RE: [dvd-discuss] SCC/Lexmark, copyright, and DMCA

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

Yark!  From what you have just said this judge can have
no grounding in either technical matters or communications. . .


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

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seth Finkelstein [mailto:sethf@sethf.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 2:09 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] SCC/Lexmark, copyright, and DMCA
> 
> 
> 	OK, I paged through the decision. As I see it, there's two
> different aspects:
> 
> 1) Copyright infringement - SCC copied Lexmark's "Toner 
> Loading Programs"
> 
> 2) DMCA - and this is where things get interesting. The judge 
> seems to say:
> 	a) Computer programs are, in general, copyrightable works
> 	b) Lexmark's "Toner Loading Programs" are copyrightable
> 	c) Thus, having another program interact with Lexmark's program,
> is drumroll ... circumventing *access* to a copyright work! 
> Hello, DMCA.
> 
> 	Note points 1 and 2 are mostly orthogonal (though #1 is used
> against SCC in #2, to help disallow the 1201(f) 
> interoperability exemption).
> 
> 	Essentially, the judge has ruled that "interoperate" is a
> subset of "access"! And then tossed the 1201(f) interoperability
> exemption. That reminds me of the "use-a-gun" case, where the court
> ruled bartering the gun was a "use".
> http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-8674.ZO.html
> 
> 	But this is a DMCA 1201(a)(2) ("trafficking") problem, since the
> microchips are "devices". So even if the Copyright Office granted the
> request, it wouldn't do SCC immediate good (though they might then be
> situated to take to court the fabled argument that right-to-do should
> imply right-to-tools).
> 
> -- 
> 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/