[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The Grounds for Appeal

"well everybody just KNOWS that_______[fill in the blank]"...you 
saw the same thing in the appeal regarding the government's 
compelling interest. IN the case of the media lawyers, their greed 
blinds them. In the case of the appellate court, their desire to 
preserve a status quo. 

Personally, I almost hope that they do try a $1.50/play/per PC and 
loose their shirts. Maybe Stephan Foster HipHop might become 
the rage when nothing new sells.

Date sent:      	Mon, 03 Dec 2001 10:29:15 -0700
From:           	"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The Grounds for Appeal
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Robert,
> as part of my conference last week I had extensive conversations with
> one of the corporate counsels for a major media company.  He
> absolutely and honestly doesn't believe that Johansen was trying to
> enable a Linux player.  "I don't believe that for a second..." was the
> quote.  Even after I mentioned that I had been in contact with him
> through an internet group (this one, though I didn't tell him that)
> and that he had confirmed that the Linux player was his goal, he was
> unshakeable in his belief.  I'm getting the real sense that the
> lawyers (and the courts as they are derived from these lawyers) are
> projecting their own cultural bias to the actions of Open Source
> coders (evil hackers) -- essentially they wouldn't ever do stuff like
> this, and they don't understand the passion that Open Source and Linux
> evoke...
> The other sense I got from my conversation with him was the sense of
> "groupthink" going on inside the media companies.  Even with the the
> doubts about the impossible of absolute end-to-end protection (and the
> voices from the panelists that it was technically impossible) --
> nobody wants to tell senior managment, that their dreams of "green
> cloud" (raining money) business models just won't hold up.  That at
> $1.50 per song that is locked to 1 PC nobody is going to pay -- that
> copy protected CD's simply *create* a demand for free music (and lose
> the goodwill of the people who would otherwise say "get your own ****
> paper".
> JJ, 
> If you want I can send you this gentlemen's email address offlist.
> .002
> "Robert S. Thau" wrote:
> > 
> > Bryan Taylor writes:
> >  > I couldn't agree with you more on this. I think the key point for
> >  > the next phase is to hammer the distinctions between these three
> >  > concepts:
> >  >
> >  > 1. pure speech expressing functional ideas
> >  > 2. "functionality" = a device capable of allowing a human to
> >  > perform a task 3. conduct = the actual act of exercising a device
> > 
> > Errrmmm... I may be speaking out of turn here, not having reviewed
> > the opinion in detail yet, but a common reaction has been that the
> > judges chose their conclusions first, and then shaped their logic to
> > fit --- and weren't particularly troubled when they had to stretch
> > that logic awfully thin to cover the facts.
> > 
> > If that's anywhere near the mark, then the key point that needs to
> > be hammered home would be an alternative view of the facts ---
> > perhaps beginning by pointing out that Johansen was trying not to
> > pirate any videos, but simply to build a DVD player, and that
> > testimony was not contradicted by anyone at trial...
> > 
> > rst