[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
- From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 09:50:48 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcN2J2brSsmWIPGDTjmcRPTSwoFkFAAAYP1Q
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
I'm sorry ... when I push the button on the garage
door the program gets downloaded to a screen on
Uh, uh. The code does not provide access to the
Strictly speaking, the code does not provide access
to the program _at_all_. The code is _managed_ by
the program. The code triggers a certain function
performed by the program. The code does _not_ in
any meaningful way provide _access_ to the program.
I'll take a look at that debate thread you
provided and post this there as well.
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ernest Miller [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 9:33 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
> The copyrighted content in this case was the code the operated the
> garage door opener. I've been engaged in some debate on the
> issue here:
> Richard Hartman wrote:
> >btw: to qualify for DMCA the TPM must be protecting some
> copyrightable content. AFAICT the garage doors were
> protecting cars, not content. Why wasn't the claim dismissed
> as inapplicable?