[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: Some Citizens Consumers, Some Not



Also, the protections exist long after the copyright term is over and the 
works cannot enter the public domain without circumvention. Even with 
circumvention, it it possible that for strong encryption it is not 
feasible or economically viable (e.g., requiring decades of supercomputer 
time). SInce the work is distributed in such a way that it cannot enter 
the public domain, it cannot also enjoy copyright protection.




Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
06/10/2002 08:56 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc:     C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org, fairuse-discuss@mrbrklyn.com, 
schoen@loyalty.org
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: Some Citizens Consumers, Some Not


Exactly.  You can have full disclosure with protection provided
by the legal system, or you can attempt to protect it yourself
with little or no recourse should your attempts fail.  In the
other area of intellectual property (inventions) this is the 
distinction between "trade secret" and "patent".  The courts
must recognize that copyright is parallel to patent, and any
attempts by the creators of the works to enforce their own
protection must void the legal protections of copyright since 
their use avoids the legal restrictions imposed by copyright 
(e.g. allowing fair use, archival copies, etc).

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

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 6:00 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Cc: C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org;
> fairuse-discuss@mrbrklyn.com; dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu;
> schoen@loyalty.org
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: Some Citizens
> Consumers, Some Not
> 
> 
> The whole DMCA, BPDG, SSS? CD?, issue for the protection of 
> copyrights all miss 
> the point. Society must want to protect copyright (as .002 
> pointed out the 
> reaction to many as somebody tries to swipe a paper while 
> your have the dorr 
> open on the paper stand after you've paid your money is "get 
> your won DA*MNED 
> paper"). Putting in technological measure now means that 
> society has no 
> responsibility to protect copyright. Ergo. Society will not 
> protect copyright 
> and it's down the tubes.
> 
> On 8 Jun 2002 at 1:20, Seth Johnson wrote:
> 
> Date sent:                     Sat, 08 Jun 2002 01:20:49 -0400
> From:                          Seth Johnson 
> <seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org>
> Organization:                  Real Measures
> To: C-FIT_Release_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org
> Copies to: 
> C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org, fairuse-
> discuss@mrbrklyn.com,
>                dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu, schoen@loyalty.org
> Subject:                       [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: 
> Some Citizens Consumers, 
> Some Not
> Send reply to:                 dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> > 
> > (This is about ReplayTV, not the BPDG.  I just blindly
> > associated Tom Poe, who posted the original news bit, with
> > the BPDG issue.  See Seth Schoen's comments below, from the
> > DVD discussion list, dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu  --
> > Seth Johnson)
> > 
> > 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] BPDG: Some Citizens Consumers,
> > Some Not
> > Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 18:00:28 -0700
> > From: Seth David Schoen <schoen@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/     |
> > 
> 
>