On 5/6/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
It doesn't behave like copyright? It is
copyright. It's part of
Title 17 of the US Code, which is called "Copyrights". And the name
of the law. The Digital Millenium *Copyright* Act. The title of
section 3? *Copyright* protection systems and *copyright* management
information. The treaty it was created to implement? The WIPO
*Copyright* Treaty.
Copyright encompasses a lot of rights beyond just copying.
Anthony
Copyright is finite the stuff we are talking about is not.
Copyright does not protect again independent creation. The stuff we
are talking about does appear to.
Copyright under US law requires creativity. No evidence the DRM stuff does
Copyright has fair use clauses. The DRM protection stuff does not.
It isn't copyright by any reasonable standards and the courts have not
supported the suggestion that it is. If it was copyright it would
quite possibly be be unconstitutional in it's current wording since it
lasts longer than forever -1 day.
Additionally the name of the bill means nothing unless you are going
to suggest that under UK law protesting in certain areas of London
without a permit falls under the definition of "serious and organised
crime"
--
geni