dvd-discuss.archive.0102100640 764 764 11421675 7247152431 15365 0ustar wseltzerwseltzerFrom dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 00:16:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA09063 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:16:53 -0500 Received: from web509.mail.yahoo.com (web509.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.224]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA09060 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:16:52 -0500 Message-ID: <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.81.113.151] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:20:48 PST Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:20:48 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici To: dvd-discuss MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I've been reading over the various amicus briefs and have had a little time to reflect. Overall, I'm pretty impressed with the variety of viewpoints and the forcefulness of the analytic arguments. One hole seems to be that nobody went after the reverse engineering exception and the linux DVD player point of view. Curious. I was also happily surprised with how many of the arguments, even from the law professors, had been developed here. Looking back, I think the analysis of the group was of a pretty high quality. The writing style in many of the briefs seemed to be of a caliber that was VERY high. Highly polished, highly professional -- most of them gave me writer's envy. I think my favorite is the 46 law professors. It's basically a 10th Amendment argument to say that the DMCA is outside of Congressional enumerated powers, and it's a point that I didn't think anybody would make because it's so bold. This brief played it as a high trump card. I just can't imagine that 46 IP professors would not have a big influence on an appeals court. If you take the briefs as a whole, there are substantial arguments against every plank of the 4 part O'Brien intermediate scrutiny standard, plus a pretty good argument that says that is the wrong standard in the first place. I certainly felt like the MPAA got a free ride at trial -- we all kind of laughed at how unsophisticated their arguments were. The judge had to help them out and wrote a better brief than they did. At long last, their free ride is over and they've got to come up with some cold dry analysis instead of just repeating "it's stealing!" over and over. I don't think they're up to it. In fact, I just wonder if they had any idea how formidble the case for 2600 actually is. I bet these amicus briefs hit them like a bolt from the blue, and I hope they are shitting in their pants right now. __________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 00:33:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA09188 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:33:18 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA09185 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:33:16 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18920 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:53:42 -0800 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:53:42 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici Message-ID: <20010131225342.G27362@duskglow.com> References: <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:20:48PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That would be a good thing to wish. But I've been following this for as long as it's been going on, getting mad when appropriate, acting when appropriate. I was one of the signers of the openlaw amicus brief. Then I started to think. What on earth would cause professional people such as the MPAA people, who are no doubt as representative of the cross-slice of people as anything else. I bet some of them are good people, and I bet some of them are stinkers. But they all are very forcefully and vehemently arguing a very *wrong* point of view. And they're willing to defend it with everything they have. Now I'm sure that there are some people very high up who are consciously motivated by profit at the expense of everything else - but you know what I think? I think that most of them *actually believe it*. In their heart of hearts I think they actually believe that we are all thieves just because we believe in the openness of the Internet and in restriction of intellectual properties. But as many years in a cult has taught me, when you have been made to, or choose to, believe something strongly enough, or when you have sunk tremendous resources into maintaining the status quo, you will have an unflappable belief that *you are right*, no matter what the evidence of the opposition, no matter what is placed in front of you, nothing will dissuade you from this belief. Even if you know deep down it is wrong, you will defend it to the death. This is the situation I think the MP studios and the MPAA is in right now. They will not "shit in their pants", nor will they pay us any attention at all except to "refute" our arguments, no matter how badly or disjointed their defenses are. They are just too convinced of their own "rightness", and they can't see any conceivable way that we can win this battle, or this war. Because they are big companies, and they think they are right, and because of this no one, not even the courts, will ever be able to do anything but mitigate their most egregrious offenses. They're not just fighting to the death for a profit stream. They're fighting to the death because their personal ideology about how the free market should work, which has been tainted and spoiled by many, many years of free ride on the coattails of restricted availability of intellectual property through physical means, is being challenged. And rather than change their views to fit the changing situation, they will fight to the death to make sure the situation will always be made to fit their views. Very dangerous things happen when this is allowed. A large-scale psychosis is no less a psychosis. This war isn't going to ever be completely won until capitalists start to realize that there's more to life than money, dogma, and competitiveness. Just as us geeks have had to grow up rather quick and realize there's more to life than our community, the internet, and the ideals of an open society. --Russell On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:20:48PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > In fact, I just wonder if they had any idea how formidble the case for 2600 > actually is. I bet these amicus briefs hit them like a bolt from the blue, and > I hope they are shitting in their pants right now. > > __________________________________________________ > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ -- Russell (James) Miller - rmiller@duskglow.com Work: russell_miller@metstream.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone who claims a piece of me or my time. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 01:12:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA09327 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:12:53 -0500 Received: from smtp-out2.bellatlantic.net (smtp-out2.bellatlantic.net [199.45.40.144]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA09324 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:12:51 -0500 Received: from newmicronpc (adsl-151-202-191-212.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.191.212]) by smtp-out2.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA04781 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:16:54 -0500 (EST) From: "John Dempsey" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:13:46 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20010131225342.G27362@duskglow.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Money has its own everything. Its own values, its own morals, its own objectives, its own fears. Watch Brazil, near the beginning, where all the people walk and turn in the info-factory with faces but with no real presence, they're going somewhere, they're everywhere but in front of you, and yet they're smiling and dutiful. my friend defends the asbestos industry as a corporate attny because she has large school debt. the money does the work. the money makes the coices. we are talking about a huge industry with huge profits at stake. if they need the Constitution bent or rights curtailed, they won't be the first to try it. but don't focus on the people pushing the papers for them. attnys are trained not to care that much whose side they're on anyway. have no faith in mercenaries. it's the judges we must hope can see things right. -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Russell Miller Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:54 AM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici That would be a good thing to wish. But I've been following this for as long as it's been going on, getting mad when appropriate, acting when appropriate. I was one of the signers of the openlaw amicus brief. Then I started to think. What on earth would cause professional people such as the MPAA people, who are no doubt as representative of the cross-slice of people as anything else. I bet some of them are good people, and I bet some of them are stinkers. But they all are very forcefully and vehemently arguing a very *wrong* point of view. And they're willing to defend it with everything they have. Now I'm sure that there are some people very high up who are consciously motivated by profit at the expense of everything else - but you know what I think? I think that most of them *actually believe it*. In their heart of hearts I think they actually believe that we are all thieves just because we believe in the openness of the Internet and in restriction of intellectual properties. But as many years in a cult has taught me, when you have been made to, or choose to, believe something strongly enough, or when you have sunk tremendous resources into maintaining the status quo, you will have an unflappable belief that *you are right*, no matter what the evidence of the opposition, no matter what is placed in front of you, nothing will dissuade you from this belief. Even if you know deep down it is wrong, you will defend it to the death. This is the situation I think the MP studios and the MPAA is in right now. They will not "shit in their pants", nor will they pay us any attention at all except to "refute" our arguments, no matter how badly or disjointed their defenses are. They are just too convinced of their own "rightness", and they can't see any conceivable way that we can win this battle, or this war. Because they are big companies, and they think they are right, and because of this no one, not even the courts, will ever be able to do anything but mitigate their most egregrious offenses. They're not just fighting to the death for a profit stream. They're fighting to the death because their personal ideology about how the free market should work, which has been tainted and spoiled by many, many years of free ride on the coattails of restricted availability of intellectual property through physical means, is being challenged. And rather than change their views to fit the changing situation, they will fight to the death to make sure the situation will always be made to fit their views. Very dangerous things happen when this is allowed. A large-scale psychosis is no less a psychosis. This war isn't going to ever be completely won until capitalists start to realize that there's more to life than money, dogma, and competitiveness. Just as us geeks have had to grow up rather quick and realize there's more to life than our community, the internet, and the ideals of an open society. --Russell On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:20:48PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > In fact, I just wonder if they had any idea how formidble the case for 2600 > actually is. I bet these amicus briefs hit them like a bolt from the blue, and > I hope they are shitting in their pants right now. > > __________________________________________________ > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ -- Russell (James) Miller - rmiller@duskglow.com Work: russell_miller@metstream.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone who claims a piece of me or my time. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 08:50:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA10916 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:50:43 -0500 Received: from mail2.doit.wisc.edu (mail2.doit.wisc.edu [144.92.9.41]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA10913 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:50:39 -0500 Received: from [128.104.49.226] by mail2.doit.wisc.edu id HAA10172 (8.9.1/50); Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:54:34 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1231086351==_ma============" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A75BB01.6D297626@videotron.ca> References: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:02:20 -0600 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Lisa Livingston Subject: [dvd-discuss] Intellectual Property Conference Announcement Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --============_-1231086351==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Conference planners would like to announce an upcoming intellectual property conference. ^^INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT^^ On May 6-9, 2001, the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School and School of Education will cosponsor an intellectual property conference, Intellectual Property in the Digital Environment: Exploring the Possibilities at the Monona Terrace Convention Center in Madison, Wisconsin. The Conference, national in scope, will begin with an opening reception on Sunday evening, May 6, 2001 followed by two days of presentations. Two comprehensive post-conference workshops related to copyright and ownership policy are scheduled for Wednesday, May 9. Conference presentations will address: -Copyright and the Internet -Fair Use in Cyberspace -Anticircumvention Issues -Ownership Issues and Distance Education -Copyright Infringement and Digital Technologies -Innovative Edu-Business Partnerships Our goal is to open communication pathways and share relevant and current information with individuals who have a vested interest in intellectual property use and development in education. A partial list of confirmed speakers from education, business, and government: -Marybeth Peters, Register of the United States Copyright Office (Keynote Speaker) -The Honorable Tammy Baldwin, U.S. House of Representative, Wisconsin, Judiciary Committee Member -The Honorable Robert Kastenmeier, former Wisconsin Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives -Michael Remington, Attorney, Drinker Biddle and Reath, Washington, DC -Fritz Attaway, General Counsel, Motion Picture Association of America -Kenneth Salomon, Attorney, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC, Washington, DC -Bruce Lehman, President and CEO, International Intellectual Property Institute and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and United States Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks -Robert Antonucci, President, Harcourt Higher Education -Georgia Harper, Office of General Counsel, University of Texas/Austin -Judith Saffer, Deputy Counsel, Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), New York -Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association, Washington Office -Bernard R. Sorkin, Senior Counsel, AOL Time Warner/New York -Lois Wasoff, VP and Corporate Counsel, Houghton Mifflin Co. & Chairperson, Copyright Committee, Association of American Publishers A complete list of confirmed speakers, detailed program and conference information, and the conference registration form is available on the conference website - http://ipconference.education.wisc.edu If you have any questions regarding this conference, please contact: Lisa Livingston Conference Chairperson University of Wisconsin-Madison lmlivingston@facstaff. (608)262-3431 Lisa Livingston Director, Instructional Media Development Center University of Wisconsin/School of Education 142 Education Science Building 1025 W. Johnson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53706 V: 608.262.3431 F:608.262.6447 livingston@education.wisc.edu or lmlivingston@facstaff.wisc.edu http://imdc.education.wisc.edu --============_-1231086351==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Intellectual Property Conference Announcement
Conference planners would like to announce an upcoming
intellectual property conference.

