RE: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Australian Court rules: Films aren't software

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harold Eaton [mailto:haceaton@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 7:21 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Australian Court rules: Films aren't
> software
> 
> 
> Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> 
> >The problem I've always had with the argument that the 
> temporary copy in
> >RAM or disk constitutes a LEGAL copy subject to copyright is that the
> >media content providers have the means and money to hire engineers to
> >explain HOW the technology they want to use works (e.g., 
> DVD, CDs etc).
> >They have lawyers galore. Now having released all this stuff 
> then claim
> >copyright infringment because of a process INHERENT in the 
> technology. If
> >ignorance of the law is no excuse, then certainly ignorance of the
> >technology when you have the means to understand it and an 
> obligation to
> >do so should also. This is a case where the estoppel should apply.
> 
> Temporary ram copies are about as much a "copy" as the image
> on your retina when you watch the movie - if you've got two eyes
> you're making at least one more copy than really necessary to
> view the movie (assuming it's not 3-D).  Similarly, the
> phosphors of the TV screen are also making a temporary copy.
> I can think of no reason to give more protections to one type
> of temporary copy necessary to view over another. The studios
> look silly when they argue that temporary copies are infringing.
> By that logic, any and all use of any copyrighted works is
> infringing.
> 

Moreover, it's not really a copy.  That is, it passes _through_
RAM, a little bit at a time but the entire work never exists as
a complete copy in RAM (the RAM would have to be larger than
the capacity of the DVD for that to happen!)

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

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