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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 12 Oct 2002 at 0:19, Seth Finkelstein wrote:

Date sent:      	Sat, 12 Oct 2002 00:19:23 -0400
From:           	Seth Finkelstein <sethf@sethf.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Copyright Office to Consider Anticircumvention Exemptions 
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> >> 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.

That you have a legal right to do anticensorware work and have been granted the 
exemption to do so is good (and I am glad you are doing it. I mean that.) but 
there are other rights that one has, such as the right to use ones personal 
property as one sees fit (e.g., play my DVD in my linux machine.) if the means 
of doing so is illegal (e.g., DeCSS).

D.C. is speaking of the logic of the situation.

> 
>  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.
> 

Trafficking in this case means speaking/writing/communicating or forming 
communities. (Consider this. Those accused of trafficking in DeCSS are merely a 
community of people communicating a common interest....but according to Judge 
Kaplan and the NY Appeals court the sanctity of "intelletual property" must be 
preserved.)

>  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*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> **********************************************************************
> 

This is tactics...and you'll get no argument that letters are what is needed 
more and more...the more people see how this stinks the more likely a few 
politicians will turn tail....BTW, the LOC is asking for more 
comments....here's a good chance.


>  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