[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Australian Court rules: Films aren't software
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Australian Court rules: Films aren't software
- From: Tom <tom(at)lemuria.org>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 22:04:33 +0100
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>; from [email protected] on Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 02:01:22PM -0500
- 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
- User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 02:01:22PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote:
> (The flip side of the argument is that if you call Postscript
> documents "programs", then you can also call plain text documents
> "programs" in a language in which each character is a "command" whose
> semantics are to print that character and advance one space, with a
> few extras for newline, etc. But it is possible to draw principled
> distinctions here; for instance Postscript is Turing-complete, if run
> on a machine with space for an infinite stack, and the "ASCII command
> set" is not...).
you sure it isn't? it's complete enough to describe how to build a
turing machine... :)
ok, this is getting off-topic. what I wanted to say is we are moving
into an area where all but the computer scientists will just shake
their heads and give us sorry looks. that's not a way to win an
argument, and at the end of the day, a court is just that, right?
--
http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
pub 1024D/D88D35A6 2001-11-14 Tom Vogt <[email protected]>
Key fingerprint = 276B B7BB E4D8 FCCE DB8F F965 310B 811A D88D 35A6