[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU.
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU.
- From: "Peter D. Junger" <junger(at)samsara.law.cwru.edu>
- Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 12:05:38 -0500
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:56:13 EST." <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Scott A Crosby writes:
: Touretsky versus Shamos debate notes:
: This debate *just* finished, here are my notes from it, I've been trying
: to track Professor Shamos's arguments, whom we also know from the trial.
: So, this is trying to emphasize a devils-advocate position; arguments that
: he made that might be refuted.
: I intermix my own comments in [] and in a few of the sections.
: -- Shamos
: THe copyright clause in the constitution says:
: ``To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
: limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
: respective writings and discoveries; ''
: [[What is the argument about ``copying'' being an ``exclusive right''?
: This was elided out.]]
The rights granted to the owners of a copyright are termed ``exclusive
rights'' because they are the right to exclude others from reproducing
or distributing, etc., the copyrighted work.
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
EMAIL: firstname.lastname@example.org URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu
NOTE: email@example.com no longer exists