Re: [dvd-discuss] my pithy analysis: is an mpeg-2 file a "work?"

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 26 Jun 2002 at 15:25, Matt Perkins wrote:

Date sent:      	Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
From:           	Matt Perkins <section1201@yahoo.com>
Subject:        	[dvd-discuss] my pithy analysis: is an mpeg-2 file a "work?"
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Hello -- I apologize if this has been covered in the
> past:
> 
> I have an idea which might challenge the
> anti-circumvention laws, as applied to DVDs and
> perhaps other things.  I'm sure I'm missing something
> (or a lot of somethings), so please be gentle ...
> 
> 
> * * * * *
> 
> Assumptions:
> 
> 1.) A coyrighted work fixed into a digital format has
> the same protection under copyright law, regardless of
> the digital format employed.  So, an HTML novel has
> the same copyright status as a Word 97 novel.  One
> cannot violate the copyright only in the HTML version;
> one can only violate the copyright in the work, the
> novel.  
> 
> 2.)  A digital copy of a copyrighted work IS NOT a
> copyrighted work in and of itself.  If this assumption
> is false, then MGM obtained a new 95-year term on its
> DVD of "The Wizard of Oz," released in 1997 (and
> Warner in 1999, when re-released by that studio). 
> That cannot be so.  Copyright protects the expression,
> not the medium or format used in conveying that
> expression.

And copyright becomes not for limited times but unlimited times....although MGM 
would like the former.

> 
> 3.)  The CSS architecture restricts access to one or
> more MPEG-2 datafile(s).  [Is this true? Sorry ...
> does CSS encrypt the entire disc file (menus,
> navigation commands, etc.), or just the VOBs?]
> 
> 4.)  The CSS-encrypted datafile is available for the
> user to access without restriction.
> 

THere's the rub. The authority of the copyright holder is given to you via the 
"device" that the copyright holder authorizes the dvd to play on. One 
interesting point is that the whole CSS DVD model assumes that there is only 7-
400 who can grant the authority fo the copyright holder ad infinitum
> Conclusions:
> 
> 5.)  An MPEG-2 datafile is not a copyrighted work. 
> (See assumption 2.)  Therefore, CSS is not a
> "technological protection measure which effectively
> controls access to A WORK PROTECTED under [the
> Copyright Act]."

THe data file is of a copyrighted work which is protected. One cannot protect a 
copyright work without also protecting the representations of it....another 
argument is that since CSS encrypts the work in such a way that it cannot enter 
the public domain at the end of copyright that it cannot also enjoy copyright 
protection as well.

> 
> 6.)  If an MPEG-2 datafile does, in fact, derive some
> copyright status merely because it may convey a
> copyrighted work, then the CSS-encrypted datafile must
> also derive copyright status from the same mechanism. 
> To conclude otherwise would violate assumption 1.
> 
> 7.)  Since the CSS-encrypted file (conclusion 6)
> conveys the copyrighted expression without any
> technological restriction, there is NOTHING in a CSS
> DVD which "effectively controls access to a work
> protected under [the Copyright Act]."

It's a valid argument except for the legal fiction that the authority of the 
copyright holder, which previously was bound inherent in the media, can not be 
split into thing and viewing device which is required to get the authority. 
Until this one works its way through the socio-political-legal-technical 
circles and is untimately rejected that' pretty much the counter argumetn that 
will be made.

> 
> * * * * *
> 
> 
> Brain ... running in circles ... please help!
> :)
> 
> --mattperkins/minneapolis
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com