Re: [dvd-discuss] Dmitry Indictment Doc

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org]

This may be a catch-22. What you did is not illegal, (converting ebook to 
pdf) but how you did it is (using a computer program).




"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
08/29/01 11:12 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Dmitry Indictment Doc




mickey wrote:
> 
> From the indictment:
> 
> "When an ebook purchased for viewing in the Adobe eBook Reader format 
was sold by
> the publisher or  distributor, the publisher or distributor of the ebook 
could
> authorize or limit the purchaser's ability to copy, distribute, print, 
or have the
> text read audibly by the computer. "
> 
> At least this post-first-sale restriction question will have it's day in 
court.
> It's actually four questions, nicely munged together for clarity.

I missed this.  This is excellent as it brings up the issue of a TPM and
goes controls far beyond the traditional rights of a copyright holder. 
Referencing my previous note, can the eBook scheme prevent the
infringing copying of the encrypted text, or is the gov't willing to
stipulate the copying encrypted works is no infringement.  If the eBook
stand cannot stop infringing copies of the encrypted work, then it
becomes less clear just what right is being protected?  If copies of
encrypted works are NOT infringing, then it is open season on DVD's. 
The whole concept of "encryption as copy protection" (a logical falacy
on the order of the ability to swim implying witchery**) could come
neatly unraveled before the courts.

Each of the items on the list of "rights" the eBook TPM protects is
certainly within the traditional meaning of fair use -- thus again the
question of what true and valid "right" the TPM is protecting is brought
into play.  "Your honor, we will argue before this court that the
defendant is guilty based on the fact the TPM circumvented does not meet
the standard of "protecting the right of a copyright holder"

Copy -- 
    archival and space and time shifting

Distribution -- 

   of excerpts certainly as is done for academic use, parody, critiques
 
   of ENTIRE works as long as the copies are only temporarily
distributed.  One can hand out a copy of an entire (c)'d work to a class
as long as the copies are collected at the end of the class session. 
Likewise one could copy work onto a "lab" of computers as long as those
copies were deleted following that session.

Print -- this is simple space shifting, exerption

Read aloud -- 

space/media shifting, disallowing this could even have potential ADA
issues one would think. 
Preventing the sight or learning impaired from accessing a work may be a
useful "last straw" to show that protecting **arbitrary** TPM-based
restrictions cannot be considered within congressional intent or if it
is the intent of congress then it is not a constitutionally valid
exercise of powers.

Hmmm, would a good ADA/copyright abuse class action suit be a good thing
at this time?

.002

** or that of comparing the alledged witches mass to that of "a duck"
... the MPAA claim of injury then playing the role of "she turned me
into a NEWT! ... uh, I got better"  -- they've turned us into PAUPERS...
uh, we got better..."  with John Cleese playing the role of Jack "Newts"
Valenti.  But then a digress into the silly.  "too silly! too silly!"