Re: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 22 Nov 2002 at 19:05, Jolley wrote:

Date sent:      	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:05:39 -0600
From:           	Jolley <tjolley@swbell.net>
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Organization:   	Southwestern Bell Internet Services
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> 
> Joshua Stratton wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Jolley wrote:
> > > There shouldn't be any obligation to make a work easy to copy in
> > > exchange for copyright protection.
> > 
> > Why not? Copyright is a quid pro quo affair, and the public via the
> > government determines what quo they want.
> 
> If you think copyright is a mess now wait until the definition of "easy
> to copy" becomes part of copyright.  How do you define "easy to copy"?

With a a 128 to 256 or even 1023 bit key using strong encryption, the issue is 
not "easy to copyright" but ability to copy. The point is not that it is EASY 
to copy but that copying has NOT been prevented or even hindered.

Even 200 yrs ago copying a book was not difficult.


> 
> Is a painting on the side of a ten story building not worthy of
> copyright
> because it isn't easy to copy? 

Being in public view ANYONE can take a picture of it and publish it.

> How about a sculpture?  A book with
> extra large pages too big to fit in a copy machine?  How many people
> have the equipment to copy a 70mm film (onto 70mm film)?  If the
> purchase
> price of a work is beyond your means does that make it not easy to
> copy?  Do you want the government to establish the size, shape and
> format
> of books, film, DVD, etc. to meet the criteria of easy to copy?
> 

There's a big difference between the ease of copying the MEDIA vs the fact that 
a distributer has taken great pains to see that the work itself cannot be 
copied.

> > 
> > The 2600 court felt that the analog hole was enough. I disagree. Firstly,
> > because it too is being plugged. The tools necessary to really use it are
> > being taken away from us and their replacements unable to satisfy that role.
> 
> I also disagree with the court.
> 
> > But secondly, and more importantly, perfect fidelity is critical.
> 
> Even a DVD is not a perfect copy of the original digital data.
> 
> > 
> > Of course, I'm not against _all_ DRM. I have no qualms about DRM systems
> > that can make the exact same decision that the Supreme Court would make if the
> > user attempting to do stuff with the work and the copyright holder both
> > brought it before them at that instant time.
> > 
> 
> This will never happen.
> 
> > 
> > Honestly, I think that the various publisher's threats of leaving the
> > market are bluff.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> > There's just too much money to be made still. Tell them
> > to use legal remedies exclusively of self help, and then disincentivize
> > self help further, and I bet they'll just keep on publishing.