Re: [dvd-discuss] Ramblings on DVDCCA appeal from M.Rolenz

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

Good points. WRT to copyright law digital ISN"T different but digital IS 
different because the consumer can perform more with the work than before. 
Also digital enables the copyright holders to perform all sorts of 
mischief they never were able to do before.In some sense, NOBODY is 
forcing the copyright holders to put works out digitally but when they do, 
they must deal with the capabilities and limitations inherent in that 
medium.




"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
01/07/02 09:26 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Ramblings on DVDCCA appeal from M.Rolenz


As I have argued before.  "digital is different" is an important
arguement in favor of striking down the DMCA.  As Mr. Lessig puts it --
"code is law" and digital (like motion pictures before it) gives the
copyright holder vast new power to tilt the balance of the copyright far
to their favor.  eBooks with read-aloud disabled (since when is
preventing "text-to-speech" an exclusive right of the copyright holder?)
and the the no-fast-forward (no newspaper can *require* a purchaser
actual read the ad space they sell) are real-world non-hypothetical
examples of how digital is different.

Napster shows that digital mass-copying is NO different in terms of
copyright law.  And Zulauf's law that any digital copies easy for the
public to find are equally easy for the publishers to find and
take-down. The multipart test for fair use includes the "affect on the
market value of the work" thus obscure copies and friend-to-friend
trading fail that test.  Thus public trading (which I claim was
correctly labeled as infringing use) or commercially piracy (selling of
download or pressed copies) are NOT different digitally.

"Narrow tailoring" fails as in fact the Congress got it EXACTLY
backwards.  Digital is different and thus the constitution mandates that
greater protection be granted the PUBLIC's side of the copyright balance
to prevent Paramount-like abuse.  (Sadly though, if Paramount where
argued today, they'd win...)

.002

Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> 
> Except the understanding of the technology and the fact that nothing has
> changed in nearly 100 yrs. Ironically,   the "digital is different" 
mantra
> blinds the judges to the fact that to the USSC justices in 1917, the
> motion picture was something new, different and as mystifying as the
> computer is today. Yet despite all that they abstracted the relevant 
parts
> and based their decision upon sound principles.
> 
> "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@lumbercartel.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@lweb.law.harvard.edu
> 12/26/01 02:24 PM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> 
> 
>         To:     dvd-discuss@lweb.law.harvard.edu
>         cc:
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Ramblings on DVDCCA appeal 
from M.Rolenz
> 
> On Saturday 22 December 2001 15:54, James S. Tyre wrote:
> # >2. Unlicensed players. They make much about unlicensed players yet 
the
> # >supreme court has dealt this this argument before in 1917 (universal
> films?).
> 
> Perhaps someone could correct me on this, but didn't the USSC rule
> that the attempt to tie "licensed players" to copyrighted material
> constituted copyright abuse?
> 
> If so, I would think that all the pieces are in place to hang the DVDCCA
> by their own sworn pleadings -- no remaining issues of fact to 
determine,
> just questions of settled law.
> 
> --
> | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
> +----------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+