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

[Lars Gaarden <larsg(at)eurorights.org>]

microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:

> On 20 Jun 2003 at 1:49, Lars Gaarden wrote:
 >>
>>The tool, not the knowledge.
> 
> No... the knowledge where the tool was - the links were banned too.

Point. And the knowledge of the inner workings of the tool too, for
the few people out there that can grok x86 binary code.

>>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

Nope. The parser couldn't be banned if it was a general structured
english parser. However, the plain english description becomes a
circumvention tool once someone writes a parser and someone combines
the two.

>>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"

Let's be realistic. How many of those do you know?

-- 
LarsG