Re: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?

[Ernest Miller <ernest.miller(at)aya.yale.edu>]

Well, that is not how the courts have interpreted what it means to 
"access" in the DMCA.  Moreover, I doubt that yours is a definition the 
courts would accept.  The DMCA says nothing about accessing something as 
"content."  By your definition, anything that did not get read and 
copied would not count as access.  This would leave a lot of computer 
programs unprotected by the DMCA.  This does not seem to be what 
Congress intended.

Richard Hartman wrote:

>I'm sorry ... when I push the button on the garage
>door the program gets downloaded to a screen on
>the opener? 
>
>Uh, uh.  The code does not provide access to the
>program _as_content_.
>
>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.
>
>
>  
>