RE: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 21 Nov 2002 at 8:58, Richard Hartman wrote:

Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech 
Date sent:      	Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:58:04 -0800
From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Exactly.  Which is why I would advocate the establishment
> of a legal distinction similar to the one between "patent"
> and "trade secret".  

Add copyright. You have to give a full and without reservations disclosure of 
the work in exchange for copyright protection of the work and derivative ones. 
A DRM is not giving a disclosure without reservations. IN the smoke and mirrors 
of "intellectual property", this simple observation that you make is what is 
totally missed.

>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" )
> > 
> > 
> >