The question is what sort of protection computer programs should get under the DMCA then? Is the content of it being protected or is the function? In this particular instance the function not the program itself was really what they were claiming. The DMCA really doesn't apply. In this instance the circumvention it providing access to a garage and not copyright material. The expression vs function dichotomy that has been esposed as the basis for supression of speech cuts both ways. Here clearly function was involved.
One thought...if after these years the courts and the lawyers still can't figure out what the DMCA really means maybe it's time to rename it the Digital Millenium Crapyrights Act...
Ernest Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent by: email@example.com
09/08/2003 10:45 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
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
Richard Hartman wrote:
>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.