Re: [dvd-discuss] Lexmark Decision

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 30 Mar 2003 at 7:37, D. C. Sessions wrote:

From:           	"D. C. Sessions" <dvd@lumbercartel.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Lexmark Decision
Date sent:      	Sun, 30 Mar 2003 07:37:24 -0700
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> On Sunday 30 March 2003 02:50, John Schulien wrote:
> # Or, in other words, they are converting their "creative expression"
> # into a simple fact.  The simple fact is that this particular monolithic
> # block of bits is the only block of bits that will allow a cartridge to
> # function on this printer.  It is a KEY.  It is a unique fact.  It should
> # lose any copyright protection in this specific context because no
> # functional alternative expression exists.
> 
> That's not true.  The printer checks the hash of the bitstream,
> not the bitstream itself.  Assuming that there are about 50 more
> bytes in the bitstream than in the hash, there are about 2**400
> possible bitstreams with the same hash.

The question is how it prevents access to the copyrighted work? The judge has 
it wrong. The hash is not an access control since it is used merely as an 
authentication. Do we start applying the DMCA to the CRCs used in TCP/IP 
packets? That would be a great development. Download the "Official MPAA TCP/IP 
stack with CRC-64MPAA (patent pending, cpyright registered, trademarked and if 
you want to study the algebraic properties of that polynomical call us first or 
we're gonna sue you out of a job and research grants")

> 
> Out of that many possible bitstreams which meet the hash
> requirement, there is surely room for *some* creativity.
> 
> -- 
> begin signature.exe
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
>