Pia got me thinking on SFD talks and stuff, and some of it (inevitably) turned to DMCA issues. She suggests it share it with you all... Here's what set me off, from the linux.com.au/law/ page "to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work [...] without the authority of the copyright owner" On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 13:50 +1000, Pia Waugh wrote: > PMiller wrote: > > I do not accept that we, the people, must sacrifice our Fair Dealing > > rights, but if we must, how are we the people going to be compensated > > for the loss of our Fair Dealing rights? What additional tax (the > > normal way of compensating the people) is to be levied on the industry > > in return for the economic value of the Fair Dealing rights lost to the > > people? > A good point. I wish this question had also been asked of the copyright term extension legislation, but that horse has bolted. > > How about this: specifically grant in the legislation a permanent and > > enduring authorisation (no fee, no registration, no contact of any kind > > required with the copyright holder or their agents) for the uses > > permitted by Fair Dealing. > Yes, this is an idea. basically, I want Fair Dealing to take precedence over the DMCA-thing. Maybe the legislation could make it explicit that legally acquiring a sound recording, or motion picture, or any other creative work, such acquisition *includes* authorisation "to use and adapt [chattels], once acquired, to [the consumers] advantage and for their use as they see fit." as the High Court so eloquently put it. -- Regards Peter Miller <email@example.com> /\/\* http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~millerp/ PGP public key ID: 1024D/D0EDB64D fingerprint = AD0A C5DF C426 4F03 5D53 2BDB 18D8 A4E2 D0ED B64D See http://www.keyserver.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part