^^INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT^^

On May 6-9, 2001, the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School
and School of Education will cosponsor an intellectual property
conference, Intellectual Property in the Digital Environment:
Exploring the Possibilities at the Monona Terrace Convention
Center in Madison, Wisconsin. The Conference, national in scope,
will begin with an opening reception on Sunday evening, May 6,
2001 followed by two days of presentations. Two comprehensive
post-conference workshops related to copyright and ownership
policy are scheduled for Wednesday, May 9.

Conference presentations will address:
-Copyright and the Internet 
-Fair Use in Cyberspace
-Anticircumvention Issues
-Ownership Issues and Distance Education
-Copyright Infringement and Digital Technologies
-Innovative Edu-Business Partnerships

Our goal is to open communication pathways and share
relevant and current information with individuals who have
a vested interest in intellectual property use and development
in education.

A partial list of confirmed speakers from education, business,
and government:

-Marybeth Peters, Register of the United States Copyright Office
  (Keynote Speaker)

-The Honorable Tammy Baldwin, U.S. House of Representative,
Wisconsin, Judiciary Committee Member

-The Honorable Robert Kastenmeier, former Wisconsin Congressman,
  U.S. House of Representatives

-Michael Remington, Attorney, Drinker Biddle and Reath, Washington, DC

-Fritz Attaway, General Counsel, Motion Picture Association of America

-Kenneth Salomon, Attorney, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC,
  Washington, DC
-Bruce Lehman, President and CEO, International Intellectual Property Institute and
 former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and United States Commissioner
 of Patents and Trademarks

-Robert Antonucci, President, Harcourt Higher Education

-Georgia Harper, Office of General Counsel, University of Texas/Austin

-Judith Saffer, Deputy Counsel, Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), New York

-Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association,
Washington Office

-Bernard R. Sorkin, Senior Counsel, AOL Time Warner/New York

-Lois Wasoff, VP and Corporate Counsel, Houghton Mifflin Co. & Chairperson, Copyright
Committee, Association of American Publishers

A complete list of confirmed speakers, detailed program and conference information,
and the conference registration form is available on the conference website -
http://ipconference.education.wisc.edu

If you have any questions regarding this conference,
please contact:

