[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 13:54:08 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcN2YtL6QN0+pOvJS/affdbMyhGb1QAsZ0/g
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
Sure, the encryption is a TPM ... but does the TPM
govern access to a work protected by Title 17 (copyright)?
If not, the DMCA is inapplicable.
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 4:44 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
> I believe they were trying to claim the encryption in the garage door
> opener codes (the stuff they use to prevent unauthorized
> access to your
> garage by some one with a programmable remote) was a TPM...and the
> mechanism to 'copy' one code to another device...was circumvention....
> I have to admit I read it very quickly....
> 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?
> Dan Steinberg
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1 e-mail:firstname.lastname@example.org