[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [DMCA_discuss] Linux kernel securityfixes censored by the DMCA
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [DMCA_discuss] Linux kernel securityfixes censored by the DMCA
- From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:31:17 -0700
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! *****
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Thursday 25 October 2001 19:16, you wrote:
> y?" Is it
> a device... no, that is seperately listed, same for component, and
> part. �Earlier in our parsing exercise of the DMCA a point was made by
> the lawyers in the group that when two terms exist in a list of things
> in the law, they cannot be interpreted to have the same meaning. �So
> technology is some non-device, non-component, non-part -- sounds like an
> inkblot into which "other" including documentation could be lumped. �For
> example if I post a simple
> set of "push this button, then that button" sequence that unlocks a
> cable box to display all channels (I have no idea if this is possible)
> -- that could be considered a technology (ology == writing or study)
> that would circumvent.
Strictly from etymology, "technology" is the study of _technique_:
the way of doing things. So banning a technology is banning a
study, a field of inquiry.
There really are some things that Man is not meant (at least by
Congress) to know.
--
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <[email protected]> ----------+