RE: [dvd-discuss] Postage Meters and the "Right to Tinker"

["Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

I don't see where you can say the don't allow
me to refuse it.  If I toss it in the trash
(breaking it first if I suspect that my 
specific address has been encoded on it, but
I doubt that ...) then I have successfully
refused it.  Noone came to my door with a gun
to my head and said that I _have_ to use it ...


-- 
-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: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:22 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Postage Meters and the "Right to Tinker"
> 
> 
> On 9 Jan 2003 at 17:01, Richard Hartman wrote:
> 
> Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Postage Meters and 
> the "Right to Tinker"
> Date sent:      	Thu, 9 Jan 2003 17:01:29 -0800
> From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
> To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> > Fine ... then the "work" embodied on the CD I recieved in the
> > mail is _TurboTax_ , and I have every right to attempt to
> > access it, do I not?
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing that you don't have the right to access it 
> ("It's a Gift"-a 
> W.C.Fields Movie I might add)....In fact, I'm arguing that 
> since the works are 
> encrypted they are not copyrighted so the DMCA doesn't even 
> apply. The only 
> thing that is copyrighted is the viewable work and all the 
> rest is just legal 
> self help in advance of copyright infringement.
> 
> The fact is that TurboTax has made a gift of itself to you by 
> sending it in the 
> mail. They know that or should since they can afford to hire 
> members of the bar 
> in good standing. But TurboTax has decided to put conditions 
> on this gift and 
> also not allow you to refuse this gift. As far as I'm 
> concerned too bad for 
> TurboTax (I don't plan on using it this year anywise. Last 
> years version 
> sucked.)
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > -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: Thursday, January 09, 2003 3:33 PM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Postage Meters and the "Right to Tinker"
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > This sort of argument that the viewable copy is a 
> derivative work is on the same
> > level as the legal community arguing whether or not a 
> temporary copy in RAM,
> > cache, or in the temp directory is a copy for the purposes 
> of infringement... 
> > 
> > The WORK is copyrighted not the medium. Not the 
> representation.  I would argue
> > that a scrambled version cannot be copyrighted since it has 
> no information to
> > communicate. (Promoting progress through the transmission 
> of random bits?) 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  "Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com> 
> > Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 
> > 
> > 
> > 01/09/2003 11:35 AM 
> > Please respond to dvd-discuss 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >         To:        <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu> 
> >         cc:         
> >         Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Postage Meters 
> and the "Right to
> >         Tinker"
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > So the viewable "Die Hard" is a derivative work
> > of the scrambled version on the DVD, and I only
> > own the scrambled version without the right to
> > create a derivative work (the viewable version)
> > unless I have a player licensed by the DVD-CCA?
> > 
> > -- 
> > -Richard M. Hartman
> > hartman@onetouch.com
> > 
> > 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jeremy Erwin [mailto:jerwin@ponymail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:58 AM
> > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Postage Meters and the "Right 
> to Tinker"
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 01:29  PM, John Zulauf wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Sham Gardner wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> In the case of TurboTax, you are not using the data they 
> > > sent you to 
> > > >> obtain
> > > >> services they would otherwise charge for. You are using 
> > > information 
> > > >> they
> > > >> have already sent you, *without* extracting any additional 
> > > goods or 
> > > >> services
> > > >> from them.
> > > >
> > > > You are making good and valuable use of the software, a 
> right not
> > > > granted without the authorization of the copyright 
> holder.  They 
> > > > haven't
> > > > sent you (without circumvention) sufficient information to use
> > > > TurboTax.  You are extracting the a right to use without 
> > > payment to the
> > > > rights holder.  Circumvention changes the disk from a 
> coaster to a
> > > > useful valuable product, and a replacement good for any 
> > > full version of
> > > > the software.  This is right to license is the "good or 
> > > service" of the
> > > > software company, and circumventing (prior to first 
> sale) infringes 
> > > > this
> > > > right.
> > > >
> > > > Can we agree that the TurboTax keyware disk mailed to 
> > > Richard is not 
> > > > the
> > > > complete product as-is?  One must add authorization 
> "sauce" (true or
> > > > forged) to make it so. The unsolicited good is only the 
> > > installer disk
> > > > "as-is" (and not a functioning copy of TurboTax).   The 
> clearly one
> > > > would be defrauding the company of remuneration for  the 
> > > "right to use"
> > > > a full copy. (RTU's are real products in this industry BTW.)
> > > >
> > > Let's bring out the GNU argument-- the GPL is based on the (well 
> > > accepted) right to control the creation of derivative 
> works-- as long 
> > > as the original work remains under copyright, no person may, 
> > > except for 
> > > parody, commentary, or educational purposes (fair use), create 
> > > derivative works without the permission of the copyright holder.
> > > 
> > > Now, in the case of TurboTax, the application of an authorization 
> > > string creates a new derivative work-- as the combined 
> work is very 
> > > similar to the original work (TurboTax without key)...
> > > 
> > > I suppose that if one does not wish to disentangle the 
> FSF, CCA, and 
> > > TurboTax, one can always fall back on the old standby-- 
> > > copying to the 
> > > hard drive is an infringement on their rights, and that 
> the key is 
> > > merely a digital signature acknowledging the exchange of 
> > > money for the 
> > > right to use.
> > > 
> > > Jeremy
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>