits that we'll inevitably see.

	It's a small victory. But it comes at an even smaller price.

-- 
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  sethf@sethf.com  http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations - http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html