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

Re: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?

To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
From: Dan Steinberg <synthesis(at)videotron.ca>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:44:09 -0400
In-reply-to: <255195E927D0B74AB08F4DCB07181B904C5726@exchsj1.onetouch.com>
References: <255195E927D0B74AB08F4DCB07181B904C5726@exchsj1.onetouch.com>
Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624

I believe they were trying to claim the encryption in the garage door 
opener codes (the stuff they use to prevent unauthorized access to your 
garage by some one with a programmable remote) was a TPM...and the 
mechanism to 'copy' one code to another device...was circumvention....
I have to admit I read it very quickly....

Richard Hartman wrote:

>btw: to qualify for DMCA the TPM must be protecting some copyrightable content.  AFAICT the garage doors were protecting cars, not content.  Why wasn't the claim dismissed as inapplicable?
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca

References:
- RE: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
  - From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
Next by Date: Re: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
Previous by thread: Re: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
Next by thread: RE: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread