[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-discuss digest] V #12
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-discuss digest] V #12
- From: Zimran Ahmed <zahmed(at)gsb.uchicago.edu>
- Date: Sat, 16 Mar 02 00:15:42 -0600
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
>I'd forgotten that.....*&%$#@ed!! merger mania. THAT may be the whole
>of the meeting. WHere does AOL come out in the matter?
AOL actually doesn't know. They're having similar internal issues with
spinner. AOL, like Sony, is ambivelent about all of this.
You can also make the case that any built-in DRM must support public
domain or copyleft goods. So it must allow the existence of goods that
can be tampered with in any way. Moreover, there must be a way for
copyrighted products to fall into public domain. And it must protect fair
use of copyrighted goods. So, if I buy a text under copyright, any DRM
system should let me have fair use of it, and when it's copyright
expires, the content should automatically have all DRM removed.
Once you include public domain (and copyleft) as legitimate DRM
categories, and start defining what "fair use" is, the system become even