Re: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech

[Jolley <tjolley(at)swbell.net>]

If a work can't be copied then it doesn't need copyright protection.

A work protected by a DRM preventing it from being copied doesn't mean
that the work shouldn't be protected by copyright after the DRM is
broken.

A work protected by a DRM in one type of media does not negate the
protection of copyright if published in a media without DRM.

There shouldn't be any obligation to make a work easy to copy in
exchange for copyright protection.

Being copiable is only a necessary condition for a work to be
copied.  It has nothing to do with entering the public domain.

What is the point in your statement below?  It sounds like you want
to punish or deny copyright from an author (publisher) that tries
to use a DRM.  I think a positive purpose of this discussion group is
to promote the right to access works (copyrighted and public domain)
protected by DRM schemes.  The real battle here is do we have the right
to reverse engineer a DRM scheme?  Do we have the right to discuss DRM
protections?  Do we have the right to bypass a DRM scheme in order to
read our own property?  These rights should be guaranteed by the
constitution.  These rights should be a "no brainer".

Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> 
> Being copiable, is a necessary condition for the work to enter the
> public domain at the end of copyright. If it cannot be copied, then it
> cannot enter the public domain and so cannot also be given the
> privledge of copyright.
>