[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] apeals court ruling
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] apeals court ruling
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:01:04 -0800
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
SO how does this differ from
C:\makefile_DeCSS
<makefile runs>
C:\decss JackValentiIsAnIdiot.DVD
From: Richard Hartman <[email protected]>
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] apeals court ruling
Date sent: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:49:02 -0800
Send reply to: [email protected]
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter D. Junger [mailto:[email protected]]
> ...
> > On the other hand, if worse comes to worse and this is the end
> > of the road for the Remierdes case---which I doubt---the decision
> > only applies to the defendant in Remierdes. Since it seems to turn
> > on the ``fact'' that one can run DeCSS by clicking on an icon, any
> > case where there is a version of the code that requires one to use
> > the command line should be clearly distinguishable. And there are
> > going to be lots of distinctions that may be more significant than
> > that one.
> >
>
> So this only happened because DeCSS was distributed as
> a compiled program -- if it was distributed solely as
> source code (requiring a human to take a complex series
> of actions before producing anything that a "single click"
> could active) we would still be ok?
>
>
> --
> -Richard M. Hartman
> [email protected]
>
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!>