RE: [dvd-discuss] apeals court ruling

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

The ruling specifically mentioned that the "single click"
nature was part of the justification for the decision.

Even typing "make DeCSS" is more than a single click.

And if you distribute source w/o a makefile, the process
to create the functional version (i.e. the .EXE) involves
even more effort.

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 5:58 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] apeals court ruling 
> 
> 
> SO how does this differ from 
> 
> C:\makefile_DeCSS
> 
> <makefile runs>
> 
> C:\decss JackValentiIsAnIdiot.DVD
> 
> From:           	Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
> To:             	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" 
> <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] apeals court ruling 
> Date sent:      	Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:49:02 -0800
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter D. Junger [mailto:junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu]
> > ...
> > > On the other hand, if worse comes to worse and this is the end
> > > of the road for the Remierdes case---which I doubt---the decision
> > > only applies to the defendant in Remierdes.  Since it 
> seems to turn
> > > on the ``fact'' that one can run DeCSS by clicking on an icon, any
> > > case where there is a version of the code that requires one to use
> > > the command line should be clearly distinguishable.  And there are
> > > going to be lots of distinctions that may be more significant than
> > > that one.
> > > 
> > 
> > So this only happened because DeCSS was distributed as
> > a compiled program -- if it was distributed solely as
> > source code (requiring a human to take a complex series
> > of actions before producing anything that a "single click"
> > could active) we would still be ok?
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > -Richard M. Hartman
> > hartman@onetouch.com
> > 
> > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!> 
> 
>