RE: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech

[Joshua Stratton <cpt(at)gryphon.auspice.net>]

Sadly, this is not enough. Content creators surely are becoming more and
more confident of their ability to privately protect works with various
DRM measures that operate regardless of law. And it stretches credibility
to the breaking point to say that a DVD widely disseminated and viewable
is a trade secret.

Thus, for works that were _published_ but uncopyable (as opposed to works 
that were truly secret regardless of copyability) we might see if the 
private sector was disincentivizing it by hacking such measures and making 
the benefits of the hacking available to the public.

If they didn't we might actually want public sponsorship of such efforts.

Just as it's nice when Eldred reprints out-of-term books, this doesn't 
mean that there is no role for libraries to place their out-of-term 
collections online, nor a pressing need for them to do so when there 
aren't enough Eldreds to take up the slack.

A bounty system might work nicely, if it were needed. (it did take some 
time to break CSS after all -- overnight would've been better)

Honest trade secrets are still worthy of protection... though we do 
encourage their destruction by permitting REing, independent recreation, 
etc. to act contrary to them. Let's not encourage T.S. too much.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Richard Hartman wrote:

> Exactly.  Which is why I would advocate the establishment
> of a legal distinction similar to the one between "patent"
> and "trade secret".  Basically you have two choices: protection
> by law, or protection by private arrangement.  If you choose
> protection under the law, everything is disclosed.  Anybody
> who abuses the material gets prosecuted under the law.  If you
> choose protection by private arrangement then when that arrangement
> fails you have no recourse under the law.  
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Hosgood [mailto:steve@caederus.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:00 AM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech 
> > 
> > 
> > Michael Rolenz writes:
> > > Nor does the copyright clause [...] exist for him to maximize 
> > > his profits.
> > > 
> > 
> > Oh, come on! Of course it does. The whole reason for 
> > copyright is to allow
> > people to publish their works and not have any profits syphoned off by
> > freeloaders copying the things and selling it in competition 
> > with the author.
> > 
> > Quite right too IMHO. For a limited period.
> > 
> > Surely that's the crux of it.
> > Limited period must mean limited.
> > After that point, all existing copies of the copyrighted work 
> > become public
> > domain. That in turn implies that they must be out there in a 
> > form which allows
> > them to be used and copied freely after the copyright expires.
> > 
> > Therefore no DRM may be allowed on a copyrighted work.
> > 
> > Looking at it from the other angle, copyright exists to 
> > remedy the physical
> > problem that in order to be usable by the public, a work is inherently
> > copyable.
> > 
> > The law steps in to bar that copying for a time. But implied 
> > in all that is
> > the concept that the work was copyable in the first place. 
> > DRM removes that
> > 'feature' by technology, thus copyright is no longer applicable.
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > Steve Hosgood                               |
> > steve@caederus.com                          | "A good plan 
> > today is better
> > Phone: +44 1792 203707 + ask for Steve      |   than a 
> > perfect plan tomorrow"
> > Fax:   +44 70922 70944                      |              - 
> > Conrad Brean
> > --------------------------------------------+
> >         http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve         |  ( from the 
> > film "Wag the Dog" )
> > 
> > 
> > 
>