Lisa Livingston
Conference Chairperson
University of Wisconsin-Madison
lmlivingston@facstaff.
(608)262-3431
Lisa Livingston
Director, Instructional Media Development Center
University of Wisconsin/School of Education
142 Education Science Building
1025 W. Johnson Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
V: 608.262.3431  F:608.262.6447
livingston@education.wisc.edu  or
lmlivingston@facstaff.wisc.edu
http://imdc.education.wisc.edu
--============_-1231086351==_ma============-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 10:53:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA11604 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:53:19 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA11601 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:53:15 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:57:11 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:57:08 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/01/2001 07:57:10 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'd bet Money the MPAA are probably writing Jacky Boot's next round of speeches and public appearances. I haven't had the time to read through all of them (except the EFF and the CS Profs - Again WELL DONE JIM!) but I'm impressed with who filed them and the points they make. Hopefully intelligence and enlightened self interest will win over stupidity and greed. Bryan Taylor To: dvd-discuss Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici 01/31/01 09:22 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss I've been reading over the various amicus briefs and have had a little time to reflect. Overall, I'm pretty impressed with the variety of viewpoints and the forcefulness of the analytic arguments. One hole seems to be that nobody went after the reverse engineering exception and the linux DVD player point of view. Curious. I was also happily surprised with how many of the arguments, even from the law professors, had been developed here. Looking back, I think the analysis of the group was of a pretty high quality. The writing style in many of the briefs seemed to be of a caliber that was VERY high. Highly polished, highly professional -- most of them gave me writer's envy. I think my favorite is the 46 law professors. It's basically a 10th Amendment argument to say that the DMCA is outside of Congressional enumerated powers, and it's a point that I didn't think anybody would make because it's so bold. This brief played it as a high trump card. I just can't imagine that 46 IP professors would not have a big influence on an appeals court. If you take the briefs as a whole, there are substantial arguments against every plank of the 4 part O'Brien intermediate scrutiny standard, plus a pretty good argument that says that is the wrong standard in the first place. I certainly felt like the MPAA got a free ride at trial -- we all kind of laughed at how unsophisticated their arguments were. The judge had to help them out and wrote a better brief than they did. At long last, their free ride is over and they've got to come up with some cold dry analysis instead of just repeating "it's stealing!" over and over. I don't think they're up to it. In fact, I just wonder if they had any idea how formidble the case for 2600 actually is. I bet these amicus briefs hit them like a bolt from the blue, and I hope they are shitting in their pants right now. __________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 11:26:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA11898 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:26:00 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA11895 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:25:59 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:29:49 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:29:48 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/01/2001 08:29:49 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think you put it very well. It is exactly the situation here. Once one views an opponent as E V I L rather than mistaken, one begins that opposition is morally justified and obligated. Of course, you don'thave to listen to his arguments, consider his position, or your own. And they will defend their position vehemently. Actually, this is a continuation of something that started 20 yrs ago with the VCR. They got quite a blow from the SC in the Sony case (I can imagine some Justice, probably Powell or Marshall, making the statement in conference "OK. It's time to come clean. Who has a VCR? Who has ever used it to tape a program?...") and the Home Recording Act. They have been steadily loosing their ground as sole providers and dictators of distribution. The Copyright extension act, the DMCA , CSS, and the DVDCCA are their latest counter attack. WRT to Hollywierd and the studios, it's more than must a steady income. They've had that for decades. They are creatively bankrupt. Little if anything new is coming out of Hollywierd these days. Have you noticed that they keep pushing that the reason for extending copyright terms is to encourage more new works when simple logic would lead one to believe that making it shorter would accomplish that? It's not new works they want to create; they aren't. It's a continued source of revenue. Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the arvard.edu Amici 01/31/01 09:39 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss That would be a good thing to wish. But I've been following this for as long as it's been going on, getting mad when appropriate, acting when appropriate. I was one of the signers of the openlaw amicus brief. Then I started to think. What on earth would cause professional people such as the MPAA people, who are no doubt as representative of the cross-slice of people as anything else. I bet some of them are good people, and I bet some of them are stinkers. But they all are very forcefully and vehemently arguing a very *wrong* point of view. And they're willing to defend it with everything they have. Now I'm sure that there are some people very high up who are consciously motivated by profit at the expense of everything else - but you know what I think? I think that most of them *actually believe it*. In their heart of hearts I think they actually believe that we are all thieves just because we believe in the openness of the Internet and in restriction of intellectual properties. But as many years in a cult has taught me, when you have been made to, or choose to, believe something strongly enough, or when you have sunk tremendous resources into maintaining the status quo, you will have an unflappable belief that *you are right*, no matter what the evidence of the opposition, no matter what is placed in front of you, nothing will dissuade you from this belief. Even if you know deep down it is wrong, you will defend it to the death. This is the situation I think the MP studios and the MPAA is in right now. They will not "shit in their pants", nor will they pay us any attention at all except to "refute" our arguments, no matter how badly or disjointed their defenses are. They are just too convinced of their own "rightness", and they can't see any conceivable way that we can win this battle, or this war. Because they are big companies, and they think they are right, and because of this no one, not even the courts, will ever be able to do anything but mitigate their most egregrious offenses. They're not just fighting to the death for a profit stream. They're fighting to the death because their personal ideology about how the free market should work, which has been tainted and spoiled by many, many years of free ride on the coattails of restricted availability of intellectual property through physical means, is being challenged. And rather than change their views to fit the changing situation, they will fight to the death to make sure the situation will always be made to fit their views. Very dangerous things happen when this is allowed. A large-scale psychosis is no less a psychosis. This war isn't going to ever be completely won until capitalists start to realize that there's more to life than money, dogma, and competitiveness. Just as us geeks have had to grow up rather quick and realize there's more to life than our community, the internet, and the ideals of an open society. --Russell On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:20:48PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > In fact, I just wonder if they had any idea how formidble the case for 2600 > actually is. I bet these amicus briefs hit them like a bolt from the blue, and > I hope they are shitting in their pants right now. > > __________________________________________________ > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ -- Russell (James) Miller - rmiller@duskglow.com Work: russell_miller@metstream.