Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: DMCA protection of SPAMMING

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 19 Feb 2004 at 21:09, Seth Finkelstein wrote:

Date sent:      	Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:09:18 -0500
From:           	Seth Finkelstein <sethf@sethf.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	[dvd-discuss] Re: DMCA protection of SPAMMING
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

>  The censorware DMCA exemption is very specific to censorware.:
> 
>   "The particular class of works designated in this rulemaking covers
>    the lists of websites blocked by commercially marketed filtering
>    software applications that are intended to prevent access to
>    domains, websites or portions of Web sites. However, the exempted
>    class specifically excludes lists of Internet locations blocked by
>    software designed to protect against damage to computers, such as
>    firewalls and antivirus software, or software designed to prevent
>    receipt of unwanted e-mail, such as anti-spam software."
> 
>  As anti-spam software is excluded, I assume pro-spam software
> would be excluded too :-)

Thanks Seth. I'd forgotten that....actually consider what they are protecting 
by NOT allowing "lists of Internet locations blocked by
software designed to protect against damage to computers, such as
firewalls and antivirus software, or software designed to prevent
receipt of unwanted e-mail, such as anti-spam software."

They seem to be assuming that there's some great economic advantage in having 
"THE LIST" and so they kill their competition and solve the problem of SPAM by 
being the  perfect ANTI-SPAM system which we all know is nonsense. If they were 
the only anti-spammer then when they miss one then EVERYBODY gets spammed. So 
what they are doing is to prevent RE of lists so that anti-spammers can keep up 
with each other.....WOW...what a ruling to further the interests of 
spammers....I truly hope that this ruling comes back to haunt them- especially 
Mary Beth "Hear no Evil, See No Evil, Speak no Evil" Peters 
(At the UCLA hearing in May I sat and watched her repeatedly go through those 
gestures during the hearing)...VIVA LA SPAM!!!!...I may wonder the next time I 
get a "p..is larger" SPAM if this isn't further showing up the stupidity of the 
DMCA and the thought processes of the "exemptors"....


> 
>  Sigh - you can't unrestrict DeCSS by using it on other
> material. Doesn't work. Informally, the courts aren't idiots.
> Formally, the key standard is:
> 
>         o (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>           circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
>           access to a work protected under this title;
>         o (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use
>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>           other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively
>           controls access to a work protected under this title;

Of course all the DMCA verbiage still begs the question "DOES a mere list of 
things warrant copyright protection?" In many instances these lists are must 
the rote workings of a computer program. So the facts collected by a computer 
program warrant copyright protection and are protected under the DMCA?

But you also point out something interesting....the use of the work 
"commercially" and what does it mean to be "limited commercially". The DMCA is 
a LAW. Laws are phrased in legal terms. What does "limited commercially" mean? 
LEGALLY


> 
> -- 
> Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  sethf@sethf.com  http://sethf.com
> Interview: http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl?sid=03/12/16/0526234
> Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/