Re: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Australian Court rules: Films aren't software

["Harold Eaton" <haceaton(at)hotmail.com>]

Michael A Rolenz wrote:

>The problem I've always had with the argument that the temporary copy in
>RAM or disk constitutes a LEGAL copy subject to copyright is that the
>media content providers have the means and money to hire engineers to
>explain HOW the technology they want to use works (e.g., DVD, CDs etc).
>They have lawyers galore. Now having released all this stuff then claim
>copyright infringment because of a process INHERENT in the technology. If
>ignorance of the law is no excuse, then certainly ignorance of the
>technology when you have the means to understand it and an obligation to
>do so should also. This is a case where the estoppel should apply.

Temporary ram copies are about as much a "copy" as the image
on your retina when you watch the movie - if you've got two eyes
you're making at least one more copy than really necessary to
view the movie (assuming it's not 3-D).  Similarly, the
phosphors of the TV screen are also making a temporary copy.
I can think of no reason to give more protections to one type
of temporary copy necessary to view over another. The studios
look silly when they argue that temporary copies are infringing.
By that logic, any and all use of any copyrighted works is
infringing.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com