Re: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech

[Jolley <tjolley(at)swbell.net>]

Joshua Stratton wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Jolley wrote:
> > There shouldn't be any obligation to make a work easy to copy in
> > exchange for copyright protection.
> 
> Why not? Copyright is a quid pro quo affair, and the public via the
> government determines what quo they want.

If you think copyright is a mess now wait until the definition of "easy
to copy" becomes part of copyright.  How do you define "easy to copy"?

Is a painting on the side of a ten story building not worthy of
copyright
because it isn't easy to copy?  How about a sculpture?  A book with
extra large pages too big to fit in a copy machine?  How many people
have the equipment to copy a 70mm film (onto 70mm film)?  If the
purchase
price of a work is beyond your means does that make it not easy to
copy?  Do you want the government to establish the size, shape and
format
of books, film, DVD, etc. to meet the criteria of easy to copy?

> 
> The 2600 court felt that the analog hole was enough. I disagree. Firstly,
> because it too is being plugged. The tools necessary to really use it are
> being taken away from us and their replacements unable to satisfy that
> role.

I also disagree with the court.

> But secondly, and more importantly, perfect fidelity is critical.

Even a DVD is not a perfect copy of the original digital data.

> 
> Of course, I'm not against _all_ DRM. I have no qualms about DRM systems
> that can make the exact same decision that the Supreme Court would make if
> the user attempting to do stuff with the work and the copyright holder
> both brought it before them at that instant time.
> 

This will never happen.

> 
> Honestly, I think that the various publisher's threats of leaving the
> market are bluff.

I agree.

> There's just too much money to be made still. Tell them
> to use legal remedies exclusively of self help, and then disincentivize
> self help further, and I bet they'll just keep on publishing.