Re: Circumvention Technology?

On 10/29/98, Shelly Warwick <swarwick[_at_]sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> Below is a copy of a post from Edupage. Wonder how this fits in
> with the anti-circumvention technology provisions of the new
> law. It doesn't seem to circumvent protection, just faciliate
> recording.
>
> COURT REJECTS ATTEMPT TO BLOCK RECORDING DEVICE
>
> Federal District Judge Audrey B. Collins of Los Angeles has denied
> a request by the recording industry to stop production of a 2.4-ounce
> $188 handheld recording device called Rio, which can record and play
> back digital music found on the Internet. The industry is concerned
> that the recorder will encourage widespread piracy, and that
> manufacturers of such devices "have a moral obligation to protect
> creative works." But a lawyer for Diamond Multimedia Systems, the
> company that makes Rio, asks: "Are they saying no one can develop a
> new technology without their permission?" (New York Times 28 Oct 98)
>

Because of the nature of the device, it was decided under the provisions of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 USC 1000 et seq.

Mark Lemley
<mlemley[_at_]mail.law.berkeley.edu> Received on Mon Nov 02 1998 - 18:42:23 GMT