RE: [dvd-discuss] Judge Rejects Challenge to eBook Case

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

JUdge Whyte seems to believe that if something is in the public domain, 
then its availability in any accessible format (e.g., text, book, VHS etc) 
provides justification for disallowing the fair use defense for 
circumvention. What are the consequences of denying fair use to public 
domain works. The reductio ad absurdum argument is that if the work is 
only available in the LOC and everywhere else as a protected ebook, then 
the work is in the public domain? He, as with many today, seem to lack an 
understanding of what the Public Domain is.  I contend that ANY access of 
a public domain work is undenyably fair use since there can be NO 
copyright infringement and doesn't need to be a fair use because ANY use 
is allowed. That's where his argument falls down. 




Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
05/14/2002 05:16 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Judge Rejects Challenge to eBook Case



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 12:54 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Judge Rejects Challenge to eBook Case
> 
> 
> <Snip-good stuff from EFFector 15.13 deleted. >
> 
> Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release
> Judge Rejects Challenge to eBook Case
> Rules Digital Copyright Law Trumps Free Speech
> For Immediate Release: Wednesday, May 8, 2002
> 
> San Jose, CA - A federal judge today denied a Russian 
> software vendor's 
> request to dismiss criminal charges against the company for 
> violations of 
> the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
> 
> 
> <Snip>
> 
> Despite acknowledging a lack of clarity in the Congressional record 
> surrounding the adoption of the DMCA, Judge Whyte ruled that 
> due process 
> was not violated. He said the plain meaning of the DMCA 
> statute was to ban 
> 
> circumvention tools completely because Congress had assumed 
> that "most 
> uses" of the tools would be for unlawful infringement rather 
> than fair or 
> noninfringing uses.
> 

I believe that the DMCA explicitly mentions that nothing
in the act should be taken to negate fair use provisions.

Congress could NOT have meant to ban circumvention tools
completely if that clause is included.

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!