Re: [dvd-discuss] BPDG: Some Citizens Consumers, Some Not

[Seth David Schoen <schoen(at)loyalty.org>]

Seth Johnson writes:

> > http://www.studioforrecording.org/mt/archive/000032.html#000032
> 
> DVR's Illegal For All But Hollywood . . . .

The BPDG compliance and robustness rules do not say anything about
contributory copyright liability, and do not (so far) propose a
contributory liability safe harbor for organizations which comply with
them.  Much as the DMCA created a new kind of liability for
"circumvention devices", the BPDG rules could create a new kind of
liability for "non-compliant covered products" which provide a
"demodulation function".

They also do not propose to make PVRs/DVRs illegal for use by ordinary
people.  They do propose to restrict, severely, what features such
equipment can have.  But the restrictions are generally not
restrictions on the ability to record; they're restrictions on the
ability to interoperate using open standards and open formats.  The
studios seem to suggest that they have no problem with a PVR which
uses DRM (even if the DRM does not prevent repeat viewing and even
if it does not force recordings to expire over time).

I don't know how the BPDG proposal interacts with the ReplayTV
litigation.  My guess is that the studios and the CE vendors have
fairly different views on that.

-- 
Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> | Reading is a right, not a feature!
     http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/   |                 -- Kathryn Myronuk
     http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/     |