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone who claims a piece of me or my time. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 11:37:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA12042 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:37:08 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA12039 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:37:05 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:40:56 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:40:55 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/01/2001 08:40:56 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It's sad that Jack Valenti has spent so much time doing MPAA lobbying, that I think he really doesn't see the rights issue. Yet, from the debate he had with Lessig last year, I think if he did understand how rights are being curtailed probably would do something to stop it. Money Money Money I wouldn't think less of your friend defending the asbestos industry. A little known fact is that the CDC has publically stated that the asbestos dangers are well overstated. There are 5 forms of asbestos, only one of which is a serious danger (the fibers are hook shaped like velcro and are more difficult for the lungs to eliminate). Large amounts need to be breathed in and deposited in the lungs over a long period for there to be significant damage (a biomedical engineer I know tells me that the people living in chic Manhatten Beach next to the Chevron refinery get more particulate in their lungs from that than the smoggier areas of LA). The procedures for dealing with asbestos are over kill as is the disposal in sealed drums. As with many things, what everybody knows to be the truth isn't. There's a lot of other attorney's running around trying to use the asbestos scare to line their pockets too. "John Dempsey" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the arvard.edu Amici 01/31/01 10:18 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Money has its own everything. Its own values, its own morals, its own objectives, its own fears. Watch Brazil, near the beginning, where all the people walk and turn in the info-factory with faces but with no real presence, they're going somewhere, they're everywhere but in front of you, and yet they're smiling and dutiful. my friend defends the asbestos industry as a corporate attny because she has large school debt. the money does the work. the money makes the coices. we are talking about a huge industry with huge profits at stake. if they need the Constitution bent or rights curtailed, they won't be the first to try it. but don't focus on the people pushing the papers for them. attnys are trained not to care that much whose side they're on anyway. have no faith in mercenaries. it's the judges we must hope can see things right. -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Russell Miller Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:54 AM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici That would be a good thing to wish. But I've been following this for as long as it's been going on, getting mad when appropriate, acting when appropriate. I was one of the signers of the openlaw amicus brief. Then I started to think. What on earth would cause professional people such as the MPAA people, who are no doubt as representative of the cross-slice of people as anything else. I bet some of them are good people, and I bet some of them are stinkers. But they all are very forcefully and vehemently arguing a very *wrong* point of view. And they're willing to defend it with everything they have. Now I'm sure that there are some people very high up who are consciously motivated by profit at the expense of everything else - but you know what I think? I think that most of them *actually believe it*. In their heart of hearts I think they actually believe that we are all thieves just because we believe in the openness of the Internet and in restriction of intellectual properties. But as many years in a cult has taught me, when you have been made to, or choose to, believe something strongly enough, or when you have sunk tremendous resources into maintaining the status quo, you will have an unflappable belief that *you are right*, no matter what the evidence of the opposition, no matter what is placed in front of you, nothing will dissuade you from this belief. Even if you know deep down it is wrong, you will defend it to the death. This is the situation I think the MP studios and the MPAA is in right now. They will not "shit in their pants", nor will they pay us any attention at all except to "refute" our arguments, no matter how badly or disjointed their defenses are. They are just too convinced of their own "rightness", and they can't see any conceivable way that we can win this battle, or this war. Because they are big companies, and they think they are right, and because of this no one, not even the courts, will ever be able to do anything but mitigate their most egregrious offenses. They're not just fighting to the death for a profit stream. They're fighting to the death because their personal ideology about how the free market should work, which has been tainted and spoiled by many, many years of free ride on the coattails of restricted availability of intellectual property through physical means, is being challenged. And rather than change their views to fit the changing situation, they will fight to the death to make sure the situation will always be made to fit their views. Very dangerous things happen when this is allowed. A large-scale psychosis is no less a psychosis. This war isn't going to ever be completely won until capitalists start to realize that there's more to life than money, dogma, and competitiveness. Just as us geeks have had to grow up rather quick and realize there's more to life than our community, the internet, and the ideals of an open society. --Russell On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:20:48PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > In fact, I just wonder if they had any idea how formidble the case for 2600 > actually is. I bet these amicus briefs hit them like a bolt from the blue, and > I hope they are shitting in their pants right now. > > __________________________________________________ > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ -- Russell (James) Miller - rmiller@duskglow.com Work: russell_miller@metstream.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone who claims a piece of me or my time. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 13:19:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA12685 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:19:45 -0500 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA12682 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:19:44 -0500 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04588 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:23:43 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A79AA1C.29AC1555@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:25:32 -0600 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Note that professionals can buy mini-disc and DAT recorders without > SCMS, while consumers can't. The only prerequisite for pro status > seems to be the price. Anyone can buy a "professional" deck, and they don't cost much more than consumer decks. Actually, the main effect of this law has been to remove DAT decks from consumer stores (Best Buy & the like), and create a new class of "low-end professional" decks. (because a big market for DAT recorders is amateur & semipro musicians) For instance, the Tascam DA20mkII, a SCMS-free deck, sells for about $685. It is virtually indistinguishable from a consumer deck -- it uses the consumer SPD/IF interface and ordinary RCA inputs and outputs -- except that it is sold as a "professional" deck and has defeatable SCMS. Real professional decks start about $1000. For instance, the Panasonic SV3800, uses the professional AES/EBU digital interface, and has XLR-type input connectors, and an error count display. Try any good musical equipment store, and you'll find a wide range of professional DAT recorders for sale to the general public. The main criteria for a deck being considered "Professional" seems to be the lack of SCMS. :-) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 15:00:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA13041 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:00:39 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA13038 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:00:37 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30G5T>; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:19:16 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:19:15 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In short: copyright law relies upon LPM (legal protection measuers), not TPM (technological protection measures). Since copying may be allowed in certain circumstances (fair use), any TPM amounts to prior restraint and/or an assumption of guilt, violating the presumption of innocence. