Re: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 20 Jun 2003 at 1:49, Lars Gaarden wrote:

Date sent:      	Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:49:33 +0200
From:           	Lars Gaarden <larsg@eurorights.org>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 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
> > suppressed. 
> 
> The tool, not the knowledge.

No... the knowledge where the tool was - the links were banned too.

> 
> 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.

Plain English? This was discussed a few years ago but even an English 
description can be parsed and source code made from it. So we ban English 
parsers that create object code

> 
> With nontechnical judges, I think we really need a case concerning
> plain english to make the judge understand the issues.
> 

I think you need a technical judge to understand the issues. Otherwise his 
ruling comes down to "I don'tunderstandthecasesoI'mdoingnothing"

> -- 
> LarsG
>