Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: nimmer

[Eric Seppanen <eds(at)reric.net>]

On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 04:25:31PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote:
> 
> >   B. You would need to create an "unauthorized derivative work" that
> >      is assumed to be illegal in an unspecified way.
> 
> Yes. Xing would sue the crap out of you. "Space shifting" for personal use
> isn't going to save you if you make a derivitive that's got important content
> differences.

I thought he meant a derivative of the playback software, not a
derivative of the movie.

> Well, its obvious the DMCA didn't turn out to be what he thought. It is a bad
> law because of it's absurd overreaching. There certainly are some more modest
> steps that could have been taken that would adequately arm the MPAA to fight
> Napsterization of DVD's in the courtroom. 

I guess I can believe that he imagined something different from the DMCA
we ended up with.  But since the DMCA changed remarkably little from its
first proposals (and I'll bet you a nickel somebody from the MPAA helped
write the first draft), it's hard to imagine a guy like Nimmer getting
surprised by a new copyright law.

With a weak DMCA, Divx might fail due to third-party players. So his
point doesn't seem convincing either way.  All academic since Divx
failed the public's laugh test anyway.