Posted by  airider in on January 22, 2004 at 11:09 PM
|
|
|
|
User Comments
 compmore
|
Date: January 23, 2004 @ 12:35 AM
I'm glad they did. I don't know what they were trying to prove, the battle was lost. hundreds of websites already had the code posted. it's not a secret anymore.
|
Firebrand
|
Date: January 23, 2004 @ 9:53 AM
Good for them. Nothing stops me from buying a car, taking it apart and modifying it. Why should it be any different for for DVD's and CD's?
|
formerlurker
|
Date: January 23, 2004 @ 10:24 AM
Firebrand, I think it has to do with the DMCA.
|
airider
|
Date: January 23, 2004 @ 11:44 AM
formerlurker,
You'd be right if they were arguing copyright infringment, but they weren't. They were arguing trade secret violations and as compmore pointed out, it's no longer a secret nor was it at the time this person posted it, so their argument was very shakey.
This still doesn't give people the "right" to decess non-owned DVDs and keep the copy, but it does allow the existance of decess.
|
Firebrand
|
Date: January 23, 2004 @ 3:37 PM
That's my point. DMCA is a bunch of garbage. I don't understand how they can rationalize attempting to control who copies cd's, dvd's etc. In the automotive industry (for one example) there is an entire aftermarket that continues to thrive based on the fact that people like to take items that they own and throw tons of money at them to make them better or customized them to make them different. I can't think of one modern band or musician that hasn't done a cover song at some time or has never been inspired to improve on anothers work.
|
You must be logged in to post replies to news articles.
Log in or register with the form at the top of the page.
|
|