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:43 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs > > > Having just completed a reading of the law profs amicus > leaves one huge > dangling question -- implied, yet not explicitily stated. > The question is > this: > > Given the requirement for direct copying in order to fullfill > the fair use > portion of Constitutional "contract" which the Copyright > Clause, how can any > TPM'd work be considered not in violation of the Copyright > Clause and thus > subject to "abuse of copyright" liability? > > While arguing that DeCSS is needed to restore the > constitutional balance > lost to the presence of CSS, the implication is that any > uncircumvented (or > worse uncircumventable) TPM is a direct assault on the > Copyright Clause. > Fair use must be possible to avoid the charges of "copyright > abuse". Given > that argument, in order for any TPM not to violate the > Copyright Clause, a > circumvention must be broadly, legally available. With this, > TPM's become > irrelevant. Mind you, this argument works most directly for purchased > tangible works, but could be extended easily to include "fair > use" of any > work once legitimate access is obtained either through first sale or > pay-per-view access. The signal on the wire becomes the > tangible media (in > fact it is the "physical layer"), and archival of such an > ephemeral media > would certainly be fair use. > > In this arguement is all we want; the irrelevance (and > eventual obsolesence > and extinction) of post-authorized-access TPM's, the prohitibition of > technologies which infringe fair use rights, the inallienable > right to home > recording, the elimination of 5C CPSA horribles that await > us, and the end > of the arbitrary LOC "exemption" process. > > Powerful stuff. Now all we need is a way to get this > implicit question > before the court to establish the "Sony"-style landmark > decision for the > digital age. > > John Zulauf > private netizen > > Frank Andrew Stevenson Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 6:22 AM > > > The press release has numerous links to the amici. Ex: > > Amicus Brief Sponsors: Numerous expert law professors > > > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_lawprof s_amicus.html >Conclusion. >The DMCA's anti-device provisions lack constitutional mooring, and may not >be invoked to bar appellants, or anyone else, from reproducing, >distributing, or linking to DeCSS. If Congress wishes to afford protection >for "technological measures" applied to protect copyrighted works beyond >that which copyright law already affords, it must return to the drawing >board. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 16:42:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14603 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:42:21 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA14600 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:42:10 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:45:48 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:45:45 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/01/2001 01:45:48 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Catchy! LPM not TPM Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs 02/01/01 12:09 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss In short: copyright law relies upon LPM (legal protection measuers), not TPM (technological protection measures). Since copying may be allowed in certain circumstances (fair use), any TPM amounts to prior restraint and/or an assumption of guilt, violating the presumption of innocence. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:43 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs > > > Having just completed a reading of the law profs amicus > leaves one huge > dangling question -- implied, yet not explicitily stated. > The question is > this: > > Given the requirement for direct copying in order to fullfill > the fair use > portion of Constitutional "contract" which the Copyright > Clause, how can any > TPM'd work be considered not in violation of the Copyright > Clause and thus > subject to "abuse of copyright" liability? > > While arguing that DeCSS is needed to restore the > constitutional balance > lost to the presence of CSS, the implication is that any > uncircumvented (or > worse uncircumventable) TPM is a direct assault on the > Copyright Clause. > Fair use must be possible to avoid the charges of "copyright > abuse". Given > that argument, in order for any TPM not to violate the > Copyright Clause, a > circumvention must be broadly, legally available. With this, > TPM's become > irrelevant. Mind you, this argument works most directly for purchased > tangible works, but could be extended easily to include "fair > use" of any > work once legitimate access is obtained either through first sale or > pay-per-view access. The signal on the wire becomes the > tangible media (in > fact it is the "physical layer"), and archival of such an > ephemeral media > would certainly be fair use. > > In this arguement is all we want; the irrelevance (and > eventual obsolesence > and extinction) of post-authorized-access TPM's, the prohitibition of > technologies which infringe fair use rights, the inallienable > right to home > recording, the elimination of 5C CPSA horribles that await > us, and the end > of the arbitrary LOC "exemption" process. > > Powerful stuff. Now all we need is a way to get this > implicit question > before the court to establish the "Sony"-style landmark > decision for the > digital age. > > John Zulauf > private netizen > > Frank Andrew Stevenson Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 6:22 AM > > > The press release has numerous links to the amici. Ex: > > Amicus Brief Sponsors: Numerous expert law professors > > > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_lawprof s_amicus.html >Conclusion. >The DMCA's anti-device provisions lack constitutional mooring, and may not >be invoked to bar appellants, or anyone else, from reproducing, >distributing, or linking to DeCSS. If Congress wishes to afford protection >for "technological measures" applied to protect copyrighted works beyond >that which copyright law already affords, it must return to the drawing >board. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 16:53:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14745 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:53:44 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA14742 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:53:29 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA12018 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:54:16 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:54:11 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] switching to digital Message-ID: <20000201165411.E11838@eldritchpress.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu as the dvd cca now realizes, there are many gotchas associated with moving from analog to digital technology. customers are beginning to realize they won't be able to videotape many digital tv shows in the u.s. another: http://www.newscientist.com/feedback/ 3 February 2001 THEY CALL them gotchas. Simple things that jump up and crash the best-laid plans. It turns out it will be the humble TV remote control that gotchas the plans laid by governments around the world to make large sums of money by switching from analogue to digital TV and selling off the old frequencies. So says an engineer friend who is close to government planners in Britain, which leads the world in digital TV and is becoming the role model for other countries starting similar services. In Britain, viewers who are willing to pay a subscription to watch digital TV can get a free digital converter box from the broadcasters. But around half the country's 25 million households, nearly all with at least one TV set and VCR, either won't or can't afford to pay a subscription. They just want to go on watching and taping free analogue programmes. So the government now realises that if it wants to switch off analogue transmissions it will have to give away millions of digital converters, costing at least £25 each. That's bad enough. But the real gotcha is this: these days everyone expects to change TV channels from the comfort of their sofas using a [one] remote control. But existing remote controls will not work the digital converters. So each free converter will need its own remote control to switch digital channels. And this new remote should also be able to switch the existing TV set on and off and control the picture and sound. But there are tens of thousands of different types of TV sets and VCRs, often obsolete, and all mated to different remotes. So teams of engineers will have to call at millions of homes all over Britain to connect free converters and play whatever technical tricks are needed to make new remotes work with whatever ancient TVs and VCRs are in use. Think about this the next time you read of grand plans to switch off analogue by the middle of this decade. More likely it will be the middle of the next decade, or later still. