[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
- To: dvd-discuss <dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
- From: Stephen L Johnson <sjohnson(at)monsters.org>
- Date: 17 Jun 2003 19:23:35 -0500
- In-reply-to: <1055894882.29583.73.camel@alpha>
- Organization:
- References: <[email protected]> <1055894882.29583.73.camel@alpha>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 19:08, Phil Gengler wrote:
> Violating the DMCA implies you're violating copyright laws, but
> violating copyright laws doesn't mean you're violating the DMCA.
No. The first part of your statement is not necessarily true. I can be
violating the DCMA by ripping some "Exclusive Bonus Material" on a DVD.
But the purpose of the copying to is to provide an except to emphasis a
point in my online video critique of the DVD. That falls well within the
bounds of fair use.
> On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 20:04, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > Violating copyright laws and violating the DMCA are _not_ the same thing.
> >
> > Vigilante actions are typically against the law -- law enforcement is in the hands of the police agencies, not the individual (or the corporations).