Re: [dvd-discuss] A TPM without use limitations -- thoughts?

[daw(at)mozart.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner)]

John Zulauf wrote:
> [ If you don't know who did the ripping & stripping, how do you sue them? ]
>
>The point isn't who stripped it, but that are a particular individual is
>publicly sharing stripped content.  [...]  The stripping
>itself wouldn't be a crime, but publicly sharing stripped content
>certain would indicate "intent to infringe" and thus work against any
>"fair use" defense.

Does this help?  Publicly sharing unstripped, copyrighted content --
e.g., on Napster or Gnutella -- is probably already an infringement.
I doubt there is any plausible "fair use" defense for publicly sharing
the lattest Brittany album.  What's different about publicly sharing
stripped, copyrighted content?

If the record companies don't consider it a workable solution to sue
users who share unstripped, copyrighted content, would they really
consider it an attractive solution to sue users who share stripped,
copyrighted content?  Maybe there's a difference, but I'm not sure
I see it.  I don't see how this helps record companies very much; it
seems to me it would be only rational for them to have basically the
same concerns about fingerprinted content as unfingerprinted content.