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 17:00:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA14879 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:00:23 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA14876 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:00:21 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id OAA25669 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:04:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma018384; Thu, 1 Feb 01 13:47:58 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Thu, 01 Feb 2001 13:49:21 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id OAA16496; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:47:55 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:56:47 -0700 Message-ID: <001401c08c99$df9458a0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 1667066B1012188-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Hartman correctly summarized on Thursday, February 01, 2001 12:19 PM > In short: copyright law relies upon LPM (legal protection > measuers), not TPM (technological protection measures). > Since copying may be allowed in certain circumstances (fair > use), any TPM amounts to prior restraint Right. The amount of allowable copying cannot be determined mechanistically either. Archival (which is explicity fair) requires copying the whole work. Exerption could mechanistically be might be limited to some "reasonable" time, but parody, the courts have said, should be given "broad leeway" as to the amount of copyright work which can be used. As the intent and the usage of a work are required to know the amount of quotation that is fair, no clockwork, software, or ASIC can know this. Further the courts have established that a/v materials DO REQUIRE exact copies for exerption, et. al. (not Macrovision munged, watermarked, or any other junk), thus exact copying of the content must be possible for fair use. > and/or an assumption > of guilt, violating the presumption of innocence. Hadn't thought of it that way, but since fair use is a defense against a charge of copyright violation, denying use prior to a determination that such use is not "fair" does seem to violate due process. This violation is particularly interesting combined with the thread regarding the "pro" vs. "consumer" product line differences. Since the imposition of this due process is discriminated based on the price and marketing of the product, one could claim a violation of "equal protection." The poor cannot buy a "pro" product with the TPM's disabled, while the rich certainly can. The rich live in neighborhoods with access to "pro" music and video outlets, while the poor have only what the local stores might sell. From this we have the inference that the poor are assumed guilty while the rich are not, or that "professionals" are not assumed guilty while the "masses" are? We're aren't supposed to be an oligopoly last I check the US Constitution. Add to the "poor" and "rich" discrimination the unequal distribution of wealth along racial lines and you have yourself a 1st class civil rights action, no? Add equal protection to the list of violations and horribles a TPM brings. How does the Congress get this so completely bass-ackwards? John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 17:46:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA15186 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:46:27 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA15183 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:46:24 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id OAA13321 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:50:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma025707; Thu, 1 Feb 01 14:04:18 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Thu, 01 Feb 2001 14:05:43 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17217; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:04:17 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Intellectual Property Conference Announcement Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:13:10 -0700 Message-ID: <001501c08c9c$293ca140$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 1667023D1014720-01-01 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01C08C61.7CDDC940" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C08C61.7CDDC940 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Intellectual Property Conference AnnouncementIs it just me or does the following list seem a great deal skewed toward the media industry? The only recognizable non-media-centric voice is Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association. Dozens of other organizations could be identified by reviewing the various rounds of the Library of Congress comments on exemptions. Where is Lawrence Lessig, Ed Felton, David Touretsky, Emmuel Goldstien, Robin Gross (or other EFF sorts), Richard Stallman, Jon Johansen, or Wendy Seltzer. How about contacting members of the OpenLaw forum? Various members here have crafted large chunks of a hopeful amicus (that we didn't do) but that could be strong on point. Robert Thau wrote an excellent piece of "the authority of the copyright holder" -- none of the representatives of the media are willing to discuss their authority model, Robert's piece is excellent. How about a presentation or panel pro-con on the CPSA proposal which will permanently and systematically elimate fair use, or the dangerous myth of "infinite digital reproducibility" as a unique feature of digital media. Not meaning any criticism, it just seems with a speaker list this skewed, only one point-of-view will have any meaningful representation. A partial list of confirmed speakers from education, business, and government: -Marybeth Peters, Register of the United States Copyright Office (Keynote Speaker) -The Honorable Tammy Baldwin, U.S. House of Representative, Wisconsin, Judiciary Committee Member -The Honorable Robert Kastenmeier, former Wisconsin Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives -Michael Remington, Attorney, Drinker Biddle and Reath, Washington, DC -Fritz Attaway, General Counsel, Motion Picture Association of America -Kenneth Salomon, Attorney, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC, Washington, DC -Bruce Lehman, President and CEO, International Intellectual Property Institute and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and United States Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks -Robert Antonucci, President, Harcourt Higher Education -Georgia Harper, Office of General Counsel, University of Texas/Austin -Judith Saffer, Deputy Counsel, Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), New York -Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association, Washington Office -Bernard R. Sorkin, Senior Counsel, AOL Time Warner/New York -Lois Wasoff, VP and Corporate Counsel, Houghton Mifflin Co. & Chairperson, Copyright Committee, Association of American Publishers John Zulauf private netizen ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C08C61.7CDDC940 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Intellectual Property Conference Announcement
Is it = just me or=20 does the following list seem a great deal skewed toward the media=20 industry?  The only recognizable non-media-centric voice=20 is Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library = Association.=20  Dozens of other organizations could be identified by reviewing the = various=20 rounds of the Library of Congress comments on exemptions. Where is = Lawrence=20 Lessig, Ed Felton, David Touretsky, Emmuel Goldstien, Robin Gross (or = other EFF=20 sorts), Richard Stallman, Jon Johansen, or Wendy Seltzer.  How = about=20 contacting members of the OpenLaw forum? Various members here have = crafted large=20 chunks of a hopeful amicus (that we didn't do) but that could be strong = on=20 point.  Robert Thau wrote an excellent piece of "the authority of = the=20 copyright holder" -- none of the representatives of the media are = willing to=20 discuss their authority model, Robert's piece is excellent.  How = about a=20 presentation or panel pro-con on the CPSA proposal which will = permanently and=20 systematically elimate fair use, or the dangerous myth of "infinite = digital=20 reproducibility" as a unique feature of digital = media.
 
