Re: [dvd-discuss] Comments from the Judge in the 321 studios case

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 16 Jun 2003 at 20:19, mickeym wrote:

Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Comments from the Judge in the 321 studios 
case
From:           	mickeym <mickeym@mindspring.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Date sent:      	16 Jun 2003 20:19:01 -0400
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 12:30, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t280-s2134792,00.html
> >  
> > Doesn't sound good.  
> >  
> > [blockquote]
> > For example, when Durie opened her statements by saying the studios are
> > mistakenly trying to argue that 321 is offering a tool for burglars, the judge
> > fired back, "Under the statute, all it has to be is a circumvention device."
> > [/blockquote]
> >  
> > The thing is, she's right.  It's the law itself that needs to be invalidated.
> >  
> > There is one promising bit at the end of the article:
> >  
> > [blockquote]
> > Illston asked Zacharia to explain the conundrum of locking up copyrighted
> > works behind encryption and then making the breaking of that encryption
> > illegal, even after the copyrights on those works expire. The judge wondered
> > if it would effectively extend copyrights to keep such works out of the public
> > domain.
> > 
> > Zacharia said it would not, because the copyright had expired.
> > 
> > "But it's encrypted. If it doesn't stop being encrypted, it's still
> > encrypted," Illston said, adding that such protected works still couldn't be
> > legally copied.
> > 
> > [/blockquote]
> > 
> > Richard M. Hartman 
> > hartman@onetouch.com 
> > 
> > 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW! 
> 
> If it can't enter the public domain because it is encrypted, then it
> should not be considered the same as a published work. 

And as I've argued before, works that are distributed with encryption should 
not be copyrighted


> 
> The "content" of a dvd is better described as a trade secret, then,
> isn't it?

Yes. It really is a trade secret.

Our intellectual property community needs to define an unified and unifying 
theory of Trademark, copyright, patent and trade secret You don't get copyright 
or patent for unpublished works. They are trade secrets. PERIOD...You can 
protect a trade secret ONLY by protecting it (and this whole notionthat Bunner 
should have known it was a trade secret is PBS. IF the trade secret was not 
protected by the holders well enough that it could be REed than that's TFB)
> 
> mickeym
> 
> 
> 
>