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

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

Well, there's that "Snafu" cartoon DVD ... and 2600 owns the right to a
movie.  I believe the suggestion was previously made that they press &
market a DVD edition then release the rights.

--
-Richard M. Hartman

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <microlenz@earthlink.net>
To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: Some Citizens Consumers,
Some Not


> But works don't enter the public domain at all today thanks to the
Bonehead
> CTEA. Courts are loath to take cases where there are no demonstratable
damages
> or issues so since nothing can enter the public domain for 20 yrs there
isn't
> an issue for 20 years or if at some future time something may possibly be
> prevented from entering the public domain then that might become an
issue...not
> that I agree but that's the argument they will advance...
>
> Of course one way to force the issue is to have someone who has the rights
to
> something released ONLY on DVD to relinquish it to the public domain say
in his
> will.
>
> On 19 Jun 2002 at 1:19, Richard M. Hartman wrote:
>
> From:           "Richard M. Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
> To:             <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Correction: ReplayTV: Some Citizens
> Consumers, Some Not
> Date sent:      Wed, 19 Jun 2002 01:19:46 -0700
> Send reply to:  dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>
> > 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/     |
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>