RE: [dvd-discuss] Dmitry Indictment Doc

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

John,

Those questions are not only relevant to Skylarov's case but to TPMs in 
general. Post them on TWIKI or I will if you don't mind.





Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
08/29/01 11:02 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Dmitry Indictment Doc




> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
...
> 
> The one ray of hope here is the phrase found in all counts
> 
> "Technology that Protects a Right of a Copyright Owner"
> 
> That hope comes in the following way -- the rights of a 
> copyright owner
> are limited both by law and precedent.  Points I'd like to see the
> defense raise
> 
> (1) Exactly what of the limited rights are protected by the eBook TPM?
> Unlike the DVD case, the prosecution should be required to show what
> right of copyright owner is specifically being violated, and that the
> defendants actually did so.
> 
> (1.1) Is the right protect is to prohibit infringing copies? 
> (1.1.1) Doe AEPBR have the ability to make infringing copies, or is it
> primarily designed to do so?
> (1.1.2) Would not some additional software be required to make
> infringing copies and would that software be considered a 
> "component" of
> a this device? (then why isn't the Apache and ftp team in the dock?)
> 
> (1.2) Does the gov't understand that copies of the encrypted eBook are
> still possible?
> (1.2.1) Does the gov't argue (or stipulate) that copies of 
> the encrypted
> work are not infringing?
> (1.2.2) Would this mean that one could copy the encrypted work freely?
... 
(all the way to 3.2)

Nice set of questions, John.  I hope you can get a copy
to the defense team.


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!