[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....
- From: mickey <mickeym(at)mindspring.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:28:34 -0400
- References: <steve-1020723151934.A2A17974@steve.i2it.co.uk>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204
I see the cases as similar because of the authority issue.
How do I become authorized to perform the conduct required to apply a
tatoo (or watch a dvd)? There is an FA right to bear a tatoo, but there
is a process to make a tatoo that requires legal authorization.
Similarly, there is an FA right to fair use access, and there is a
process to access the content that requires authorization.
The difference is that, in the first case, there will be a documented
legal process that clearly defines how one becomes authorized. In the
case of fair use access to content, however, the process to become
authorized now requires the consent of a private party.
Before the DMCA, a doctrine of law authorized the conduct of fair use
access, to which the copyright holder likely would not have consented.
After the DMCA, the consent of the copyright holder becomes the key to
Steve Hosgood wrote:
>>"State attorneys argued the law, which prohibits tattooing by anyone
>>other than a doctor, is a public health issue. The justices upheld
>>White's conviction, saying the First Amendment right to have a tattoo is
>>a separate issue from the process of tattooing."
>>How does one argue against that?
>You probably don't. I can think of quite a few scenarios where a "right"
>is only there under certain provisos. You have a "right" to be a doctor, but
>you can only practice as a doctor if you get qualified to do so by certain
>You have a "right" to drive, but if you want to do so on public highways, you
>must have a valid driving licence. Etc.
>Public health/safety issues will always infringe a bit on "rights" but
>hopefully, under a sensible regime, both can co-exist without excessive
>( In the UK, tattoo artists don't AFAIK have to be doctors, but if they're not
>members of the Guild of Tattooists (or whatever) I suspect no-one would go
>near them! )
>The question is, does the US tattoo case (above) have any influence on whether
>your DVD player has to be approved by the DVDCCA in order to play the DVDs *you
>bought* (in the US)?
>No public health/safety issues there, surely? :-)
>In fact, I'm having trouble seeing any parallels at all between the two!
>Steve Hosgood |
>email@example.com | "A good plan today is better
>Phone: +44 1792 203707 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow"
>Fax: +44 70922 70944 | - Conrad Brean
> http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" )