[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction


Yes and look at the 2600 Case. Clearly Eric Corley infringed on NO copyright by posting links to DeCSS but Judge Kaplan ruled that the imminent danger to the sanctity of the sacred intellectual property that maybe might possibly happen by someone else required that the knowledge be suppressed.


"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

06/18/2003 08:35 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

       
        To:        <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc:        
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction



Bzzt.  Thanks for playing.

The DMCA has _nothing_ to do with copyright laws!  Have
you not been reading this list?  A violation of the DCMA
consists solely of bypassing a technical protection measure
which is gating access to digital content.  There are
_many_ legitimate reasons for copying content that are
_not_ violations of copyright, but TPMs do not distinguish
between legitimate and illegitimate intentions on the
part of the user.  Nor can they.  Which is why the DMCA
is an abomination that must be overturned -- or at least
amended to include "for purposes of copyright violations"
as part of the definition of the act that is being
made illegal.


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

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Gengler [mailto:phil@codeallday.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 5:08 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
>
>
> Violating the DMCA implies you're violating copyright laws, but
> violating copyright laws doesn't mean you're violating the DMCA.
>
> 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).
>
>