It would be that simple except for the fact that businesses have sued holders of similar names in the supposedly non-business domains and won. It does no good to proliferate TLDs when the distinctions between them are not respected anyway.
I noticed that too. But consider even further -- if a website owner didn't want Corley to report on the contents of his website, all he would have to do would be to include DeCSS and inform Corely about it. Think about that.
What about those of us who have paid for our movies and music and then are prevented from actually accessing them by this overbroad law. The DMCA has absolutely nothing to do with copying, and everything to do with control over what has already been sold. The only way to fix this law is for Congress (or the courts, if they have the guts) to preserve the first sale doctrine by emphasizing that the buyer of a copy of a work has the right (i.e. authority of the copyright holder) to access that work as they please.
Re:DeCSS decision now available on EFF site
on
DMCA 2, Freedom 0
·
· Score: 1
If i create a machine that can automatically cook me a meal by reading recipes, will the free speech protection of those recipes become less?
Or, better yet, if I create a computer program that can act on natural language instructions, does that mean that our speech becomes less protected? What happens when the computer becomes "smarter"?
The only thing the DMCA does is keep you from stealing other people's work.
Have you even read what the DMCA says? I think not. Take a look at Title 17 section 1201 (the relevent law created by the DMCA). Find in there any requirement that something actually has to be "stolen" in order for the application of the section. Good Luck... There isn't one. Then take a careful look at 1201(a)(2)(A-C) and note the conjunction between them... it's an or. Now look at 1201(a)(3) where "circumventing a technical measure" is defined, and interpret as in the 2600 case. Remember that according to the judge, the authority of the copyright owner is whatever they want -- it isn't an actual part of the measure. That's right, if your code does exactly what theirs does but they say you aren't authorized, you've just "circumvented" their "protections". Now go back to 1201(a)(2)(B) and note that there is no intent or knowledge necessary to invoke that portion, and remember that the "or" conjunction makes that portion alone sufficient to make your code violate the law. That's a lot more than just "keep(ing) you from stealing other people's work".
Slashdot Mirror
It would be that simple except for the fact that businesses have sued holders of similar names in the supposedly non-business domains and won. It does no good to proliferate TLDs when the distinctions between them are not respected anyway.
I noticed that too. But consider even further -- if a website owner didn't want Corley to report on the contents of his website, all he would have to do would be to include DeCSS and inform Corely about it. Think about that.
What about those of us who have paid for our movies and music and then are prevented from actually accessing them by this overbroad law. The DMCA has absolutely nothing to do with copying, and everything to do with control over what has already been sold. The only way to fix this law is for Congress (or the courts, if they have the guts) to preserve the first sale doctrine by emphasizing that the buyer of a copy of a work has the right (i.e. authority of the copyright holder) to access that work as they please.
Or, better yet, if I create a computer program that can act on natural language instructions, does that mean that our speech becomes less protected? What happens when the computer becomes "smarter"?
Have you even read what the DMCA says? I think not. Take a look at Title 17 section 1201 (the relevent law created by the DMCA). Find in there any requirement that something actually has to be "stolen" in order for the application of the section. Good Luck... There isn't one. Then take a careful look at 1201(a)(2)(A-C) and note the conjunction between them... it's an or. Now look at 1201(a)(3) where "circumventing a technical measure" is defined, and interpret as in the 2600 case. Remember that according to the judge, the authority of the copyright owner is whatever they want -- it isn't an actual part of the measure. That's right, if your code does exactly what theirs does but they say you aren't authorized, you've just "circumvented" their "protections". Now go back to 1201(a)(2)(B) and note that there is no intent or knowledge necessary to invoke that portion, and remember that the "or" conjunction makes that portion alone sufficient to make your code violate the law. That's a lot more than just "keep(ing) you from stealing other people's work".