Re: [dvd-discuss] Viant report (was Washington Post Article)

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

It also reminds me of the old IBM ploy of putting all the hardware into 
the computer you bought but they enabled more of it in software as you 
paid more for the "hardware" in your computer. I believe the courts ruled 
against IBM but I don't know the case. the DRM makers are adopting a 
similar strategy it would seem..except here it might be with upgrades...I 
suppose at a certain point they can argue that if Version 8.0 takes it all 
away but play, then version 1.0 is CIRCUMVENTION!




"Ernest Miller" <ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
02/27/02 09:08 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Viant report (was Washington Post Article)


Probably, but it would give the defendant a lot more bargaining power.

For example, the anti-circumvention device would not be primarily designed
or used for circumvention, since it was not known that circumvention was
taking place. It would not be marketed for circumvention, since
circumvention is not known.

The problem is that the Copyright industry is likely to put obvious
anti-copying/anti-access (same thing nowadays) devices into their work.
This is the obvious anti-circumvention.

These DRM schemes will include the capability for all sorts of controls 
over
the consumer's use of the material.  However, initially these controls 
will
not be used.  The sneak attack comes from slowly introducing more and more
controls - controls that were always there but hadn't been used yet.  It 
is
the old boil a frog technique. Throw a frog into boiling water and he will
hop out.  Put the frog in a pan and slowly heat the water to a boil, the
frog won't notice until it is too late.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org>
To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Viant report (was Washington Post Article)


> OK Here's a question? <Wendy, Jim, Peter, anyone else :-) > CAN one have
> legal protection under the DMCA if one has TPM or access control that is
> not publically known?  For example, suppose someone does not provide a
> feature in a DLL the media player uses (e.g., skip N blocks, ) and 
someone
> realizes "hey I can add this great feature to the media player by 
writing
> a patch program that modifies the DLL" Suddenly, the media player people
> cry "DMCA" you broke our circumvention.
>
>
>
>
> 78v3rc001@sneakemail.com
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 02/26/02 09:12 PM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
>
>
>         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>         cc:
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Viant report (was Washington
Post Article)
>
>
> That really is golden. I read through the report just to see it for
> myself. It's on page 31 for others that may want to find it.
>
> Phill K
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [eclectro/dvd4]
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Viant report (was Washington Post Article)
>
>
> http://www.viant.com/pages2/pages/frame_thought_copyright.html
>
>
> Here's a few nice exerpts...sorry about the formatting since it was 
pulled
> from a PDF file...that they hadn't exercised their DRM ability in the
> Adobe Acrobat to prevent me....
>
>
>
>
> Moreover, DRM has the greatest odds of being effective if it is 
introduced
> subtly, so as not to present an obvious target of opportunity for 
hackers
> (who you know will crack it), but rather to convince non-partisan
> consumers who are uninterested
> in conflict or complexity that legitimate content is desirable and easy,
> rather than challenging and restrictive. What's needed is a "sneak
> attack."
>
>
>