Re: [dvd-discuss] Would this consistute circumvention.

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

As you've pointed out other times, the distinction between pre-first-sale 
and post first sale TPM is the crux of the problem with the DCMA. For the 
former, the DMCA is truly marginally redundant but for the latter, as 
Corley, Felton, Skylarov cases show, it's vague an over reaching....if the 
problem was hacked cable and satellite boxes maybe congress should have 
limited the scope of the law to those items in particular instead of 
trying to define a new and improved copyright act for the 'digital 
millenium" when they didn't really know what digital means.

I don't know about you but how does it feel to know that we are living in 
the "digital millenium". I've only been doing digital stuff since I was in 
high school designing music sequencers using TTL circuits.




"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/09/01 12:31 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Would this consistute circumvention.


I certainly vote for marginally redundant over vague and overreaching. 
Actually it matches the congressional record better than the current
language.  Adding "for purposes of copyright infringement" keeps
pre-first-sale circumventions, and hacked cable and sattelite boxes or
smart card all illegal, while eliminating the horribles associated with
the current "function" (does it circumvent) vs. "purpose" (is it
intended for infringing copyrights) definition.

It would certainly address Sklyarov, Felton, and Corely cases and
concerns.  As a "purpose" component of the definition would require a
less simplistic argument then was used by the Adobe/FBI, SDMI, and
Kaplan -- respectively.  Valid non-infringing (as opposed to
non-circumventing) uses are thus a defense and this fine group would
have been celebrating success now.

Given the congressional record, I wonder if the appeal court will find a
"purpose" requirement in the "umbra and emanations" of the DMCA to save
it or toss the law out with pointed commented about what would have.

Richard Hartman wrote:
> 
> You could make the same complaint about the
> "us a gun, go to jail" laws.  Those impose
> harsher penalties when a gun is used in the
> commission of a crime than the crime alone
> would incur.  (i.e. if you hold up the 7-11
> with a knife you aren't in for as much time
> as you would be if you use a gun).
> 
> Likewise, if you have to bypass a digital TPM
> to commit your infringement you could be
> liable for harsher penalties than infringement
> alone would incur.
> 
> You might be able to argue whether or not digital
> deserves additional protection of this nature,
> but it is not entirely redundant.
>