Not = meaning any=20 criticism, it just seems with a speaker list this skewed, only one = point-of-view=20 will have any meaningful representation.
 
 A partial list of = confirmed=20 speakers from education, business,
and government:

-Marybeth Peters, Register of the United States Copyright = Office
  (Keynote Speaker)

-The Honorable Tammy Baldwin, U.S. House of Representative,
Wisconsin, Judiciary Committee Member

-The Honorable Robert Kastenmeier, former Wisconsin = Congressman,
  U.S. House of Representatives

-Michael Remington, Attorney, Drinker Biddle and Reath, = Washington,=20 DC

-Fritz Attaway, General Counsel, Motion Picture Association of=20 America

-Kenneth Salomon, Attorney, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, = PLLC,
  Washington, DC
-Bruce Lehman, President and CEO, International Intellectual = Property=20 Institute and
 former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and United States=20 Commissioner
 of Patents and Trademarks

-Robert Antonucci, President, Harcourt Higher Education

-Georgia Harper, Office of General Counsel, University of=20 Texas/Austin

-Judith Saffer, Deputy Counsel, Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), New=20 York

-Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library = Association,
Washington Office

-Bernard R. Sorkin, Senior Counsel, AOL Time Warner/New = York

-Lois Wasoff, VP and Corporate Counsel, Houghton Mifflin Co. = &=20 Chairperson, Copyright
Committee, Association of American Publishers
 
