--
-Richard M.
Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 3:33 PM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Postage Meters and the "Right to Tinker"
This sort of argument that the viewable copy is a derivative work is on the same level as the legal community arguing whether or not a temporary copy in RAM, cache, or in the temp directory is a copy for the purposes of infringement...
The WORK is copyrighted not the medium. Not the representation. I would argue that a scrambled version cannot be copyrighted since it has no information to communicate. (Promoting progress through the transmission of random bits?)
"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu01/09/2003 11:35 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
cc:
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Postage Meters and the "Right to Tinker"
So the viewable "Die Hard" is a derivative work
of the scrambled version on the DVD, and I only
own the scrambled version without the right to
create a derivative work (the viewable version)
unless I have a player licensed by the DVD-CCA?
--
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Erwin [mailto:jerwin@ponymail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:58 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Postage Meters and the "Right to Tinker"
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 01:29 PM, John Zulauf wrote:
>
> > Sham Gardner wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> In the case of TurboTax, you are not using the data they
> sent you to
> >> obtain
> >> services they would otherwise charge for. You are using
> information
> >> they
> >> have already sent you, *without* extracting any additional
> goods or
> >> services
> >> from them.
> >
> > You are making good and valuable use of the software, a right not
> > granted without the authorization of the copyright holder. They
> > haven't
> > sent you (without circumvention) sufficient information to use
> > TurboTax. You are extracting the a right to use without
> payment to the
> > rights holder. Circumvention changes the disk from a coaster to a
> > useful valuable product, and a replacement good for any
> full version of
> > the software. This is right to license is the "good or
> service" of the
> > software company, and circumventing (prior to first sale) infringes
> > this
> > right.
> >
> > Can we agree that the TurboTax keyware disk mailed to
> Richard is not
> > the
> > complete product as-is? One must add authorization "sauce" (true or
> > forged) to make it so. The unsolicited good is only the
> installer disk
> > "as-is" (and not a functioning copy of TurboTax). The clearly one
> > would be defrauding the company of remuneration for the
> "right to use"
> > a full copy. (RTU's are real products in this industry BTW.)
> >
> Let's bring out the GNU argument-- the GPL is based on the (well
> accepted) right to control the creation of derivative works-- as long
> as the original work remains under copyright, no person may,
> except for
> parody, commentary, or educational purposes (fair use), create
> derivative works without the permission of the copyright holder.
>
> Now, in the case of TurboTax, the application of an authorization
> string creates a new derivative work-- as the combined work is very
> similar to the original work (TurboTax without key)...
>
> I suppose that if one does not wish to disentangle the FSF, CCA, and
> TurboTax, one can always fall back on the old standby--
> copying to the
> hard drive is an infringement on their rights, and that the key is
> merely a digital signature acknowledging the exchange of
> money for the
> right to use.
>
> Jeremy
>
>