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

Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing


Note that this notion of "moral rights" is what the WIPO
Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) is all about.  It
takes the concept of moral rights from countries like
France, and uses it to mandate DRM at the international
level.  It enumerates a right of attribution, which makes
sense; but then it combines the notion of a right of
"integrity" with a provision requiring that DRM metadata be
enforced.

Note that this treaty went into effect only this past May
20th, on the strength of a required complement of 30
signatures, including only the US, Japan, and 28 other
less-dominant nations.  None of the big Western European
nations signed, including those that are the supposed models
for this notion of moral rights.

A "right of integrity" coupled with mandated support for DRM
(as you find laid out in the WPPT) is a far cry from a
reasonable view of the rights of the public in information
technology, and is a long stretch from what traditional
"moral rights" meant before the digital age.

The basic problem with this thrust is that it puts the
creators before the rights of the public.  While some see
this as an "individual authors versus publishers" issue, the
content industries have only been too glad to use the
analysis to help them rationalize even more draconian
notions and transition themselves into a new era in which
the public's (and all information producers'!) inalienable
right to use information is ratified and instrumentalized
out of existence, all supposedly for the sake of the
creators.

Who do we think will modulate the inevitable, ludicrous
future debates about where supposed "moral rights" end and
the right to use information freely begin?  Not the
authors.  Not the public.

The truth of the matter is, being able to "go to the source"
will increasingly be recognized as the essential value that
we may accord to the role of authors and of reliable
historical archives.  A respect for an author's attestation
regarding a work's integrity, and recourse to archives are
all that we can ever dream of relying on, once we get past
the idea of trying to sell content that can only be
"consumed" in specific ways.

The WPPT, along with the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which
originally mandated anticircumvention legislation (of which
the DMCA is America's national implementation), and another
failed treaty proposing to cover database data, were all
pursued following on the US Supreme Court's decision in
Feist Publications.  This is to me on of the most fruitful
lines of inquiry in all of the issues areas related to
information freedom.

Seth Johnson

Richard Hartman wrote:
> 
> Absatively, posalutely.
> 
> Now ... how do we get them to _see_ that?
> 
> Preferably before this cr@p about -mandatory- DRM
> get's passed ...
> 
> --
> -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: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 8:46 AM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing
> >
> >
> > That's a good observation. It IS a slippery slope once one
> > abandons the
> > first sale doctrine and begins to put claims and restrictions
> > afterwards.
> > While it should be no surprise, given the laws our
> > congresscritters have
> > been coming up with lately, but they are totally oblivious
> > that they are
> > altering fundamental doctrine. The laws violate fundamantals.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
> > Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > 09/25/2002 08:34 AM
> > Please respond to dvd-discuss
> >
> >
> >         To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'"
> > <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> >         cc:
> >         Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:41 PM
> > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing
> > >
> > >
> > > On 23 Sep 2002 at 11:21, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > >
> > > From:                          Richard Hartman
> > <hartman@onetouch.com>
> > > To:
> > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-
> > > discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> > > Subject:                       RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing
> > > Date sent:                     Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:21:04 -0700
> > > Send reply to:                 dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > >
> > > > It would certainly be harder to edit in material
> > > > that is not on the DVD than it would be to create
> > > > an alternate playlist ignoring material that actaully
> > > > is there.
> > > >
> > > > The only thing I can think of that might fall into
> > > > this category is the DVDs that come with "deleted
> > > > scenes".  As long as those are on the same DVD as
> > > > the movie itself (instead of on a second, "bonus
> > > > material" DVD) then you could create a playlist that
> > > > re-inserted those scenes into the movie.
> > > >
> > > > Beyond that, there isn't much you could do w/o
> > > > actually burning NEW DVDs w/ your material-to-be-included
> > > > and that would clearly be a violation of copyright since
> > > > you would have to burn the base movie on it as well.
> > > >
> > > > I _suppose_ you could come up w/ work-arounds such
> > > > as storing your material on a second disc and creating
> > > > a special movie player that worked with a playlist that
> > > > read from two DVD/CD drives ... if that approach was taken I
> > > > do not see that they could get you for violating anything
> > > > since the original DVD would be a) required; and b) unaltered.
> > >
> > > WHich also violates the sanctity of the artist's moral
> > right over the
> > > exhibition of his works in some countries...personally I wish
> > > people, lawmakers
> > > included, would understand the difference between legal and
> > > moral. While legal,
> > > and it should remain legal, I would not consider it moral
> > > since it alters the
> > > work beyond anything that the creator envisioned. Yet once in
> > > the public domain
> > > the work is grist for anyone's mill and should be. The battle
> > > against that sort
> > > of misuse should be fought by the critics in writing and the
> > > public by ignoring
> > > it.
> > >
> >
> > I am not so sure that the artist's work _is_ altered.  After
> > all, there is the original DVD -- paid for (I hope) by the
> > viewer -- and it remains unaltered by the process I described.
> >
> > After First Sale, the viewer has the right to view the material
> > in whatever way they see fit.
> >
> > We're on the infamous "slippery slope".  Where would _you_ draw
> > the line as to the user's rights after first sale?
> >
> > Can he view the movie :
> >
> >                  on a licensed dedicated DVD player
> >
> >                  on a computer, Windows OS, using licensed
> > CSS decoding
> > software
> >
> >                  on a computer, Linux OS, using unlicensed
> > DeCSS software
> >
> >                  on a computer, with a custom playlist to skip the
> > "naughty bits"
> >
> >                  on a computer, with a custom playlist to
> > re-insert the
> >                                  deleted scenes that reside
> > on the same
> > disc
> >
> >                  on a computer with custom software to re-insert the
> > deleted
> >                                  scenes when they reside on
> > the second
> > disc of a set
> >
> >                  on a computer with custom software to insert
> > new material
> >
> >                                  that resides on a second, separately
> > produced disc
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -Richard M. Hartman
> > hartman@onetouch.com
> >
> > 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> >
> >
> >

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but
only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual
practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no
claim of exclusive rights.