Re: [dvd-discuss] The 2nd Front

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

A law against armed robbery is valid.  The claim is that "digital is
different" in the scope of the potential damages (wider distribution at
lower marginal cost).  A man who says "give me your wallet or I'll kick
you until you do" is a materially different threat than a man who say
"give me your waller or I'll fire this .45 through your forehead."  Thus
a VCR pirate has to have a duplication bank and a stack of blank tapes. 
A digital pirate needs a decent internet connection to post the first
copy with each copy potentially (and geometrically) serving as a mirror.

The heart of this matter is that publishers are using the copyright
monopoly to support a publishers business model.  Until we reform
copyright law to include either mandatory licensing or the requirement
that publishers cannot hold copyrights and that copyright holders must
licensing publication on non-discriminatory terms, there will be greater
monetary damage (to the propped up publication business model) with
internet/decentralized piracy than with traditional hard-media based
piracy.

(yes I did pile a lot of different issues into that last paragraph)

.002

Scott A Crosby wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, Jim Bauer wrote:
> 
> >         [No person shall circumvent a technological measure for the purpose
> >         of copyright infringement that effectively controls access to a work
> >         protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the
> >         preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year
> >         period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter. ]
> >
> 
> Huh... Copyright infringement is already illegal. What does this clause
> do?
> 
> Thats like saying that 'threatening someone with a plastic knife for
> purposes of robbery is illegal', when the act of robbery itself is already
> illegal, and has been for decades.
>