Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: [DVD-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing party for someusers

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

Your last paragraph rather sums it up....UCITA, DMCA, and all that really 
are attempts by corporations to abridge due process . Now to be honest I 
do not believe that the officers of most corporations see it that way but 
"the road to Hell is paved with good intentions"...or in this case less 
honorable ones-preserving corporate profits. 




"Dean Sanchez" <DSanchez@fcci-group.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
04/09/02 09:46 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        [dvd-discuss] RE: [DVD-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing party for some 
users


(Tongue-in-cheek comment follows)
Even though this is just a case of being punished for having the 
questionable taste of listening to Dion (ouch!), we have lost sight of 
what Congress obviously intended and that was to protect the intellectual 
property of corporate copyright holders from evil hackers (i.e. citizens). 
Corporations must have the right to hack systems; otherwise, those evil 
hackers (can you say customers?) will listen to the music on unauthorized 
systems and do all kinds of other things (be innovative, maybe?) that they 
shouldn't.  Skip over commercials (how dare they?), make rip cds that 
consist of only the songs they like (artistic integrity demands that you 
listen to it all!), etc.
(END of TIC)

Seriously, what do you think Direct TV has been doing for years?  Take the 
case where it sent a signal that not only disabled the ability to decrypt 
the any further signals, but actually damaged the personal physical 
property of someone else. Whether you agree or not that decrypting the 
signal is ethical or unethical, intentionally damaging another's property 
(which is what DTV does) is definitively not ethical and is illegal in 
almost every other instance.  That is a vigilante action; this type of 
action should be reserved to the justice system penalty phase after due 
process.

However, this is not the only instance where the government is looking to 
'delegate'.  UTICA strives to give software vendors the authority to 
remotely shut off systems thereby possibly creating business and system 
damage.  It also has a goal of indemnifying the vendor from any product 
liability.

There is a consistent pattern in all these actions. It's fairly obvious 
that the Copyright Industry's goal along with Congress' complicity is to 
allow the IP holders/owners to have the ability to do things that is or 
would be illegal for ordinary citizens (and corporations) to do and would 
normally be reserved to the justice system.  Congress has seen fit to 
criminalize an action (copyright infringement) that deserves only civil 
sanctions and action.  It then allows the alleged victim the right to 
impose, without due process, the penalty that in itself should be a 
criminally prosecuted action.  Please pardon my cynicism, but while I see 
it as an abrogation of the courts' and governments' responsibility, do we 
really expect the courts to deviate too much from the stance that it's 
okay for the corporations to do whatever they need to do in order to 
protect IP?



-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Hartman [mailto:hartman@onetouch.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 11:20 AM
To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing party for some users


The court does not have to "extend" the law ... they're covered
as the law is written.  If the court interprets the law otherwise,
that interpretation should be appealed.

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

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