[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Would this consistute circumvention.
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Would this consistute circumvention.
- From: "John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 13:31:13 -0700
- References: <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC9D680E@mail.onetouch.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
I certainly vote for marginally redundant over vague and overreaching.
Actually it matches the congressional record better than the current
language. Adding "for purposes of copyright infringement" keeps
pre-first-sale circumventions, and hacked cable and sattelite boxes or
smart card all illegal, while eliminating the horribles associated with
the current "function" (does it circumvent) vs. "purpose" (is it
intended for infringing copyrights) definition.
It would certainly address Sklyarov, Felton, and Corely cases and
concerns. As a "purpose" component of the definition would require a
less simplistic argument then was used by the Adobe/FBI, SDMI, and
Kaplan -- respectively. Valid non-infringing (as opposed to
non-circumventing) uses are thus a defense and this fine group would
have been celebrating success now.
Given the congressional record, I wonder if the appeal court will find a
"purpose" requirement in the "umbra and emanations" of the DMCA to save
it or toss the law out with pointed commented about what would have.
Richard Hartman wrote:
> You could make the same complaint about the
> "us a gun, go to jail" laws. Those impose
> harsher penalties when a gun is used in the
> commission of a crime than the crime alone
> would incur. (i.e. if you hold up the 7-11
> with a knife you aren't in for as much time
> as you would be if you use a gun).
> Likewise, if you have to bypass a digital TPM
> to commit your infringement you could be
> liable for harsher penalties than infringement
> alone would incur.
> You might be able to argue whether or not digital
> deserves additional protection of this nature,
> but it is not entirely redundant.