RE: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech

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

Ok, I'm not normally in favor of "hear, hear" type 
postings, but ... hear, hear!

Microlenz (hey, what's your name, anyway?) has given
a great statement of the issues here.  This one should
be preserved -- on Twiki, maybe? -- and flagged for
referral to the laywers whenever an appropriate case
is up in the courts.



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

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:55 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech
> 
> 
> On 21 Nov 2002 at 22:28, Jolley wrote:
> 
> Date sent:      	Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:28:38 -0600
> From:           	Jolley <tjolley@swbell.net>
> Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech
> To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Organization:   	Southwestern Bell Internet Services
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> > If a work can't be copied then it doesn't need copyright protection.
> 
> And so is outside the copyright system and need not be 
> discussed further. It 
> does not promote the science or the arts for the public but 
> only the few who 
> have the keys...rather reminds me of the secret ABEND codes 
> for IBM 370s...I 
> was lucky enough to be told of the file and have access to it 
> 20 yrs ago...I 
> loved looking up the contents of register 8 and looking up 
> the cause- kinda 
> like using the Ovalten decoder ring of Ralphy in "Christmas 
> Story". THis 
> becomes a private contract between the creator and the 
> recipient - a Trade 
> Secret.
> 
> > 
> > A work protected by a DRM preventing it from being copied 
> doesn't mean
> > that the work shouldn't be protected by copyright after the DRM is
> > broken.
> 
> Why? They wanted to do better than the bargain they could 
> have gotten by 
> copyright and lost. They can't repudiate their choice. ESTOPPEL.
> They chose to take a chance and lost. Too bad. Vegas doesn't 
> give refunds when 
> you crap out and why should the copyright system? 
> 
> > 
> > A work protected by a DRM in one type of media does not negate the
> > protection of copyright if published in a media without DRM.
> > 
> 
> Why not? This confuses the media with the work itself. The 
> work is copyrighted 
> and so must obey copyright in ALL distributions. To not do so 
> is to invalidate 
> the copyright which is is on the WORK.
> 
> > There shouldn't be any obligation to make a work easy to copy in
> > exchange for copyright protection.
> > 
> 
> This is specious. The argument is not that it is easy.
> 
> > Being copiable is only a necessary condition for a work to be
> > copied.  It has nothing to do with entering the public domain.
> > 
> 
> NOt so. If a work is in the public domain, it can be copied. 
> Right...If it 
> cannot be copied then it is NOT in the public contrapositives 
> are logical 
> equivalent statements. To not accept the latter statement is 
> to negate the 
> former.
> 
> > What is the point in your statement below?  It sounds like you want
> > to punish or deny copyright from an author (publisher) that tries
> > to use a DRM.  
> 
> Punish no. Deny YES! DRMs violate copyright fundamentals from 
> a societal and 
> legal perspective. What is copyright but a type of contract 
> between the 
> government and the creator (let's forget copyright as a 
> natural right. That's 
> BS. If there is no government, a "natural right" exists only 
> if you can 
> exercise it by brute force.)
> 
> As a contract:
> 
> What does the creator give initially. They create the work 
> and distribute it. 
> What do they get? A near monopoly on it. Other than fair use 
> they can prevent 
> anyone from making infringing copies. They express legal 
> service. If they 
> detect someone is infringing all the need to do is present 
> proof of copyright 
> and the onus shifts to the defendant to prove not guilty. In 
> the case of 
> egregious infringement, they get investigative help from law 
> enforcement 
> agencies (detectives investigate using public funds). Public 
> prosecutors try 
> their cases (saving them legal fees). Defendants found guilty 
> are sent to 
> prisons run by using taxes. All of this happens (now) for the 
> lifetime of the 
> creator, spouse, children, grandchildren and several more 
> generations. 
> 
> Pretty rosy isn't it? What's more? What's been left out here?
> The consideration on the government - the work enters the 
> public domain at the 
> end of copyright. So what does that mean?
> 
> At the end of copyright ANYONE can use the work. ANyone can 
> create derivative 
> works. Anyone can 
> reprint/republish/redistribute/reuse/whatever! No fees. No 
> royalties. No negotiation. Nothing. SO how can they do that? 
> From ANY of the 
> remaining copies that are still in existence. What's more it 
> must be able to 
> occur from EVERY copy that is still in existence. 
> (Historically the centralized 
> libraries antiquity were subject to destruction.). Copies 
> distributed decades 
> before that interfere or prevent this negate this contract 
> and so have breached 
> it.
> 
> To permit DRMs initially is to permit the fulfilment of the 
> contract in 70 yrs -
>  another reason for overturning CTEA. Who can wait 70 yrs to 
> see if the 
> contract for copyright has been faithfully fulfilled or if the 
> creator/distributer has breached the contract intially.
> 
> >I think a positive purpose of this discussion group is
> > to promote the right to access works (copyrighted and public domain)
> > protected by DRM schemes.  
> 
> Public Domain works cannot be protected by DRM by definition. 
> Copyright works 
> that cannot enter the public domain because of DRMs are not 
> copyrighted and so 
> deserve no legal protection since they are self help in 
> advance of legal 
> adjudication.
> 
> >The real battle here is do we have the right
> > to reverse engineer a DRM scheme? 
> 
> Yes. Other than from JackBoots I havne't read any discussion 
> otherwise.
> 
> > Do we have the right to discuss DRM
> > protections?  
> 
> DOes the FA still apply? Yes. Ditto.
> 
> >Do we have the right to bypass a DRM scheme in order to
> > read our own property? 
> 
> Yes. Ditto.
> 
> 
> > These rights should be guaranteed by the
> > constitution.  These rights should be a "no brainer".
> >
> 
> NO argument there. The question is what arguments to 
> formulate and hone to make 
> this a "no brainer" to others. 
> > Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> > > 
> > > Being copiable, is a necessary condition for the work to enter the
> > > public domain at the end of copyright. If it cannot be 
> copied, then it
> > > cannot enter the public domain and so cannot also be given the
> > > privledge of copyright.
> > >
> 
> 
>