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

RE: [dvd-discuss] Draft of upcoming article

I apologize for the double post, I fat-fingered and sent the reply
before I was finished editing.

I not proposing a new amendment, just a modification to the DMCA that
would codify the existence of fair use and first sale rights without
having to enumerate them.

What we actually need is a modification to the law that uses language
similar to that in the X Amendment.  Something like:

"Any rights not especially enumerated to the copyright holder are
reserved to the people."

And be very specific with those rights - the right to make commercial
copies, etc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Hartman [mailto:hartman@onetouch.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 4:58 PM
To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Draft of upcoming article

D'accord.  This whole issue about something
being a "defense" against the charge of infringement,
but requiring that the charge be brought before the
defense can be presented seems a bit bass ackwards
to me.

Perhaps it is due to the fact that "fair use" must
be determined on a case-by-case basis, therfore it
must be brought before the jury before it can be

Face it ... if the law deliniated (sp?) the fair
uses as X, Y and Z (but no more) then we'd be up
a creek when somebody came up w/ a new fair use
(possible when new technologies rear their heads
... as in the case of desiring to play a legally
purchased DVD on a computer running Linux when no
commercial player has been made available ...)

-Richard M. Hartman

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Sanchez [mailto:DSanchez@fcci-group.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 1:53 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@lweb.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Draft of upcoming article
> Are you sure?  I thought that in previous discussions it was 
> stated that
> fair use was infringement, legal but still infringement.  Maybe one of
> the attorneys on the list could clarify the issue.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah silva [mailto:nsilva@atari-source.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 4:11 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@lweb.law.harvard.edu
> Cc: dvd-discuss@lweb.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Draft of upcoming article
> If it's legal then it isn't infringment.
> It's a defense for the "charge" of copyright infringement.
>  - noah 
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Dean Sanchez wrote:
> > I would be cautious about the phrase 'illegal only "for the 
> purpose of
> > copyright infringement."'  It is my understanding that fair use is a
> > defense for copyright infringement.  So not all copyright 
> infringement
> > would be illegal.  I know that this has been discussed here before,
> but
> > maybe there should be some affirmative declaration of fair use and
> first
> > sale rights.
> > 
> > In the Wired article "A Call to End Copyright Confusion"
> > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,49201,00.html , a Disney
> > mouthpiece named Padden is quoted as saying "There is no 
> right to fair
> > use. Fair use is a defense against infringement."   The industry's
> > stance is that citizens have no rights as it relates to the material
> > that they have purchased.
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Oram [mailto:andyo@oreilly.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 2:18 PM
> > To: dvd-discuss@lweb.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Draft of upcoming article
> > 
> > 
> > I'm not convinced that tying anti-circumvention laws to
> > intent will solve the problem (after all, what's the intent
> > of the DeCSS creators and promoters? Who determines?) But
> > I'm considering adding the following paragraph to the
> > article that's at
> > http://www.oreilly.com/~andyo/professional/ruling_2600.html:
> > 
> >   Some defenders of DeCSS suggest changing copyright law so
> >   that anti-circumvention is illegal only "for the purpose
> >   of copyright infringement." This would make the
> >   anti-circumvention law less of a radical imposition on the
> >   course of technology. Perhaps it would change an
> >   unconstitutional law into a constitutional one. But it
> >   would leave it up to courts to decide what the intent of
> >   programmer is, something that is hard to determine even
> >   with DeCSS.
> > 
> > Andy
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >