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

RE: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Court Endorses Ban on DVD Copy Technology [321 Studios]

Y'know, 321Studios left a message on my phone machine
yesterday urging me to call Steve Jobs at Pixar (presumably
a computer-savvy guy but now w/ a movie industry company)
to leave a message about the DMCA.

I pondered for a bit and something occurred to me.

The MPAA is lobbying in favor of the DMCA because they
think it protects their interests.

What would they do if the actually realized that it
does not.

Think a moment.  CSS does _nothing_ to validate that
DVD playing is legit.  The only thing it validates
is that the _player_ has code (CSS) that was licensed
from the DVDCCA.  In other words, it protects the
interests of the player manufacturers, but NOT the
interests of the movie industry.  Put a pirate DVD
(still encrypted) into a "good" player and it will
play.  Put a good DVD into an unlicensed player and
it will not play.

Do you think the movie industry actually realizes that
CSS does nothing for _them_?  I'm not so sure.

Perhaps it isn't the courts we have to educate, but
the movie moguls.  Get the MPAA playing on our side.

-Richard M. Hartman

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 7:02 PM
> To: Ole Craig; dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Court Endorses Ban on DVD Copy
> Technology [321 Studios]
> On 2 Mar 2004 at 12:47, Ole Craig wrote:
> Date sent:      	Tue, 2 Mar 2004 12:47:28 -0500 (EST)
> From:           	Ole Craig <olc@cs.umass.edu>
> To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Court Endorses 
> Ban on DVD Copy Technology
> 	[321 Studios]
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > On 02/27/04 at 16:02, 'twas brillig and Joshua Stratton scrobe:
> > > Presumably the answer is that the authority was given to 
> the DVDCCA to 
> > > authorize manufacturers to decrypt in the course of 
> normal operations of
> > > DVDCCA-allowed players.
> > [...]
> > 
> >  So when I press "play" on my DVD player, the decryption is
> > actually *performed* by the manufacturer? How the hell is this not
> > simply a retread of US V. Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. 131 (1948)?
> Oh no...this is a new wrinkle on an old greed.....the 
> authority of the 
> copyright holder has been given to the manufacturer of the 
> DVD. The purchaser 
> of the DVD only gets it through the graces of the DVDCCA and 
> the compliance of 
> the DVD manufacturer....
> > 
> > 
> > > Or they just don't get it, which seems a bit more likely to me.
> > 
> >  Likewise. The problem is that when the courts "don't get it"
> > the consequences are a tad severe.
> Yes...the sad thing is that they DON"T get it....there really 
> isn't much to 
> comment on the opinion...it's of the "I read Reimedes, Elcom 
> and I agree...it 
> saves me the trouble of thinking...and I get to protect 
> Intellectual Property 
> from being raped pillaged and plundered by the hoards of 
> hackers..." While a 
> pedantic legal scholar may admire the technical aspects of 
> the opinion, any 
> with insight would deplore the shallowness of it. Quite 
> frankly as I read the 
> opinion this weekend over coffee and a poppyseed bagel with 
> cream cheese, I 
> thought..."well this is light sunday morning reading....the 
> book reviews in the 
> NYTimes were more intellectually stimulating 20yrs ago and 
> the underwear ads 
> were more interesting..." 
> > 
> >   Ole
> > -- 
> > Ole Craig * UNIX, linux, SMTP-ninja; news, web; SGI martyr 
> * CS Computing
> > Facility, UMass * <www.cs.umass.edu/~olc/pgppubkey.txt> for 
> public key
> > 
> >   Where are the missing deficit-reduction program-related 
> activities?