Talk:WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act
| WikiProject Law | (Rated Start-class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
I've moved this back to it's actual title. Jamesday 22:17, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
And now I've completed the edits which explain why using just one part of this act for the whole act didn't make sense. Jamesday 01:06, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that this thing states 'effective technological measure', yet the word "effective" means 'able to accomplish a purpose', so that the very fact that something can be circumvented means it isn't effective...? [IANAL]
- An alternative interpretation of the term 'effective', and one that seems to have been followed by the courts, is more like 'having the effect of'. Thus the word has been interpreted as expanding, rather than limiting applicability. (Measures that weren't even designed for copy protection might have the effect of making copying more difficult.) But it is certainly ambiguous on its face. --Speight (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Please make a revision noting that while the WIPO act was part of the DMCA, the WIPO treaty came 2 years earlier and was actually the cause of the DMCA. This article's opening appears to insinuate that WIPO is child of the DMCA.
-Emerson (I don't have a wikipedia account) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.40.159 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
