[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Comparing DeCSS with legitimate code.
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Comparing DeCSS with legitimate code.
- From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>
- Date: 23 May 2002 21:40:41 -0700
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 20:11, Jeremy Erwin wrote:
> Since plaintext transfer of VOBs to hard disk was not envisoned as a
> legitimate operation by the inventors of CSS, DeCSS arguably circumvents.
I rather suspect that the projection of images onto the walls
of dance floors was not envisioned by the inventors of movie
projectors, either. So?
There's a fundamental shift in the concept of copyright here
(like this is news on DVD-discuss?) -- under longstanding
American law, the artist (much less his publisher) cannot
forbid purchasers from displaying his works in washrooms.
We have not been under a "all uses of the Licensed Material
not explicitly permitted by this Agreement are expressly
forbidden" regime.
The paragraph above implicitly assumes otherwise.
--
| May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, |
| the strength to change the things I cannot accept, and the |
| cunning to hide the bodies of those who got in my way. |
+------------- D. C. Sessions <[email protected]> -----------+