[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
I phrased it like that because the DMCA was a set of massive changes to
copyright law, so the DMCA could be considered a subset of copyright
law. I wasn't really getting into fair use, which I probably should
have mentioned along with that.
Although, fair use isn't really a concrete thing either, the way it's
laid out in the law is a series of tests for a judge to consider. I'd
much rather see fair use actually be codified, so that there's no (or
less) ambiguity as to what is a fair use.
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 20:23, Stephen L Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 19:08, Phil Gengler wrote:
> > Violating the DMCA implies you're violating copyright laws, but
> > violating copyright laws doesn't mean you're violating the DMCA.
> No. The first part of your statement is not necessarily true. I can be
> violating the DCMA by ripping some "Exclusive Bonus Material" on a DVD.
> But the purpose of the copying to is to provide an except to emphasis a
> point in my online video critique of the DVD. That falls well within the
> bounds of fair use.
> > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 20:04, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > > Violating copyright laws and violating the DMCA are _not_ the same thing.
> > >
> > > Vigilante actions are typically against the law -- law enforcement is in the hands of the police agencies, not the individual (or the corporations).