[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
On 20 Jun 2003 at 1:49, Lars Gaarden wrote:
Date sent: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:49:33 +0200
From: Lars Gaarden <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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"