[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] banned software on sale in compusa
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] banned software on sale in compusa
- From: "James S. Tyre" <jstyre(at)jstyre.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:43:00 -0800
- In-reply-to: <3E0261E4.71981BEC@ia.nsc.com>
- References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021219155018.04366ed0@earthlink.net>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
At 05:18 PM 12/19/2002 -0700, John Zulauf wrote:
>Compare and contrast:
>
>"Our view is that any product or service that
> circumvents the copyright protection scrambling
> technology on DVDs" opens the door to criminal
> prosecution under the 1998 Digital Millennium
> Copyright Act, said Marta Grutka, spokeswoman for
> the Motion Picture Association of America."
>
>and
>
>"The studios have not responded to the suit, but
> instead filed a motion to dismiss it on grounds that
> there is no current dispute between the industry and
> 321 Studios."
>
>and
>
>"The MPAA, which represents the movie studios
> named in the suit, has repeatedly declined to
> comment on 321 Studios' products because of the
> suit. Grutka, the group's spokeswoman, would only
> comment in general terms about provisions in the
> DMCA that make it a criminal offense to use
> technology to circumvent the industry-standard
> scrambling system that prevents copying of a DVD
> movie. "
>
>Now somebody help me here. How can there be "no current dispute" and
>the organization representing the movie studios holding that 321's
>actions are illegal. Aren't there some ethics standards that prevent
>claiming no dispute, when in fact that same party's representation
>claims (and states publicly) to have grounds to press criminal charges
>against the other?
>
>IANAL. Help Mr. Wizard!!!!
John, John, John, you suffer from short term memory loss. ;-)
MPAA often takes cues from RIAA, if only because the record biz has been
around a lot longer.
Remember when Matt Oppenheim of RIAA wrote what was unquestionably a threat
letter to Ed Felten et al?
Remember when we took them up on the threat, filed our own decl. relief action?
Remember when RIAA promptly backtracked, "no, it wasn't a real threat,
there's no real controversy here"?
Remember when the court bought it?
Precedent, baby, precedent.
(I hope you weren't expecting a more formal answer, grounded squarely in
textbook law. This is the real world, not law school.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969
Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net