RE: [dvd-discuss] Music biz wants tougher DMCA, CPRM 2 to protectcopyright

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

I like the reader's digest version of the case you just
posted.  It incorporates a number of the points that have
been brought up here in the past, and organizes them into
a concise case outline that sounds reasonable to this
engineer.  Would any of the professional laywers care to
post a critique?  Would a case against the DMCA using this 
outline be worth pursuing?

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Hudson [mailto:patentbuster@home.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 8:48 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Music biz wants tougher DMCA, CPRM 2 to
> protectcopyright
> 
> 
> There's a terrific flaw in the DMCA that could cause a 
> "copyright misuse"
> problem for the Industry.  There is a sudden energy in 
> seeking an antritrust
> exemption in the DMCA II that just died in Congress.
> 
> Here's the reader's digest version:
> 
> (1) Assume market power.  Its the MPAA after all.
> (2) DMCA does not change or limit substantive copyright law (17 USC s
> 1201(c)(1)) [DMCA doesn't excuse copyright misuse]
> (3) Access controls exist which do not bar fair uses, backups 
> under 17 USC
> ss 107, 114, etc
> (4) Principals of Industry have publically stated goal to end 
> fair use,
> limit uses to those permitted by selves [intent to monopolize]
> (5) Industry access controls employ 'perfect controls' far beyond the
> protections of 17 USC s 106:
>     (a) private distribution, private performance, and 
> private display are
> restricted (these are not rights of the copyright holder)
>     (b) all uses under 17 USC s 107 (fair use) are barred 
> with force of law
> (1201 circumvention)
> 
> As a result, Industry has unnecessarily barred all uses, not 
> just those
> protected by copyright law, only to (admittedly) extend its 
> monopoly power
> over copyrighted works far beyond what the statute permits.  
> This may (a)
> render the underlying copyrights in the works unenforceable, 
> or more likely
> (b) it would render any access rights under 1201(a) or (b) 
> unenforceable.
> 
> -dh
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
> To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 9:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Music biz wants tougher DMCA, CPRM 2 to
> protectcopyright
> 
> 
> > They only thing that will stop this is when the copyright industry
> > understands that this sort of behavior is not in their best 
> interests.
> > Large legal liability exposure might be a really  goo place 
> to start.
> > Make sure that not only the media companies, but their technology
> > "collaborators" feel the heat**.
> >
> > I really think we should consider "abuse of copyright" "collusion"
> > "price-fixing" "consumer rights/consumer fraud" class action against
> > these guys.  I wrote a (admittedly very flawed and 
> non-legally savvy)
> > proposal for a class action suit on the Twiki -- it's 
> broken but it has
> > an "edit" button on the bottom of each page.
> >
> > Dean Sanchez wrote:
> > >
> > > They're at it again.  It's obvious that the industry believes that
> > > citizens should only have the 'rights' that the industry 
> is willing to
> > > grant.
> > >
> > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/22087.html
> >
> >
> > .002
> >
> > ** I'm involved with a streaming content standards 
> organizations, and
> > when I bring up to them the potential for legal liability in
> > creating/support TPM's (for example the current case against the CD
> > anti-copy technology, or some ADA challenge -- it get their 
> attention.
> > A big lawsuit against the SMDI, CPRM, 3C, 4C, 5C bodies 
> would be enough
> > to make the rest of the industry far more circumspect about
> > colloboration I think.
> >
> >
>