On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 22:59 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: > On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 21:52, Wesley Parish wrote: > > From my point of view, that DMCA-like extension to copyright has the effect of > > outlawing the use of the brain: > > "so that the prohibition against the making, importing, hiring and > > selling of devices, services or information designed to circumvent > > "copy protection" be expanded to cover devices, services or > > information that circumvent technological protection measures that > > protect all rights provided to copyright owners, including > > communication, not just copying;" > > > > Bang goes the New Zealand Knowledge Economy if you can't get intimate and > > physical with your nearest and dearest to make a device a.k.a. a child's > > brain, with the ability and capacity of circumventing "copy protection"! And > > then it suggests outlawing the hiring of such a device as an individual human > > equipped with a brain with the ability and capacity of circumventing "copy > > protection". > > > > To put it bluntly, it doesn't make any sense. > > > actually what you are saying doesn't make sense Wesley.
Well, if you read into it carefully with a legal-language eye? :-) My child, because he has a brain, has the ability and capacity to "circumvent copy protection" at some stage in the future. And I, being the father, am therefore part of "making ... [a] device ... designed to circumvent copy protection". But, the get-out clause (sorry Wesley) is that a human being is not *primarily* designed for circumventing copy protection, that is a secondary activity, and therefore it doesn't apply :-) > > > What to CLUGers think? Does anyone have pointers to mailing lists / > > > groups in NZ keeping an eye on changes to copyright law? As has been suggested, NZOSS is a good place for this, and IIRC there is also an Open Politics list (not about software) somewhere - check the NZOSS archives for a mention. -jim
