RE: [dvd-discuss] Draft of upcoming article

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

Darn, you're right.  Fair use is not something outside
of infringement, it is a _defense_ for infringing.

Shoot.

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

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jolley [mailto:tjolley@swbell.net]
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 4:53 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@lweb.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Draft of upcoming article
> 
> 
> How do you define "copyright infringement"?  I just read an article in
> "Information Outlook" (a Special Library Association magazine) that
> seems to define copyright infringement as reproducing a 
> copyrighted work
> by someone other than the copyright owner.  This includes 
> reproductions
> that are fair use.  The article didn't associate copyright 
> infringement
> as an illegal activity.  It could be legal.
> 
> The article did say that publishers are increasingly calling copyright
> infringement "theft" or "piracy".  Perhaps these six words would be
> better - "for purposes of theft or piracy" - however those 
> are defined.
> 
> Richard Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > It might be nice to add on a section that covers the
> > remedy suggested time and time again.  To "fix" the
> > DMCA (or at least a 90% fix) would require the addition
> > of five words: "for purposes of copyright infringement".
> > 
> > That is "No person shall circumvent a technological measure"
> > should be "No person shall circumvent a technological measure
> > for purposes of copyright infringement".
> > 
> > That, and the "trafficking" sections ... after all, if you
> > can legitimately bypass a technological measure for fair
> > use purposes, then the tools used to accomplish this must
> > be available.
> > 
> > --
> > -Richard M. Hartman
> > hartman@onetouch.com
> > 
> > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andy Oram [mailto:andyo@oreilly.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 6:03 AM
> > > To: dvd-discuss@lweb.law.harvard.edu
> > > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Draft of upcoming article
> > >
> > >
> > > Since I haven't been on this list very long, it may seem
> > > presumptuous to post something for review. However, I got a
> > > bit of help beforehand and have been following copyright
> > > issues for a long time. If you have time, please take a look
> > > at this article (which doesn't reflect the past 24 hours'
> > > worth of news):
> > >
> > >     http://www.oreilly.com/~andyo/professional/ruling_2600.html
> > >
> > > I will probably publish it either in Web Review
> > > (http://webreview.com/) or O'Reilly Network
> > > (http://www.oreillynet.com/), but not for several
> > > weeks. There's plenty of time for corrections.
> > >
> > > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Andy Oram  O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.        email: 
> andyo@oreilly.com
> > > Editor     90 Sherman Street                       voice: 
> 617-499-7479
> > >            Cambridge, MA 02140-3233                  fax: 
> 617-661-1116
> > >            USA                          
http://www.oreilly.com/~andyo/
> > Stories at Web site:
> > The Bug in the Seven Modules     Code the Obscure     The Disconnected
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >