RE: [dvd-discuss] Draft of upcoming article

[Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>]

If it's legal then it isn't infringment.

It's a defense for the "charge" of copyright infringement.

 - noah 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Dean Sanchez wrote:

> I would be cautious about the phrase 'illegal only "for the purpose of
> copyright infringement."'  It is my understanding that fair use is a
> defense for copyright infringement.  So not all copyright infringement
> would be illegal.  I know that this has been discussed here before, but
> maybe there should be some affirmative declaration of fair use and first
> sale rights.
> 
> In the Wired article "A Call to End Copyright Confusion"
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,49201,00.html , a Disney
> mouthpiece named Padden is quoted as saying "There is no right to fair
> use. Fair use is a defense against infringement."   The industry's
> stance is that citizens have no rights as it relates to the material
> that they have purchased.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Oram [mailto:andyo@oreilly.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 2:18 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@lweb.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Draft of upcoming article
> 
> 
> I'm not convinced that tying anti-circumvention laws to
> intent will solve the problem (after all, what's the intent
> of the DeCSS creators and promoters? Who determines?) But
> I'm considering adding the following paragraph to the
> article that's at
> http://www.oreilly.com/~andyo/professional/ruling_2600.html:
> 
>   Some defenders of DeCSS suggest changing copyright law so
>   that anti-circumvention is illegal only "for the purpose
>   of copyright infringement." This would make the
>   anti-circumvention law less of a radical imposition on the
>   course of technology. Perhaps it would change an
>   unconstitutional law into a constitutional one. But it
>   would leave it up to courts to decide what the intent of
>   programmer is, something that is hard to determine even
>   with DeCSS.
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
>