RE: [dvd-discuss] (Slightly? OT) Moxi combo CD-MP3-PVR-DVD player

["Kroll, Dave" <Dave_Kroll(at)cargilldow.com>]

Exactly.  Other alternative explanations:

* Moxi paid their protection monies to the RIAA.
* Moxi is more afraid of the DVDCCA than the RIAA.
(Was Rearden Steel a DVDCCA licensee?  Maybe they're not using
and "authorized" CSS implementation?)
* Someone has a patent on "Streaming DVD's to a distant
TV", which Moxi hasn't yet licensed.
* Any/All of the above.


David Kroll

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kurt Hockenbury [mailto:khockenb@stevens-tech.edu] 
Sent:	Monday, January 07, 2002 2:30 PM
To:	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:	Re: [dvd-discuss] (Slightly? OT) Moxi combo CD-MP3-PVR-DVD
player

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Kroll, Dave wrote:

> `The wireless network will make it possible to connect the Media Center
> set-top box to remote televisions with the purchase of a $36 Media Center
> Extension. The remote television will share all of the capabilities of the
> base station, like recording programs, watching live shows and listening
to
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> CD's. Although it is technically possible to play DVD's remotely, because
of
  ^^^^
> intellectual property restrictions that function is not included in the
> system.'
>
> Maybe this is OT, but it does fit in with the theme of `unable to use your
> own property'.

On top of which, why do "intellectual property restrictions" prevent
streaming
DVDs, but not CDs?

Do CDs somehow receive less protection under the law?

It should do both, or neither.  The split only serves to point out the
MPAA/DVDCCA/etc's "privilege".  How long until the RIAA jumps in and demands
the same "rights" to not stream?

-Kurt