[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-discuss digest] V #12
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-discuss digest] V #12
- From: Tim Neu <tim(at)tneu.visi.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 12:06:27 -0600 (CST)
- In-reply-to: <200203160617.AAA12930@gsbpop.uchicago.edu>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, Zimran Ahmed wrote:
> Once you include public domain (and copyleft) as legitimate DRM
> categories, and start defining what "fair use" is, the system become even
> more untenable.
They're not looking for a tenable system. They're perfectly happy to
implement a police state to enforce their "intellectual property" view of
By definition, fair use has (amoung other things) meant the ability to
create full backup copies. Since any DRM system can prohibit copying
entirely (and nearly all DRM systems we have seen so far have), the idea
that the IP industries will voluntarily play by the rules of fair use is
You know, the current IP industries have a lot in common with the tactics
of organized crime.
Pay your protection money or else, vs, talk to us first, or we'll sue.
Copyright resembles a protection racket more than a social contract
Adds a whole new meaning to the term "Movie Mafia".
______ _ __ Military Intelligence
/ ' ) ) -KC0LQL- Honest Politician
/ o ______ / / _ . . Intellectual Property
/ <_/ / / < / (_</_(_/_ -- email@example.com / http://www.visi.com/~tneu --