[dvd-discuss] Article in TIME: Enemy At The Gates?

[Jon Lech Johansen <jon(at)nanocrew.net>]

There's an article in TIME covering the DVD case in Norway and the 
problems with DMCA/EUCD, with comments from quite a few people.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901020708-262924,00.html

There are also viewpoints by Jack Valenti and Kamal Idris (WIPO).

Jack forgets to mention that his "world community" did not and does
not include the general public.

I found the following to be of particular interest: "Europe's
audiovisual market is the largest in the world, and we estimate that 
in Europe alone, audiovisual piracy is costing legal businesses well 
over ?1 billion a year."

I recently got back from France where I bought the "Le Fabuleux 
Destin d'Amelie Poulain" DVD. Some of you might remember that this
movie was nominated for the Best Foreign Film Oscar. This release
is not encrypted. The DVD release of "Le Pacte des Loups" is not 
encrypted either. You can read about these movies in this article:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_37/b3748157.htm

Perhaps Jack Valenti could explain why these movies do not need
to be "protected". It could have something to do with the fact
that not all movie studios think that annoying your own customers
is the best way to fight copyright infringement.

However, there is one thing most of us can agree with Valenti on: 
CSS is not really effective.

"We believe that the only really effective way to combat piracy of 
any kind is by tough criminal enforcement."

DISCLAIMER: The picture in the TIME article is quite old, and there's
a factual error (regarding region restriction) introduced by the 
journalist on the Q&A page which has not yet been corrected. :-) 

-- 
Jon Johansen
nanocrew.net

http://www.eff.org/support/jonfund.html

MR. LEVY:  I'm sorry, your Honor. I actually have a technology expert
  with me. Would the Court like to or would they agree to hear a very
  brief statement on this point from that expert?
THE COURT: No.    -- MPAA v. Reimerdes injunction hearing, 2000/01/21