[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Antitrust Liability for DRM vendors
- To: Openlaw DMCA Forum <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Antitrust Liability for DRM vendors
- From: Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 00:09:31 -0800 (PST)
- In-reply-to: <3E41545B.20017.1DE54E@localhost>
- References: <3E41545B.20017.1DE54E@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 email@example.com wrote:
> I'm not certain I buy the Antitrust argument as much as I do the abuse
> of copyright.
Well, there's no doubt that a copyright is a trust, it's just a state
sanctioned (and created) one.
> To disseminate works that do not permit fair use is to abuse the terms
> of copyright. The proper punishment should be the loss of copyright.
As I understand it, the ONLY remedy for abuse is the removal of ALL
copyrights controlled by the convicted.
> He argued that it's hard to believe that they are not acting in concert
> given the result.
Well, while it might be hard to believe, but it's quite POSSIBLE. I would
say that most of the things that happen are the sum of the actions of
disparate goals and intentions. But unlike the addition of vectors, the
result isn't always clearly influenced by any of the individual actions.
Personally, I think too much attention is paid to the minutiae of reasons
and intent. Very few people INTENTIONALLY do evil, yet evil is still
present. We need to focus (as a society) on effects rather than purposes.
Jeme A Brelin