[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Comments from the Judge in the 321 studios case
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Comments from the Judge in the 321 studios case
- From: "aicra(at)well.com" <aicra(at)well.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:56:07 -0400
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
This is an interesting concept that could actually work (2 editions).
However, how would one distinguish that the work actually derived from the
purchased copy and not from an encrypted copy?
Would there need to be some distinguishing characteristic other than say
receipt or registration? Otherwise, it is possible people will be accused
of infringement when they have purchased the copy. Also, when the legit
copy exchanges hands, through sale or gift what would happen then?
and, Yes, the patent like protection of copyright needs fixing.
From: Richard Hartman email@example.com
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:38:55 -0700
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Comments from the Judge in the 321 studios case
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > And as I've argued before, works that are distributed with
> encryption should
> > not be copyrighted
> Ok, so we offer two editions: the encrypted edition, for
> $9.99, and the
> uncrypted edition, for $999. If you copy the
> (uncopyrightable) encrypted
> edition, you infringe the encrypted edition.
> Or are you saying publishing a work with encryption removes
> an item from
Yes, because it is never truely published.
Consider the difference between Trade Secret and Patent. Patent
is protection _under_the_law_ ... but it requires full disclosure
by the inventor. Anyone (with suitable skills) reading the patent
application should be able to reproduce the invention -- but they
would then be liable for infringement under the law unless they work
out a license fee with the registered inventor.
Trade Secret involves the inventor _not_ registering the invention,
but instead implementing their own protection. The most commonly
known (well, known _about_) Trade Secrets are recipies ... KFC's
7 herbs and spices, Coca Cola. Should the Colonel's recepie get
out, he has no recourse under the law for the recepie itself, although
the act of stealing the Trade Secret usually implies at least one
other illegal action, so the person who took it can frequently
be prosecuted for breaking & entering, theft, or some such.
The benefit of Trade Secret status over Patent protection is that
the protection lasts for as long as you can maintain it. Patent
expires, at which point anyone is free to reproduce it.
Hollywierd is attempting to get the best of both worlds as applied
to Copyright protection. Consider that Copyright is very similar
to Patent. Protection under the law. After expiration, the work
becomes part of the public domain. Hollywierd is attempting to
implement their own protections for their works (a la Trade Secret)
_without_ losing the benefits of Copyright status. The best of
both worlds so to speak. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out,
an encrypted work CAN NOT ENTER THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AT THE END OF
THE COPYRIGHT TERM. Thus the publishers are reneging on their
part of the bargain.
Copyright protection -- protection under the law -- involves full
disclosure. The sole recourse is the law. If you try to protect
it yourself, you're on you're own and you get protection for just
as long (and no longer) than you can maintain that protection. Or
at least, that's the way it _should_ be if the different IP types
were being treated equally.
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
mail2web - Check your email from the web at