RE: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 25 Nov 2002 at 9:34, Richard Hartman wrote:

Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech
Date sent:      	Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:34:15 -0800
From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 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

Thank you...but it's hard to type and bow at the sametime....

microlenz@earthlink.net = home account of michael.a.rolenz@aero.org
the former address is obviously a pun on my name( that I acquired 7 or 8 yrs 
ago.). I try to do more responding from home because I have already had several 
encounters with the BLOATUS NOTUS fascists at work and do not want to give them 
any more ammunition (my division manager said I was spending too much time 
arguing with them rather than doing real work..from my perspective I was 
wasting too much time dealing with crap software and no service when I had time 
critical work to do) but also responding from a NON BLOATUS account is easier 
than one that is (BLOATUS can't even edit text as well as MS's wordpad !).

what parts to flag? Ralphy's right? Mirth and flattery aside. I don't know what 
parts you refer...feel free to put /edit in TWIKI . I may do that myself later 
after getting a few "problems" resolved.


> 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.
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> >