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

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

Lars Gaarden wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

"technology" is one of the banned things.

> 
> 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.

Given the current environment of fear and litigation, I doubt it will
get before the courts until someone with deeper pockets cares to fight. 
The Replay TV fan site which discussed a Linux based PVR refused to
allow posts on how to offload the NON-ENCRYPTED mpeg stream filesystem. 
Given the chilling effects already in place, we may never get that case
one our terms

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

Sadly, the ??AA are likely to pick (again) an unsympathetic defendant as
in Corley.  If they are smart they will pick the publisher of some
pedophile newsletter with a description of how to crack into kids cell
phones and steal their private photos or some such... (icky, but likely)

.002