Re: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU.

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

You may have summarized the whole problem. THe word exclusive 
has several definitions. One is "Excluding much or all; especially 
all but a particular group or minority". Another is "Not divided or 
shared with others". In the "digital age", the media providers wish 
to extend  their exclusive rights to the latter.

To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU. 
Date sent:      	Sat, 01 Dec 2001 12:05:38 -0500
From:           	"Peter D. Junger" <junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Scott A Crosby writes:
> 
> : Touretsky versus Shamos debate notes:
> : 
> : This debate *just* finished, here are my notes from it, I've been
> trying : to track Professor Shamos's arguments, whom we also know from
> the trial. : So, this is trying to emphasize a devils-advocate
> position; arguments that : he made that might be refuted. : : I
> intermix my own comments in [[]] and in a few of the sections. : : --
> Shamos : : THe copyright clause in the constitution says: : : ``To
> promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for :
> limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their :
> respective writings and discoveries; '' : : [[What is the argument
> about ``copying'' being an ``exclusive right''? : This was elided
> out.]]
> 
> The rights granted to the owners of a copyright are termed ``exclusive
> rights'' because they are the right to exclude others from reproducing
> or distributing, etc., the copyrighted work.
> 
> --
> Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law
> School--Cleveland, OH
>  EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu    URL: 
>  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu   
>         NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists