Re: [dvd-discuss] Draft of upcoming article

["Mark Hore" <baerwulf(at)echidna.id.au>]

how about this

> > That is "No person shall circumvent a technological measure"
> > should be "No person shall circumvent a technological measure
> > for purposes of copyright infringement".
where copyright infringement is defined as breaching one of the following
rights of the copyright holder without permission
     1.         reproduce the work.
     2.         publicly display the work
     3.         make a derivative of the work
     4.         publicly perform the work
notwithstanding the following exemptions
    ...
    installing software
    ...
    (Some fair usees should be added to here as well)
and allowing the following defenses
    ...
finally any licence or contract granting permission to one of the rights of
the copyright holder grants that right complete. (ie a licence to copy (1)
exempts the copyright holder from bringing action under copyright law and is
limited only by contract law). licences must grant rights not granted by the
exemptions to be valid. refusal of a licence must not prohibit a person from
access to a copyrighted work subject to the conditions of copyright
(clicking no must still allow software to install).



RTFM: No just an acronym, it's the LAW!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jolley" <tjolley@swbell.net>
To: <dvd-discuss@lweb.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 8:52 AM
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
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
>