On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:39, Jim Cheetham wrote: > 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 :-)
Thanks. I'm glad you can see the funny side of it. ;) The law is still idiotic, though, being far, far too broad. Still, it would be interesting to see just to what uses one could put these overly broad provisions - I can see a future Aziz Choudry using such provisions to halt wire-taps and such-like, because they have been left so broad it is not only legitimate but compulsory to make such use of them. And I would be delighted to hear about such a case! Wesley Parish > > > > > 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 -- Wesley Parish * * * Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish * * * Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?" You ask, "What is the most important thing?" Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
