[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Australian Court rules: Films aren't software
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Australian Court rules: Films aren't software
- From: "Dean Sanchez" <DSanchez(at)fcci-group.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:27:21 -0500
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcGv/te8mYJZidvJRTCIE1baB6Eh+QADfPcQ
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Australian Court rules: Films aren't software
Isn't this the argument that the US courts accepted when the software industry made the same claim? They claimed that since a copy of the software is stored in RAM, the individual purchasing the product needs to have permission to make a copy. That's how they can 'license' a product that is actually sold.
From: Arnold G. Reinhold [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Australian Court rules: Films aren't
>Warner recently got smacked down by an Australian court for introducing
>"two-tiered" titles: one for rental and one for sell-through.
>In addition to claiming that a video on DVD is actually software,
>rather than a movie, Warner tried to convince the court that simply
>playing a DVD movie should be considered an act of "copying":
>"Warner said a person playing the DVD was actually making a copy of the film
>because images and sound from DVD films were stored in the random access
>memory (RAM) of a computer or a computer contained within a DVD player."