Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 11:44:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > Rephrase: I don't agree the same goes for a brick wall because it's > > not technological, but sillier decisions have been made before. > > How exactly is a brick wall not technological?
I think the protection offered by it is by its nature, not its technology. I've never seen a credible argument that it is a technological protection measure. Do you know of one in case law or statute? > Do brick walls occur naturally? That's irrelevant. Once it has occurred, it pretty much relies on nature rather than further technological acts to function. > > Why is distribution important? It's a copyright licence, not a > > distribution licence: it covers making copies, too, and that's > > mentioned explicitly in that clause too. > > It's important because copies that are not made for distrubution are covered > under both fair use and the right to make backups. Maybe in the US. Private copies in England have more limited scope and we seem to have limited or no right to make backups. This does comply with both letter and spirit of the Berne Union, as far as I can tell, so can't simply be ignored as a basket-case legal system. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
