RE: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

["Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 8:08 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 25 Mar 2003 at 17:00, Dean Sanchez wrote:
> 
> Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
> Date sent:      	Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:00:47 -0500
> From:           	"Dean Sanchez" <DSANCHEZ@fcci-group.com>
> To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> > I think everyone is missing the bigger point.  That is that the
> > "interoperability" clause, in actuality, is always going to 
> be used as a hammer
> > defending the DMCA.  Its existence pounds home the point 
> that the DMCA is
> > 'really' flexible and doesn't have anything wrong with it 
> even though no one can
> > actually use it without being prosecuted.  
> 
> Can one have a right with no opportunity to exercise it?
> 

That is indeed the central question at the crux of the
entire DMCA issue.  We have the _right_ to fair use
but the DMCA can be used to deny us the opportunity
to excercise that right by inserting a TPM between us
and the work.


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!