[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[dvd-discuss] Comments from the Judge in the 321 studios case
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: [dvd-discuss] Comments from the Judge in the 321 studios case
- From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:30:00 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcM0HuTYih8PkHDzRN2l4l5dS1qAHQABU9JA
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] Disney Does Self Destructing DVDs
For example, when
Durie opened her statements by saying the studios are mistakenly trying to argue
that 321 is offering a tool for burglars, the judge fired back, "Under the
statute, all it has to be is a circumvention device."
The thing is, she's
right. It's the law itself that needs to be
There is one
promising bit at the end of the article:
Illston asked Zacharia to explain the
conundrum of locking up copyrighted works behind encryption and then making the
breaking of that encryption illegal, even after the copyrights on those works
expire. The judge wondered if it would effectively extend copyrights to keep
such works out of the public domain.
Zacharia said it would not, because the
copyright had expired.
"But it's encrypted. If it doesn't stop
being encrypted, it's still encrypted," Illston said, adding that such protected
works still couldn't be legally copied.
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the