Subject: Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:00:36 -0400

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Nice try.  Justice O'Connor says nothing of the kind.  She says that
> the purpose of copyright is to protect *original* expression as
> implemented by Congress under the authority of the Constitution.  The
> point of Feist is not that *you* have a right; Justice O'Connor does
> not speak to that issue *at all* that I could find.  The point is the
> limitation on *authors'* exclusive rights to *original* expression *as
> granted by Congress*.

IANAL and not even a supreme court watcher, but I find it admirable
when a USSC justice interprets the law and Constitution, (instead of
latching onto rights they think they see in shadowy "penumbras" or
rights they read in the laws of other countries.)

I think Thomas Lord is correct in trying to steer discussions back
to business.  That is the point of fsb, even if the discussions are
on subjects easy to have strong opinions.

As I understand it, the law and case law are not so well settled in the
fair use vs publishers rights to restrict, including the constitutionality of 
all kinds of DRM and stretches of the DMCA.

As a practical matter (and business is always about what is practical),
if you must go all the way to the Supremes to settle a copyright/DRM issue,
then there is a problem that a business or community should try to avoid or