It gives copyright holders--and the technology companies that distribute their content--the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them.
Alas, Section 1202(f) explicitly states that the DMCA: "This exception permits circumvention and the development of technological means for such circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability with other programs... to the extent that such acts are permitted under copyright law."
The CATO Institute provides no reference to the legal backdrop regarding the efforts of these exceptions of Section 1202, to the multitude of the same inculpable constituents that it references under Section 109 under the Sale Doctrine, and again in Title II, Section 512. The CATO Institute also never provides details to the "clumsy and ineffective" installments of the DMCA. Their assessment is rough-hewn, at best.
It gives copyright holders--and the technology companies that distribute their content--the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them.
Alas, Section 1202(f) explicitly states that the DMCA: "This exception permits
circumvention and the development of technological means for such
circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a
copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and
analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability
with other programs... to the extent that such acts are permitted under
copyright law."
The CATO Institute provides no reference to the legal backdrop regarding the efforts of these exceptions of Section 1202, to the multitude of the same inculpable constituents that it references under Section 109 under the Sale Doctrine, and again in Title II, Section 512. The CATO Institute also never provides details to the "clumsy and ineffective" installments of the DMCA. Their assessment is rough-hewn, at best.
I, for one, am skeptical about OSU's research with regards to the IC's utility in the field of conventional electron-beam lithography. To engrave features onto the IC at a sub-micrometre level, how would the substrate of the IC, with its importunate properties of inelasticity, respond to the photomasks at 193nm? What would become of the mass production of these compounds?
I'm not saying the article is wholly without merit, but I remain a little skeptical about the IC's practical uses in production.
Slashdot Mirror
It gives copyright holders--and the technology companies that distribute their content--the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. ... to the extent that such acts are permitted under copyright law."
The CATO Institute provides no reference to the legal backdrop regarding the efforts of these exceptions of Section 1202, to the multitude of the same inculpable constituents that it references under Section 109 under the Sale Doctrine, and again in Title II, Section 512. The CATO Institute also never provides details to the "clumsy and ineffective" installments of the DMCA. Their assessment is rough-hewn, at best.
Alas, Section 1202(f) explicitly states that the DMCA: "This exception permits circumvention and the development of technological means for such circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability with other programs
It gives copyright holders--and the technology companies that distribute their content--the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. Alas, Section 1202(f) explicitly states that the DMCA: "This exception permits circumvention and the development of technological means for such circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability with other programs ... to the extent that such acts are permitted under
copyright law."
The CATO Institute provides no reference to the legal backdrop regarding the efforts of these exceptions of Section 1202, to the multitude of the same inculpable constituents that it references under Section 109 under the Sale Doctrine, and again in Title II, Section 512. The CATO Institute also never provides details to the "clumsy and ineffective" installments of the DMCA. Their assessment is rough-hewn, at best.
I, for one, am skeptical about OSU's research with regards to the IC's utility in the field of conventional electron-beam lithography. To engrave features onto the IC at a sub-micrometre level, how would the substrate of the IC, with its importunate properties of inelasticity, respond to the photomasks at 193nm? What would become of the mass production of these compounds? I'm not saying the article is wholly without merit, but I remain a little skeptical about the IC's practical uses in production.