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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

But works don't enter the public domain at all today thanks to the Bonehead 
CTEA. Courts are loath to take cases where there are no demonstratable damages 
or issues so since nothing can enter the public domain for 20 yrs there isn't 
an issue for 20 years or if at some future time something may possibly be 
prevented from entering the public domain then that might become an issue...not 
that I agree but that's the argument they will advance...

Of course one way to force the issue is to have someone who has the rights to 
something released ONLY on DVD to relinquish it to the public domain say in his 
will.

On 19 Jun 2002 at 1:19, Richard M. Hartman wrote:

From:           	"Richard M. Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: Some Citizens 
Consumers, Some Not
Date sent:      	Wed, 19 Jun 2002 01:19:46 -0700
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Premature how?  It _is_ preventing works from entering the public domain
> even today ... not potentially, 20 years in the future; but actually, today.
> 
> --
> -Richard M. Hartman
> 
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org>
> To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 1:45 PM
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: Some Citizens Consumers,
> Some Not
> 
> 
> > And as I recall, the question has been asked in court or at the DMCA
> > hearings and the answer was that it wasn't an issue NOW but may become an
> > issue in the future....say 20 yrs from now. I realize that the courts would
> > consider a lawsuit today on the DRMs preventing works from entering the PD as
> > premature. If Eldred v Aschcroft doesn't overturn CTEA, then in 20 yrs it
> > really may be too late.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
> > Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > 06/10/2002 11:38 AM
> > Please respond to dvd-discuss
> >
> >
> >         To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'"
> <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> >         cc:
> >         Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: Some
> Citizens Consumers, Some Not
> >
> >
> > I am certain that the "technical protection prevents
> > material from entering public domain" has appeared in
> > an amicus brief ... but has the patent/trade secret
> > analogy also made it in?  And an enumeration of the
> > legal obligations of copyright protection that are
> > disallowed by tpm would be nice ... not just individual
> > argument in text, but a nice bulleted list:
> >
> >                  - prevents material from entering public domain
> >                  - does not allow for fair use
> >                  - does not allow for archival copies
> >                  - etc, etc
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --
> > -Richard M. Hartman
> > hartman@onetouch.com
> >
> > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 10:31 AM
> > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > Subject: 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/     |
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>