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

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

I think this point should be made. The statute gives the right to authorize
access to the *copyright owner*, not to the publisher. If the copyright owner
is the public, then access is authorized.

The statute is fatally flawed in that it assumes that "the" copyright holder is
the authorization authority. But neither existence nor uniqueness is guaranteed
when a TPM protects multiple works, some of which may be in the public domain.


--- 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. 


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