[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
- From: Lars Gaarden <larsg(at)eurorights.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:49:33 +0200
- In-reply-to: <OF2FD1FB60.C9215C63-ON88256D49.005B28C1@aero.org>
- References: <OF2FD1FB60.C9215C63-ON88256D49.005B28C1@aero.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030529
Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> Yes and look at the 2600 Case. Clearly Eric Corley infringed on NO
> copyright by posting links to DeCSS but Judge Kaplan ruled that the
> imminent danger to the sanctity of the sacred intellectual property that
> maybe might possibly happen by someone else required that the knowledge be
The tool, not the knowledge.
I know the DMCA can be interpreted to include both tools and simple
descriptions or step-by-step instructions in plain english, and there
is really no clear line between tool and speech because there is a
continuum between binary code, interpreted scripts and plain english.
Still, unless I'm missing something, no court has still determined
whether plain english is an illegal circumvention device or if the
First trumps the DMCA in this case.
With nontechnical judges, I think we really need a case concerning
plain english to make the judge understand the issues.