Re: [dvd-discuss] Sklyarov Motion to Dismiss Indictment

[Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>]

--- Michael A Rolenz <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org> wrote:
> The case against ebooks becomes stronger when you look at specific ebooks 
> on Adobe's site. THere are works in the public domain that are free - so 
> what's the commercial loss there? There are public domain works that are 
> sold for a nominal price. One has always been able to access public domain 
> works even editions with copyrighted illustrations or introductions. Yet, 
> Adobe's ebooks prevents that. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt 
> that they actually paid someone to illustrate it or theypaid royalties for 
> existing ones. BUT mere typesetting, scanning, ocring, formatting do not 
> constitute enough value added to qualify to copyright protection. Adobe's 
> nominal "fee" for performing such service does not give them the right to 
> prevent fair use of the material. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 01/30/02 09:58 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> 
>  
>         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Sklyarov Motion to Dismiss
> Indictment
> 
> 
> The brief attacks all the questions of law beautifully.  It asks the
> questions I hoped would be asked (and were prevented from being asked in
> Coreley do to the lower Courts erroneous conflations of "authority" and
> "consent", "access" and "use", "right" and "desire".  In Coreley the P's
> were allow a very low standard of illegal circumvention as the "consent"
> of the rights holder to "use" contrary to the "desire" of the P's. 
> Under that standard, accusation is guilt. No wonder Judge Kaplan kept
> saying what a simple case he thought it was.
> 
> Here the D's are preemptively striking against such conflation -- laying
> out in carefully reasoned terms what the statute says, what the
> legislative history indicates about intent, and the clear ambiguity of
> the prohibitions of tools enable "post first sale" uses.
> 
> The counter attack will be that the eBook (and DVD) controls are
> "access" control (see you can't get to the content) not use controls. 
> These definitions are both critical and point to further ambiguity of
> the statute.  What is "access?"  Is it the mere ability to read a work,
> or is it a "first sale" or "authorized person" event.  Certainly a
> "first access" doctrine (similar to first sale) would be useful. 
> However the distinction of "controls access" and "protects a right" and
> what these mean is critical.
> 
> Further counters will be that banning all "circumventing" of TPM's that
> "protects a right" was the intent of Congress -- and that the unique
> challenges of digital media make it important to redefine "fair use"
> smaller.  Look to see "a constitution is not a suicide pact" to support
> that notion.  As if protecting large corporations with obsolete business
> models were a compelling gov't interest -- feh! 
> 
> .002
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > I like the section titled "The Lawful Uses of AEBPR."
> > Lots of real-life uses of the Elcomsoft software to
> > perform circumvention, including at least one by a
> > governmental agency (State of Wisconsin, "in order to
> > resolve the problem of 'content being restricted to the
> > computer that was used to download the ebook.'" ).
> > Even better, another case states "One individual sought
> > a copy of AEBPR on behalf of Time Warner Communications."
> > 
> > Take that, Jackboots!
> > 
> > This motion also goes into the authorization issues.
> > Wonderful!
> > 
> > If this motion is accepted by the courts, can that
> > be cited as precedent, or would this be another case
> > of winning w/o leaving any lasting marks on the legal
> > battleground?
> > 
> > --
> > -Richard M. Hartman
> > hartman@onetouch.com
> > 
> > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Young [mailto:jya@pipeline.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 8:03 PM
> > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Sklyarov Motion to Dismiss Indictment
> > >
> > >
> > > We offer Dmitry Sklyarov's "Motion to Dismiss Indictment
> > > for Violation of Due Process" filed yesterday:
> > >
> > >   http://cryptome.org/usa-v-ds-mtd.htm
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com