Re: [dvd-discuss] Comments from the Judge in the 321 studios case

[John Galt <galt(at)inconnu.isu.edu>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Kurt Hockenbury wrote:

>
>On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> And as I've argued before, works that are distributed with encryption should
>> not be copyrighted
>
><DA>
>Ok, so we offer two editions: the encrypted edition, for $9.99, and the
>uncrypted edition, for $999.  If you copy the (uncopyrightable) encrypted
>edition, you infringe the encrypted edition.
></DA>

two threads imply themselves...

1) no, you cannot possibly infringe the unencrypted version, since the
copy [of the encrypted version] is not of the unencrypted version.  The
encrypted version is a separate work and copies of it are not copies of
anything else.

2) yeah, that's the whole point: the unencrypted version is publically
available: they cannot sell only the encrypted version.  Nobody ever said
that the unencrypted version would be easily gotten, just that you CAN get
it.  If it's worth $1000 to have a legally copyable version to you, by all
means, go for it.

>Or are you saying publishing a work with encryption removes an item from
>copyright?
>

- -- 
The Internet must be a medium for it is neither Rare nor Well done!
<a href="mailto:galt@inconnu.isu.edu";>John Galt </a>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76

iD8DBQE+73DC+ZSKG3nWr3ARAli6AKDnuDl/YvTYEVwzbPaGLp+DsufIDwCfW6oO
ostbbaFJ9OOlZsUDy7jV6Ds=
=riHO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----