[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Another Poster Child for DeCSS?
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Another Poster Child for DeCSS?
- From: "John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:19:43 -0600
- References: <255195E927D0B74AB08F4DCB07181B904C55B4@exchsj1.onetouch.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Richard Hartman wrote:
> Why would the purchaser have to go to court to show
> that the claim is invalid. Could not the purchaser
> make his own counter-claim and the Schroedinger's cat
> nature of the law would protect him unless the publisher
> tried to pursue it in court -- at which point the publisher
> is as likely to be on the wrong side of the quantum
> state collapse as the purchaser is . . .
Given the current "take-down" and "anticircumvention" provisions of the
DMCA and the ability for the publisher to legally (and tax deductably)
spam any purchaser with legal threats, the playing field isn't that all
Or look at it another way. Schroedinger's cat experiment** is good
clean fun, unless it's you cat ;-). With the inequity in legal counsel
available (and the ability to pay for same). One is less likely to
accept the possibility of loss when it's costs are proportionally higher
(and not tax deductably a part of "ordinary" business expense).
**actually the "experiment" is only a mental "gendanken experiment" and
a bit too metaphysical for me. From my point of view, any object "in
the box" is as good a "quantum observer" as any underpaid, under
appreciated grad student sent to take the pulse of a boxed cat.