Re: [dvd-discuss] Ramblings on DVDCCA appeal from M.Rolenz

[mickey <mickeym(at)mindspring.com>]

<DA>
Digital formats are superior to analog formats. If we can't safely release our works
in digital format, then the lawmakers have failed to promote progress.
</DA>

The lawmakers are forced, in a sense, to make it 'safe' for digital formats to be
released. They look to the availability of digital works on the internet, for example,
as evidence of progress. The content industry is obviously reluctant to release in
open digital formats, so, in their minds, the mandate to promote progress hasn't been
met.

I don't think that internet availability is a good measure of progress, but that seems
to be the message.

mickeym

Michael A Rolenz wrote:

> Good points. WRT to copyright law digital ISN"T different but digital IS
> different because the consumer can perform more with the work than before.
> Also digital enables the copyright holders to perform all sorts of
> mischief they never were able to do before.In some sense, NOBODY is
> forcing the copyright holders to put works out digitally but when they do,
> they must deal with the capabilities and limitations inherent in that
> medium.
>
> "John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 01/07/02 09:26 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
>
>
>         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>         cc:
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Ramblings on DVDCCA appeal from M.Rolenz
>
> As I have argued before.  "digital is different" is an important
> arguement in favor of striking down the DMCA.  As Mr. Lessig puts it --
> "code is law" and digital (like motion pictures before it) gives the
> copyright holder vast new power to tilt the balance of the copyright far
> to their favor.  eBooks with read-aloud disabled (since when is
> preventing "text-to-speech" an exclusive right of the copyright holder?)
> and the the no-fast-forward (no newspaper can *require* a purchaser
> actual read the ad space they sell) are real-world non-hypothetical
> examples of how digital is different.
>
> Napster shows that digital mass-copying is NO different in terms of
> copyright law.  And Zulauf's law that any digital copies easy for the
> public to find are equally easy for the publishers to find and
> take-down. The multipart test for fair use includes the "affect on the
> market value of the work" thus obscure copies and friend-to-friend
> trading fail that test.  Thus public trading (which I claim was
> correctly labeled as infringing use) or commercially piracy (selling of
> download or pressed copies) are NOT different digitally.
>
> "Narrow tailoring" fails as in fact the Congress got it EXACTLY
> backwards.  Digital is different and thus the constitution mandates that
> greater protection be granted the PUBLIC's side of the copyright balance
> to prevent Paramount-like abuse.  (Sadly though, if Paramount where
> argued today, they'd win...)
>
> .002
>
> Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> >
> > Except the understanding of the technology and the fact that nothing has
> > changed in nearly 100 yrs. Ironically,   the "digital is different"
> mantra
> > blinds the judges to the fact that to the USSC justices in 1917, the
> > motion picture was something new, different and as mystifying as the
> > computer is today. Yet despite all that they abstracted the relevant
> parts
> > and based their decision upon sound principles.
> >
> > "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@lumbercartel.com>
> > Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@lweb.law.harvard.edu
> > 12/26/01 02:24 PM
> > Please respond to dvd-discuss
> >
> >
> >         To:     dvd-discuss@lweb.law.harvard.edu
> >         cc:
> >         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Ramblings on DVDCCA appeal
> from M.Rolenz
> >
> > On Saturday 22 December 2001 15:54, James S. Tyre wrote:
> > # >2. Unlicensed players. They make much about unlicensed players yet
> the
> > # >supreme court has dealt this this argument before in 1917 (universal
> > films?).
> >
> > Perhaps someone could correct me on this, but didn't the USSC rule
> > that the attempt to tie "licensed players" to copyrighted material
> > constituted copyright abuse?
> >
> > If so, I would think that all the pieces are in place to hang the DVDCCA
> > by their own sworn pleadings -- no remaining issues of fact to
> determine,
> > just questions of settled law.
> >
> > --
> > | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
> > +----------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+