[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: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:53:10 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcN2MT9PUenFMpITT3CdcuhRbFCuuAAvezAA
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
The DMCA states that at TPM is a measure protecting
access to copyrightable content. A program's source
code would meet that standard, a program performing
a function would not.
Title 17, Sect. 1201.A.1.a
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
What is "a work protected under this title"? Well ... unfortunately they never do define "a work". They start in Sect. 101 with "An ''anonymous work'' is a work ...". However it seems to be generally accepted throughout that "a work" is some sort of expression fixed in a medium ... not a function, such as opening a garage door.
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ernest Miller [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 10:45 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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
> 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.