RE: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech

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

Not "is a" trade secret, just as copyright is not a patent.
I am merely postulating a comparable status, where the
split between copyright/DRM protection for a work is 
a direct parallel to the split between patent/trade secret.


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

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Stratton [mailto:cpt@gryphon.auspice.net]
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:38 PM
> To: Richard Hartman
> Cc: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech 
> 
> 
> Sadly, this is not enough. Content creators surely are 
> becoming more and
> more confident of their ability to privately protect works 
> with various
> DRM measures that operate regardless of law. And it stretches 
> credibility
> to the breaking point to say that a DVD widely disseminated 
> and viewable
> is a trade secret.
> 
> Thus, for works that were _published_ but uncopyable (as 
> opposed to works 
> that were truly secret regardless of copyability) we might see if the 
> private sector was disincentivizing it by hacking such 
> measures and making 
> the benefits of the hacking available to the public.
> 
> If they didn't we might actually want public sponsorship of 
> such efforts.
> 
> Just as it's nice when Eldred reprints out-of-term books, 
> this doesn't 
> mean that there is no role for libraries to place their out-of-term 
> collections online, nor a pressing need for them to do so when there 
> aren't enough Eldreds to take up the slack.
> 
> A bounty system might work nicely, if it were needed. (it did 
> take some 
> time to break CSS after all -- overnight would've been better)
> 
> Honest trade secrets are still worthy of protection... though we do 
> encourage their destruction by permitting REing, independent 
> recreation, 
> etc. to act contrary to them. Let's not encourage T.S. too much.
> 
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Richard Hartman wrote:
> 
> > Exactly.  Which is why I would advocate the establishment
> > of a legal distinction similar to the one between "patent"
> > and "trade secret".  Basically you have two choices: protection
> > by law, or protection by private arrangement.  If you choose
> > protection under the law, everything is disclosed.  Anybody
> > who abuses the material gets prosecuted under the law.  If you
> > choose protection by private arrangement then when that arrangement
> > fails you have no recourse under the law.  
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > -Richard M. Hartman
> > hartman@onetouch.com
> > 
> > 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Steve Hosgood [mailto:steve@caederus.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:00 AM
> > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Michael Rolenz writes:
> > > > Nor does the copyright clause [...] exist for him to maximize 
> > > > his profits.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Oh, come on! Of course it does. The whole reason for 
> > > copyright is to allow
> > > people to publish their works and not have any profits 
> syphoned off by
> > > freeloaders copying the things and selling it in competition 
> > > with the author.
> > > 
> > > Quite right too IMHO. For a limited period.
> > > 
> > > Surely that's the crux of it.
> > > Limited period must mean limited.
> > > After that point, all existing copies of the copyrighted work 
> > > become public
> > > domain. That in turn implies that they must be out there in a 
> > > form which allows
> > > them to be used and copied freely after the copyright expires.
> > > 
> > > Therefore no DRM may be allowed on a copyrighted work.
> > > 
> > > Looking at it from the other angle, copyright exists to 
> > > remedy the physical
> > > problem that in order to be usable by the public, a work 
> is inherently
> > > copyable.
> > > 
> > > The law steps in to bar that copying for a time. But implied 
> > > in all that is
> > > the concept that the work was copyable in the first place. 
> > > DRM removes that
> > > 'feature' by technology, thus copyright is no longer applicable.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 
> > > Steve Hosgood                               |
> > > steve@caederus.com                          | "A good plan 
> > > today is better
> > > Phone: +44 1792 203707 + ask for Steve      |   than a 
> > > perfect plan tomorrow"
> > > Fax:   +44 70922 70944                      |              - 
> > > Conrad Brean
> > > --------------------------------------------+
> > >         http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve         |  ( from the 
> > > film "Wag the Dog" )
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
>