Re: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech

[Jolley <tjolley(at)swbell.net>]

microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> > If a work can't be copied then it doesn't need copyright protection.
> 
> And so is outside the copyright system and need not be discussed further.

I disagree but will not discuss further since it is pointless.

> 
> >
> > A work protected by a DRM preventing it from being copied doesn't mean
> > that the work shouldn't be protected by copyright after the DRM is
> > broken.
> 
> Why? They wanted to do better than the bargain they could have gotten by
> copyright and lost. They can't repudiate their choice. ESTOPPEL.
> They chose to take a chance and lost. Too bad. Vegas doesn't give refunds when
> you crap out and why should the copyright system?
> 

I have used protected in two ways that may be confusing.  DRM schemes
are barriers to access while copyright is a legal protection.
Obviously you beleive that employing a barrier to access nullifies
the legal protection of copyright.  I disagree.

> >
> > A work protected by a DRM in one type of media does not negate the
> > protection of copyright if published in a media without DRM.
> >
> 
> Why not? This confuses the media with the work itself. The work is copyrighted
> and so must obey copyright in ALL distributions. To not do so is to invalidate
> the copyright which is is on the WORK.

Copyright should be completely independent of access right.  Isn't this
the problem with the DMCA?  It gives a new right to authors that is
not copyright but accessright.

> 
> > There shouldn't be any obligation to make a work easy to copy in
> > exchange for copyright protection.
> >
> 
> This is specious. The argument is not that it is easy.
> 
> > Being copiable is only a necessary condition for a work to be
> > copied.  It has nothing to do with entering the public domain.
> >
> 
> NOt so. If a work is in the public domain, it can be copied. Right...If it
> cannot be copied then it is NOT in the public contrapositives are logical
> equivalent statements. To not accept the latter statement is to negate the
> former.
> 

In/out of the public domain.  Can/can't copy.  Two bits and four
combinations.
1. A work in the public domain that can be copied.
2. A work in the public domain that can't be copied.
3. A work not in the public domain that can be copied.
4. A work not in the public domain that can't be copied.

I think a work can be in any of the above conditions.  A work in the
public domain is independent of whether it is copiable because of
conditions 1 and 2.

> > What is the point in your statement below?  It sounds like you want
> > to punish or deny copyright from an author (publisher) that tries
> > to use a DRM.
> 
> Punish no. Deny YES! DRMs violate copyright fundamentals from a societal and
> legal perspective. What is copyright but a type of contract between the
> government and the creator (let's forget copyright as a natural right. That's
> BS. If there is no government, a "natural right" exists only if you can
> exercise it by brute force.)
> 

DRMs are access control.  They shouldn't be part of copyright.  Neither
in the DMCA or as you propose.  DRMs violate copyright fundamentals
because they aren't a copyright.

> As a contract:
> 
> What does the creator give initially. They create the work and distribute it.
> What do they get? A near monopoly on it. Other than fair use they can prevent
> anyone from making infringing copies.

Not after the fact.

> They express legal service. If they
> detect someone is infringing all the need to do is present proof of copyright
> and the onus shifts to the defendant to prove not guilty. In the case of
> egregious infringement, they get investigative help from law enforcement
> agencies (detectives investigate using public funds). Public prosecutors try
> their cases (saving them legal fees). Defendants found guilty are sent to
> prisons run by using taxes. All of this happens (now) for the lifetime of the
> creator, spouse, children, grandchildren and several more generations.
> 
> Pretty rosy isn't it? What's more? What's been left out here?
> The consideration on the government - the work enters the public domain at the
> end of copyright. So what does that mean?
> 
> At the end of copyright ANYONE can use the work. ANyone can create derivative
> works. Anyone can reprint/republish/redistribute/reuse/whatever! No fees. No
> royalties. No negotiation. Nothing. SO how can they do that? From ANY of the
> remaining copies that are still in existence. What's more it must be able to
> occur from EVERY copy that is still in existence. (Historically the centralized
> libraries antiquity were subject to destruction.). Copies distributed decades
> before that interfere or prevent this negate this contract and so have breached
> it.
> 
> To permit DRMs initially is to permit the fulfilment of the contract in 70 yrs -
>  another reason for overturning CTEA. Who can wait 70 yrs to see if the
> contract for copyright has been faithfully fulfilled or if the
> creator/distributer has breached the contract intially.
> 
> >I think a positive purpose of this discussion group is
> > to promote the right to access works (copyrighted and public domain)
> > protected by DRM schemes.
> 
> Public Domain works cannot be protected by DRM by definition. Copyright works
> that cannot enter the public domain because of DRMs are not copyrighted and so
> deserve no legal protection since they are self help in advance of legal
> adjudication.
> 

Public domain works can have access protection via DRM.  Should it
be illegal to bypass the DRM?  The answer is no.

If a work is not copyrighted because there is a DRM, do you mean
it should be in the public domain?  Or, is the work in some kind of
limbo between copyright and public domain?