Re: [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: Some Citizens Consumers, Some Not

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

The whole DMCA, BPDG, SSS? CD?, issue for the protection of copyrights all miss 
the point. Society must want to protect copyright (as .002 pointed out the 
reaction to many as somebody tries to swipe a paper while your have the dorr 
open on the paper stand after you've paid your money is "get your won DA*MNED 
paper"). Putting in technological measure now means that society has no 
responsibility to protect copyright. Ergo. Society will not protect copyright 
and it's down the tubes.

On 8 Jun 2002 at 1:20, Seth Johnson wrote:

Date sent:      	Sat, 08 Jun 2002 01:20:49 -0400
From:           	Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org>
Organization:   	Real Measures
To:             	C-FIT_Release_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org
Copies to:      	C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org, fairuse-
discuss@mrbrklyn.com,
  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu, schoen@loyalty.org
Subject:        	[dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: Some Citizens Consumers, 
Some Not
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> (This is about ReplayTV, not the BPDG.  I just blindly
> associated Tom Poe, who posted the original news bit, with
> the BPDG issue.  See Seth Schoen's comments below, from the
> DVD discussion list, dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu  --
> Seth Johnson)
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] BPDG: Some Citizens Consumers,
> Some Not
> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 18:00:28 -0700
> From: Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org>
> 
> Seth Johnson writes:
> 
> > > http://www.studioforrecording.org/mt/archive/000032.html#000032
> > 
> > DVR's Illegal For All But Hollywood . . . .
> 
> The BPDG compliance and robustness rules do not say anything
> about contributory copyright liability, and do not (so far)
> propose a contributory liability safe harbor for
> organizations which comply with them.  Much as the DMCA
> created a new kind of liability for "circumvention devices",
> the BPDG rules could create a new kind of liability for
> "non-compliant covered products" which provide a
> "demodulation function".
> 
> They also do not propose to make PVRs/DVRs illegal for use
> by ordinary people.  They do propose to restrict, severely,
> what features such equipment can have.  But the restrictions
> are generally not restrictions on the ability to record;
> they're restrictions on the ability to interoperate using
> open standards and open formats.  The studios seem to
> suggest that they have no problem with a PVR which uses DRM
> (even if the DRM does not prevent repeat viewing and even if
> it does not force recordings to expire over time).
> 
> I don't know how the BPDG proposal interacts with the
> ReplayTV litigation.  My guess is that the studios and the
> CE vendors have fairly different views on that.
> 
> -- 
> Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> | Reading is a right,
> not a feature!
>      http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/   |                 --
> Kathryn Myronuk
>      http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/     |
>