Re: WIPO Copyright Treaty Article 11 & Grammar

On 4/24/98, Seth Greenstein <sethg[_at_]access.digex.net> wrote:
>
> Perhaps one of us misunderstood the other. My understanding of the
> provision is that if either of the last conditions exists -- i.e., the
> act that is the purpose of the circumvention is authorized by the
> copyright owner or permitted by law -- then the law need not impose
> liability.

Hmm, I'm not sure I want to beat this poor horse further into the ground, but here are a couple of more whacks ( :) ):

--from before--

Me:
>
> Is the meaning of that construction "neither authorized nor permitted"?

Seth:
>
> No. "Or" means "or," not exclusive or. On logic (veering dangerously
> toward substance), various countries' laws include the concept that acts
> that are permitted by law need no authorization from the copyright owner,
> or are permitted despite the objections of the copyright owner, and so
> anything other than "or" could not have been accepted.

--end of before--

It seems to me that if you say that the law will not impose liability if either of the conditions stated in the positive are true, then you *must* say that the law will only impose liability if both of the conditions stated in the negative are true. This is essentially what Mac said.

Bob Stock
<bstock[_at_]ucla.edu> Received on Fri Apr 24 1998 - 18:13:19 GMT