Re: [dvd-discuss] Digital Rights Management Gedanken Experiments

[Ron Gustavson <rongusss(at)mediaone.net>]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:33:15 GMT, "Steve Hosgood" <steve@caederus.com> wrote:


>Maybe I'm just reiterating what we keep on saying here, but thinking up
>acceptable DRM systems is the wrong way to go. We should be working out
>how to demonise the whole concept of DRM in the eyes of the public. Somehow,
>DRM needs to be seen by Joe Public as on a par with child pornography.
>
>Nothing less will kill it sufficiently dead.

The Lessig piece that ran this week goes a long way in debunking DMCA
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/06/books/chapters/06-1st-lessi.html?homepageinsidebox

The public generally supports copyright as we have known it--even the longer
95 year variant. But they need to know that this tradition is, as Judge
Kaplan told us, effectively repealed by DMCA. So, is DMCA is the first step
in an attempt to seize total control of the raw material of speech? [the
domino theory]

>There are no 'Digital Rights' so there can be no 'Digital Rights Management'.
>The only rights a copyright holder has are:
>1) The right to prevent others making money from copying his/her works.
>2) The right to prevent others cutting into his/her profits by copying
>   those works.
>..these apply just as much to works on digital media as they do to analogue.
>
>See Napster. They were judged to have copied digital works from CDs illegally.
>There are no anti-copy systems on CDs, but the case was decided in favour of
>the "rights holders". End of story.
>
>No need for DRM then. Double end of story!

>                          -------------------------
>
>Gedanken experiments on how to demonise the entire concept of DRM, and make any
>researcher who dabbles in the field look like a child molester are welcome.

How about describing some hypothetical systems which effectively repeal 4000
years of jurisprudence-- Personal Rights Management or Property Rights
Management perhaps?


        __________NO-&infin;-DO__________