[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: Some Citizens Consumers, Some Not

Premature how?  It _is_ preventing works from entering the public domain
even today ... not potentially, 20 years in the future; but actually, today.

--
-Richard M. Hartman

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org>
To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 1:45 PM
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: Some Citizens Consumers,
Some Not


> And as I recall, the question has been asked in court or at the DMCA
> hearings and the answer was that it wasn't an issue NOW but may become an
> issue in the future....say 20 yrs from now. I realize that the courts
> would consider a lawsuit today on the DRMs preventing works from entering
> the PD as premature. If Eldred v Aschcroft doesn't overturn CTEA, then in
> 20 yrs it really may be too late.
>
>
>
>
> Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 06/10/2002 11:38 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
>
>
>         To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'"
<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
>         cc:
>         Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: Some
Citizens Consumers, Some Not
>
>
> I am certain that the "technical protection prevents
> material from entering public domain" has appeared in
> an amicus brief ... but has the patent/trade secret
> analogy also made it in?  And an enumeration of the
> legal obligations of copyright protection that are
> disallowed by tpm would be nice ... not just individual
> argument in text, but a nice bulleted list:
>
>                  - prevents material from entering public domain
>                  - does not allow for fair use
>                  - does not allow for archival copies
>                  - etc, etc
>
> ...
>
> --
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
>
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 10:31 AM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: Some Citizens
> > Consumers, Some Not
> >
> >
> > Also, the protections exist long after the copyright term is
> > over and the
> > works cannot enter the public domain without circumvention. Even with
> > circumvention, it it possible that for strong encryption it is not
> > feasible or economically viable (e.g., requiring decades of
> > supercomputer
> > time). SInce the work is distributed in such a way that it
> > cannot enter
> > the public domain, it cannot also enjoy copyright protection.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
> > Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > 06/10/2002 08:56 AM
> > Please respond to dvd-discuss
> >
> >
> >         To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'"
> > <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> >         cc:     C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org,
> > fairuse-discuss@mrbrklyn.com,
> > schoen@loyalty.org
> >         Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Correction:
> > ReplayTV: Some Citizens Consumers, Some Not
> >
> >
> > Exactly.  You can have full disclosure with protection provided
> > by the legal system, or you can attempt to protect it yourself
> > with little or no recourse should your attempts fail.  In the
> > other area of intellectual property (inventions) this is the
> > distinction between "trade secret" and "patent".  The courts
> > must recognize that copyright is parallel to patent, and any
> > attempts by the creators of the works to enforce their own
> > protection must void the legal protections of copyright since
> > their use avoids the legal restrictions imposed by copyright
> > (e.g. allowing fair use, archival copies, etc).
> >
> > --
> > -Richard M. Hartman
> > hartman@onetouch.com
> >
> > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 6:00 PM
> > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > Cc: C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org;
> > > fairuse-discuss@mrbrklyn.com; dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu;
> > > schoen@loyalty.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: Some Citizens
> > > Consumers, Some Not
> > >
> > >
> > > The whole DMCA, BPDG, SSS? CD?, issue for the protection of
> > > copyrights all miss
> > > the point. Society must want to protect copyright (as .002
> > > pointed out the
> > > reaction to many as somebody tries to swipe a paper while
> > > your have the dorr
> > > open on the paper stand after you've paid your money is "get
> > > your won DA*MNED
> > > paper"). Putting in technological measure now means that
> > > society has no
> > > responsibility to protect copyright. Ergo. Society will not
> > > protect copyright
> > > and it's down the tubes.
> > >
> > > On 8 Jun 2002 at 1:20, Seth Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > Date sent:                     Sat, 08 Jun 2002 01:20:49 -0400
> > > From:                          Seth Johnson
> > > <seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org>
> > > Organization:                  Real Measures
> > > To: C-FIT_Release_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org
> > > Copies to:
> > > C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org, fairuse-
> > > discuss@mrbrklyn.com,
> > >                dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu, schoen@loyalty.org
> > > Subject:                       [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV:
> > > Some Citizens Consumers,
> > > Some Not
> > > Send reply to:                 dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > >
> > > >
> > > > (This is about ReplayTV, not the BPDG.  I just blindly
> > > > associated Tom Poe, who posted the original news bit, with
> > > > the BPDG issue.  See Seth Schoen's comments below, from the
> > > > DVD discussion list, dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu  --
> > > > Seth Johnson)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] BPDG: Some Citizens Consumers,
> > > > Some Not
> > > > Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 18:00:28 -0700
> > > > From: Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org>
> > > >
> > > > Seth Johnson writes:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> http://www.studioforrecording.org/mt/archive/000032.html#000032
> > > >
> > > > DVR's Illegal For All But Hollywood . . . .
> > >
> > > The BPDG compliance and robustness rules do not say anything
> > > about contributory copyright liability, and do not (so far)
> > > propose a contributory liability safe harbor for
> > > organizations which comply with them.  Much as the DMCA
> > > created a new kind of liability for "circumvention devices",
> > > the BPDG rules could create a new kind of liability for
> > > "non-compliant covered products" which provide a
> > > "demodulation function".
> > >
> > > They also do not propose to make PVRs/DVRs illegal for use
> > > by ordinary people.  They do propose to restrict, severely,
> > > what features such equipment can have.  But the restrictions
> > > are generally not restrictions on the ability to record;
> > > they're restrictions on the ability to interoperate using
> > > open standards and open formats.  The studios seem to
> > > suggest that they have no problem with a PVR which uses DRM
> > > (even if the DRM does not prevent repeat viewing and even if
> > > it does not force recordings to expire over time).
> > >
> > > I don't know how the BPDG proposal interacts with the
> > > ReplayTV litigation.  My guess is that the studios and the
> > > CE vendors have fairly different views on that.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> | Reading is a right,
> > > not a feature!
> > >      http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/   |                 --
> > > Kathryn Myronuk
> > >      http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/     |
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>