[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The Grounds for Appeal
You may be close to the mark. I haven't finished the opinion either
but one thing I noted was that they start off by discussing the fact
that the governemnt must have a compelling interest yet don't state
what that was. Maybe it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be but
maybe they should tell us what that is for those of us intellectually
challanged <sarcasm>. In the sort of formal argumentation these
people perform, it should be stated for completeness least the
reader substitute their own but it also invalidates all the subsequent
argument - what's the point of continuing if the fundamental
requriments aren't met.
Johansen owned the DVD.
Johansen was authorized to PLAY it (it = DVD)
The notion that one can be authorized to play a DVD only upon a
licensed player was shot to hell in 1917...too bad the courts
can't apply some elementary logic from
a sophomore level philosophy class.
I suspect the unstated assumptions regard the sanctity of
intellectual property and the belief that they must preserve it at all
costs....I wrote this earlier but I'll retype it now...I can't think of
anyone willing to die to preserve intellectual property rights but I
history is fulll of people who died for freedom of speech.
Date sent: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 21:28:52 -0500 (EST)
From: "Robert S. Thau" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The Grounds for Appeal
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Bryan Taylor writes:
> > I couldn't agree with you more on this. I think the key point for
> the next > phase is to hammer the distinctions between these three
> concepts: > > 1. pure speech expressing functional ideas > 2.
> "functionality" = a device capable of allowing a human to perform a
> task > 3. conduct = the actual act of exercising a device
> Errrmmm... I may be speaking out of turn here, not having reviewed the
> opinion in detail yet, but a common reaction has been that the judges
> chose their conclusions first, and then shaped their logic to fit ---
> and weren't particularly troubled when they had to stretch that logic
> awfully thin to cover the facts.
> If that's anywhere near the mark, then the key point that needs to be
> hammered home would be an alternative view of the facts --- perhaps
> beginning by pointing out that Johansen was trying not to pirate any
> videos, but simply to build a DVD player, and that testimony was not
> contradicted by anyone at trial...