[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Judge Rejects Challenge to eBook Case
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Judge Rejects Challenge to eBook Case
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:51:26 -0700
- In-reply-to: <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC012395AB@mail.onetouch.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
This is why a little bit of disection on TWIKI might be of some use....if not
a spleen venting...I've read a bit more of the opinion and the judge almost
taunts the Ds
On 14 May 2002 at 17:16, Richard Hartman wrote:
From: Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-
discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Judge Rejects Challenge to eBook Case
Date sent: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:16:41 -0700
Send reply to: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 12:54 PM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Judge Rejects Challenge to eBook Case
> >
> >
> > <Snip-good stuff from EFFector 15.13 deleted. >
> >
> > Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release
> > Judge Rejects Challenge to eBook Case
> > Rules Digital Copyright Law Trumps Free Speech
> > For Immediate Release: Wednesday, May 8, 2002
> >
> > San Jose, CA - A federal judge today denied a Russian
> > software vendor's
> > request to dismiss criminal charges against the company for
> > violations of
> > the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
> >
> >
> > <Snip>
> >
> > Despite acknowledging a lack of clarity in the Congressional record
> > surrounding the adoption of the DMCA, Judge Whyte ruled that
> > due process
> > was not violated. He said the plain meaning of the DMCA
> > statute was to ban
> >
> > circumvention tools completely because Congress had assumed
> > that "most
> > uses" of the tools would be for unlawful infringement rather
> > than fair or
> > noninfringing uses.
> >
>
> I believe that the DMCA explicitly mentions that nothing
> in the act should be taken to negate fair use provisions.
>
> Congress could NOT have meant to ban circumvention tools
> completely if that clause is included.
>
> --
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
>
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!