|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 09:52 AM EDT |
Precisely. This decision is based on determining the intent of congress in the
law as passed, and finding that congress had no specific intent to provide this
kind of market-dividing power to publishers generally (and indeed that they
appeared to specifically intend not to do so). Congress on the other hand did
obviously intend to provide publishers in technology media the ability to place
software-based 'locks' on content and place the force of law behind those locks.
The DMCA may be self-contradictory in this regard (by claiming that this cannot
be construed as constraining fair use), but nothing in this ruling would
challenge a specific provision of that law. Congress is entitled to replace old
law with new law and to enact specific restrictions where general ones do not
exist.
Whether this opens doors for further future cases is an interesting question,
though. I was particularly interested to see antitrust implications raised,
given the tendency these days for the "intellectual property" moniker
to be used to mask the implications of ever-expanding monopolies with a veneer
of inherent and fundamental rightness...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
