On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:00:07 -0500, KU4QD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>That isn't the main problem issue. There are two: one is that
>reverse engineering would become illegal.
UCITA does NOT forbid reverse engineering. This is a common myth.
What UCITA does is make enforceable covenants that m
>This is completely incorrect and expresses a serious lack of
>understanding of what UCITA would actually do.
So, pls explain exactly what UCITA would do.
__
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Kelly Lynn Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> UCITA does NOT forbid reverse engineering. This is a common myth.
> What UCITA does is make enforceable covenants that may prohibit,
> amongst other things, reverse engineering. It's arguable that such
> covenants are _already_ enforceable.
I'm n
I detected the following emission from Robert Kiesling:
> It's been my experience that boycotts don't work very well anyway.
Hmm... I'm not seeing films, renting videos or buying DVDs at present
because I'm boycotting the MPA. Works well for me but my other half's
not too happy about it.
I ele
Hi, Kelly, and everyone else,
This is just too important an issue to let your opinion go unchallenged.
> >That isn't the main problem issue. There are two: one is that
> >reverse engineering would become illegal.
>
> UCITA does NOT forbid reverse engineering. This is a common myth.
> What UCIT
Robert Kiesling wrote:
>
> I'm not familiar enough with UCITA to argue that. But the injunctions
> against distributing DeCSS DVD decoding software, and the jail time
> that the author spent, indicates quite sufficiently to me that there
> are big businesses quite willing to pay for closed syste
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:35:01 GMT, "J B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>So, pls explain exactly what UCITA would do.
I posted on this a while ago. UCITA mainly ratifies existing
decisional law in the area of copyright licensing (so if you oppose
the current trend in decisional law you would probably
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:34:37 -0600, Robert Kiesling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I'm not familiar enough with UCITA to argue that. But the
>injunctions against distributing DeCSS DVD decoding software, and the
>jail time that the author spent, indicates quite sufficiently to me
>that there are big
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:47:20 -0500, KU4QD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Some really bright people, including some really bright attorneys
>disagree with you. Let's start with an Open Source advocate, Richard
>Stallman:
>>UCITA has another indirect consequence that would hamstring free
>>software d
> Robert Kiesling wrote:
> >
> > I'm not familiar enough with UCITA to argue that. But the injunctions
> > against distributing DeCSS DVD decoding software, and the jail time
> > that the author spent, indicates quite sufficiently to me that there
> > are big businesses quite willing to pay for
Robert Kiesling wrote:
>
> I'm not certain what you mean by "action." The MPAA tried this sort
> of thing when CD's came to market, IIRC. I would think that the DeCSS
> legal actions are more urgent than UCITA, if only because they're not
> subject to legislation. Personally, I think the DVD s
11 matches
Mail list logo
