RE: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech

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

I don't know if "easy to copy" is the proper way to
phrase it, since a dead-tree book is not "easy to copy"
in it's entirety.  Even though it's not protected, it
is a rather labor intensive undertaking.

Now the key thing, though, is that it is _not_ protected
from copying.  There is no protection mechanism in place
other than legal action.  Therein lies the key.


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

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jolley [mailto:tjolley@swbell.net]
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 5:06 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
>