[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: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:59:29 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcM06Q2vvry2iNX6RQKMVjyroEYPOAAAFAsg
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] Comments from the Judge in the 321 studios case
It could not work. The $999 edition would be a
circumvention device, whose primary purpose is
to bypass the TPM on the $9.99 edition.
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 8:56 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Comments from the Judge in the 321 studios
> 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.
> Original Message:
> From: Richard Hartman email@example.com
> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:38:55 -0700
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Comments from the Judge in the 321
> studios case
> > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 email@example.com wrote:
> > > And as I've argued before, works that are distributed with
> > encryption should
> > > not be copyrighted
> > <DA>
> > 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.
> > </DA>
> > Or are you saying publishing a work with encryption removes
> > an item from
> > copyright?
> 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
> http://mail2web.com/ .