RE: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Sanchez [mailto:DSanchez@fcci-group.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 5:52 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Thompson [mailto:bruce@otherother.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:17 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
> 
> On 2002.02.28 Bruce Thompson wrote:
> >Hi again,
> 
> >On 2002.02.28 12:06 Noah silva wrote:
> >     [ snip ]
> > 
> >> I don't think that a particular copy means a particular 
> PHYSICAL copy.
> >> If I pay and download my copy, then there is no physical 
> copy I bought,
> >> just ownership of one copy.  I reject that one copy is 
> more valid than
> >> another just because it was commercially produced with a 
> pretty label.
> >> 
> >
> >Here I tend to get more muddled. In the case of downloaded 
> works my gut 
> >says that first sale rights do not attach since there was no 
> transaction 
> >involving a particular copy fixed in a tangible medium, but fair use 
> >rights always apply. The closest analogy for me would be 
> cable television 
> >(please not I am specifically excluding pay-per-view). By 
> paying a monthly 
> >fee the cable company delivers content to your residence. 
> You have full 
> >fair use rights to that content but first sale does not 
> attach. In  my 
> >mind this is the best model for the purchase of downloaded content.
> v
> >In the specific case of Pay-Per-View, I believe that the 
> above _should_ be 
> >the case as well though I suspect that most Pay-Per-View agreements 
> >contain language specifically to discourage that view.
> 
> I would tend to disagree.  "First Sale" is first sale of an 
> item.  I purchased an electronic "copy" of a copyrighted 
> item.  What medium it is in is irrelevant.  I purchased and 
> now own the "right" to one copy with all the attendant "fair 
> use" and "first sale" rights.
> 
> If this isn't true, I can easily foresee a future with no 
> "First Sale" rights at all because the Copyright Industry 
> (CI) would only release material in downloaded form.  Let's 
> take another item besides movies or audio.  Take books.  It 
> is reaching the point that books will be "printed on demand". 
>  I order a book that I want, dump it to a cdr and take it to 
> a kiosk to be printed or order it directly at the kiosk.  It 
> was delivered in electronic form; are you now proposing that 
> I should have no "first sale" rights?  
> 
> I think this is a very slippery slope to pursue.  However, it 
> may be irrelevant if the CI gets its way.  General use 
> computers and open source operating systems will be illegal 
> anyway in its world which is not far off if it can "buy" 
> enough senators and representatives like Fritz Holdings.
> 

I think there is a difference between a product that is
delivered by download (in which case you actually did
"buy" something) and broadcast content.  The equivilant
on the internet of broadcast would be streamed.  It is
never _intended_ that you have a copy of a streamed
program.  Any time you view it, it comes off _their_
servers.  Otoh, if content is delivered by download
you _are_ intended to have a copy ... it's just BYOM
(Bring Your Own Media).

Trying to bring this 'round to how the DMCA applies:
digital control mechanisms on things that I _am_
intended to have a copy of: unacceptable.  
digital control mechanisms on things that I am _not_ 
intended to have a copy of: acceptable.

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!