[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] [dvid-discuss]petition by Static Control Components, Inc. for DMCA Exemption
On 7 Feb 2003 at 21:15, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Date sent: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 21:15:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Ken Arromdee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] [dvid-discuss]petition by Static Control Components,
Inc. for DMCA Exemption
Send reply to: email@example.com
> Well, this is interesting. I guess we no longer have to wonder whether we
> can find some excuse to mention this case in a reply comment, though.
Yes veddy interesting....I was pondering how to get more recent events into the
comments. Now not only is there an opportunity for it but it has extended the
deadline or comments. One of my concerns was that Comments are sent. Replys are
sent but there is not reply to the reply. An opportunity to reply to the reply
may present itself if a reply might be applicable to the petition but I suspect
that the LOC will post things in such a way that it won't happen.
> The biggest problem I see is that the ruling doesn't apply to the creation
> and distribution of circumvention tools, only the act of circumvention itself.
Yes but if you can't do it all at once then do it in steps.
> This company wants to be able to sell chips--chips are circumvention tools. So
> even if the LOC grants the exemption, it will be useless.
Not entirely. It clarifies something that was not clear before. Yes it's not
the nuke that levels the DMCA but put a breach where one did not exist before
or where one was not perceived to exist.
> Of course, the best result is that the LOC recognizes this and finds some
> reason for why the ruling in this rulemaking should apply to tools after all. I
> wonder if it's possible to get that in a reply comment somehow.
One cannot have a right if one cannot exercise it...that's self evident...or
should be...One does not have freedom of speech if one can speak but only after
consulting with the censor...Judge Kaplan the Intellectual Property Fascist not