RE: [dvd-discuss] Felten Opp to DoJ Motion to Dismiss

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

Not speaking for John Z. here but WRT to copyright the message is what 
should be covered not the media. THe media is merely the medium for making 
it available. Do you really think the DVDCAA wants to make DVD available 
for your benefit and enjoyment over what benefit and enjoyment you can get 
from the older VHS format? The point is that when they publish (not 
license) DVDs, they don't get any special benefits in copyright law over 
what they can do. They are stuck with it as it is - namely fair use. But 
all the fixation over "digital is different" has obscured that.




"Dean Sanchez" <DSanchez@fcci-group.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/29/01 01:45 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Felten Opp to DoJ Motion to Dismiss


Hasn't 'space shifting' been lost with the advent of Macrovision?  You
can no longer copy a VHS tape to any other media without an intermediate
device to defeat the Macrovision protection.  Aren't those devices now
illegal under the DCMA?  We are addressing the issue of DVD and css, but
let's not forget that we have also lost the fair use of VHS as well.  I
know that I have raised this question before, but was the inability to
copy VHS tapes due to Macrovision addressed during the trial?  The
argument that VHS was available for fair use was incorrectly stated in
the portion of the trial transcripts that I read.

We want to be careful with the idea of the message not the media being
what is purchased.  DVD affords a higher quality product.  Is the
purchased product actually the same?  We definitely don't want the
industry to get away with 'use VHS, it's the same thing'. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Noah silva [mailto:nsilva@atari-source.com]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 4:22 PM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Felten Opp to DoJ Motion to Dismiss


> key point in copyright which the courts have missed. Namely, the
copyright 

I don't think the courts have missed it, consumers have had the
recognized
right of "time shifting" (recording to watch later) and "space
shifting" (copying from one media to another" for quite some time.

> is upon the fixation of the idea but NOT the media in which it is
fixed. 
> When I purchase  a copy in any media, I gain the right to possess a
copy 
> IN ANY MEDIA.  That the types of media has increased ten fold in the
20th 
> century and the subsequent resale of works in new media has caused 
> confusion of the media with the copyright. To mangle Marshall
Macluen-The 
> media is not the message.

-- noah silva