John=20 Zulauf
private=20 netizen
------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C08C61.7CDDC940-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 18:12:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15377 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:12:47 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15372 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:12:44 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:16:40 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] switching to digital To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:16:37 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/01/2001 03:16:40 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id SAA15373 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is hilarious! Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] switching to digital arvard.edu 02/01/01 01:59 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss as the dvd cca now realizes, there are many gotchas associated with moving from analog to digital technology. customers are beginning to realize they won't be able to videotape many digital tv shows in the u.s. another: http://www.newscientist.com/feedback/ 3 February 2001 THEY CALL them gotchas. Simple things that jump up and crash the best-laid plans. It turns out it will be the humble TV remote control that gotchas the plans laid by governments around the world to make large sums of money by switching from analogue to digital TV and selling off the old frequencies. So says an engineer friend who is close to government planners in Britain, which leads the world in digital TV and is becoming the role model for other countries starting similar services. In Britain, viewers who are willing to pay a subscription to watch digital TV can get a free digital converter box from the broadcasters. But around half the country's 25 million households, nearly all with at least one TV set and VCR, either won't or can't afford to pay a subscription. They just want to go on watching and taping free analogue programmes. So the government now realises that if it wants to switch off analogue transmissions it will have to give away millions of digital converters, costing at least £25 each. That's bad enough. But the real gotcha is this: these days everyone expects to change TV channels from the comfort of their sofas using a [one] remote control. But existing remote controls will not work the digital converters. So each free converter will need its own remote control to switch digital channels. And this new remote should also be able to switch the existing TV set on and off and control the picture and sound. But there are tens of thousands of different types of TV sets and VCRs, often obsolete, and all mated to different remotes. So teams of engineers will have to call at millions of homes all over Britain to connect free converters and play whatever technical tricks are needed to make new remotes work with whatever ancient TVs and VCRs are in use. Think about this the next time you read of grand plans to switch off analogue by the middle of this decade. More likely it will be the middle of the next decade, or later still. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 18:15:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15523 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:15:36 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15520 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:15:35 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:19:28 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Intellectual Property Conference Announcement To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:19:25 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/01/2001 03:19:28 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think that B.Sorkin is the tip off....this is another How do we protect our phoney baloney intellectual property. "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Intellectual Property arvard.edu Conference Announcement 02/01/01 02:52 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Is it just me or does the following list seem a great deal skewed toward the media industry? The only recognizable non-media-centric voice is Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association. Dozens of other organizations could be identified by reviewing the various rounds of the Library of Congress comments on exemptions. Where is Lawrence Lessig, Ed Felton, David Touretsky, Emmuel Goldstien, Robin Gross (or other EFF sorts), Richard Stallman, Jon Johansen, or Wendy Seltzer. How about contacting members of the OpenLaw forum? Various members here have crafted large chunks of a hopeful amicus (that we didn't do) but that could be strong on point. Robert Thau wrote an excellent piece of "the authority of the copyright holder" -- none of the representatives of the media are willing to discuss their authority model, Robert's piece is excellent. How about a presentation or panel pro-con on the CPSA proposal which will permanently and systematically elimate fair use, or the dangerous myth of "infinite digital reproducibility" as a unique feature of digital media. Not meaning any criticism, it just seems with a speaker list this skewed, only one point-of-view will have any meaningful representation. A partial list of confirmed speakers from education, business, and government: -Marybeth Peters, Register of the United States Copyright Office (Keynote Speaker) -The Honorable Tammy Baldwin, U.S. House of Representative, Wisconsin, Judiciary Committee Member -The Honorable Robert Kastenmeier, former Wisconsin Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives -Michael Remington, Attorney, Drinker Biddle and Reath, Washington, DC -Fritz Attaway, General Counsel, Motion Picture Association of America -Kenneth Salomon, Attorney, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC, Washington, DC -Bruce Lehman, President and CEO, International Intellectual Property Institute and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and United States Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks -Robert Antonucci, President, Harcourt Higher Education -Georgia Harper, Office of General Counsel, University of Texas/Austin -Judith Saffer, Deputy Counsel, Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), New York -Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association, Washington Office -Bernard R. Sorkin, Senior Counsel, AOL Time Warner/New York -Lois Wasoff, VP and Corporate Counsel, Houghton Mifflin Co. & Chairperson, Copyright Committee, Association of American Publishers John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 18:15:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15511 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:15:21 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15496 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:15:08 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA00696; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:16:57 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:16:51 +0000 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Cc: lmlivingston@facstaff.wisc.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Intellectual Property Conference Announcement Message-ID: <20010201231651.A682@eldritchpress.org> References: <3A75BB01.6D297626@videotron.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from lmlivingston@facstaff.wisc.edu on Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 08:02:20AM -0600 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 08:02:20AM -0600, Lisa Livingston wrote: > > Conference presentations will address: > -Copyright and the Internet > -Fair Use in Cyberspace > -Anticircumvention Issues > -Ownership Issues and Distance Education > -Copyright Infringement and Digital Technologies > -Innovative Edu-Business Partnerships sounds like "edu" has gone into bed with "business" --who knows what their progeny will smell like, but it indeed appears there is no way that these "innovative" money-making "partnerships" will listen to such flame-breathing radicals as rst or the rest of us. you can translate these euphemisms for yourself, but forget it unless you have a "vested" (money) interest--the "communication pathway" is indeed unidirectional. or maybe i'm too cynical in my old age. i've cc'd the sender to give an opportunity to defend herself; maybe she didn't realize the audience here. > Our goal is to open communication pathways and share > relevant and current information with individuals who have > a vested interest in intellectual property use and development > in education. > ... > Lisa Livingston > Conference Chairperson > University of Wisconsin-Madison > lmlivingston@facstaff. > (608)262-3431 > Lisa Livingston > Director, Instructional Media Development Center > University of Wisconsin/School of Education > 142 Education Science Building > 1025 W. Johnson Street > Madison, Wisconsin 53706 > V: 608.262.3431 F:608.262.6447 > livingston@education.wisc.edu or > lmlivingston@facstaff.wisc.edu > http://imdc.education.wisc.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 18:23:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15668 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:23:47 -0500 Received: from mail2.doit.wisc.edu (mail2.doit.wisc.edu [144.92.9.41]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15665 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:23:46 -0500 Received: from [128.104.41.187] by mail2.doit.wisc.edu id RAA45298 (8.9.1/50); Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:27:45 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1231052006==_ma============" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001501c08c9c$293ca140$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> References: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:34:47 -0600 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Lisa Livingston Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Intellectual Property Conference Announcement Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --============_-1231052006==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear John, The speakers are almost equally split between copyright holder representative and use representatives. Three additional speakers are pending status. Two of those also represent the users. Lisa Livingston >Is it just me or does the following list seem a great deal skewed toward >the media industry? The only recognizable non-media-centric voice >is Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association. > Dozens of other organizations could be identified by reviewing the >various rounds of the Library of Congress comments on exemptions. Where is >Lawrence Lessig, Ed Felton, David Touretsky, Emmuel Goldstien, Robin Gross >(or other EFF sorts), Richard Stallman, Jon Johansen, or Wendy Seltzer. >How about contacting members of the OpenLaw forum? Various members here >have crafted large chunks of a hopeful amicus (that we didn't do) but that >could be strong on point. Robert Thau wrote an excellent piece of "the >authority of the copyright holder" -- none of the representatives of the >media are willing to discuss their authority model, Robert's piece is >excellent. How about a presentation or panel pro-con on the CPSA proposal >which will permanently and systematically elimate fair use, or the >dangerous myth of "infinite digital reproducibility" as a unique feature >of digital media. > >Not meaning any criticism, it just seems with a speaker list this skewed, >only one point-of-view will have any meaningful representation. > > > A partial list of confirmed speakers from education, business, >and government: > >-Marybeth Peters, Register of the United States Copyright Office > (Keynote Speaker) > >-The Honorable Tammy Baldwin, U.S. House of Representative, >Wisconsin, Judiciary Committee Member > >-The Honorable Robert Kastenmeier, former Wisconsin Congressman, > U.S. House of Representatives > >-Michael Remington, Attorney, Drinker Biddle and Reath, Washington, DC > >-Fritz Attaway, General Counsel, Motion Picture Association of America > >-Kenneth Salomon, Attorney, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC, > Washington, DC >-Bruce Lehman, President and CEO, International Intellectual Property >Institute and > former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and United States Commissioner > of Patents and Trademarks > >-Robert Antonucci, President, Harcourt Higher Education > >-Georgia Harper, Office of General Counsel, University of Texas/Austin > >-Judith Saffer, Deputy Counsel, Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), New York > >-Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association, >Washington Office > >-Bernard R. Sorkin, Senior Counsel, AOL Time Warner/New York > >-Lois Wasoff, VP and Corporate Counsel, Houghton Mifflin Co. & >Chairperson, Copyright >Committee, Association of American Publishers > > >John Zulauf >private netizen Lisa Livingston Director, Instructional Media Development Center University of Wisconsin/School of Education 142 Education Science Building 1025 W. Johnson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53706 V: 608.262.3431 F:608.262.6447 livingston@education.wisc.edu or lmlivingston@facstaff.wisc.edu http://imdc.education.wisc.edu --============_-1231052006==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" RE: [dvd-discuss] Intellectual Property Conference Ann
Dear John,

The speakers are almost equally split between copyright holder representative and use representatives.
Three additional speakers are pending status. Two of those also represent the users.

Lisa Livingston

Is it just me or does the following list seem a great deal skewed toward the media industry?  The only recognizable non-media-centric voice is Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association.  Dozens of other organizations could be identified by reviewing the various rounds of the Library of Congress comments on exemptions. Where is Lawrence Lessig, Ed Felton, David Touretsky, Emmuel Goldstien, Robin Gross (or other EFF sorts), Richard Stallman, Jon Johansen, or Wendy Seltzer.  How about contacting members of the OpenLaw forum? Various members here have crafted large chunks of a hopeful amicus (that we didn't do) but that could be strong on point.  Robert Thau wrote an excellent piece of "the authority of the copyright holder" -- none of the representatives of the media are willing to discuss their authority model, Robert's piece is excellent.  How about a presentation or panel pro-con on the CPSA proposal which will permanently and systematically elimate fair use, or the dangerous myth of "infinite digital reproducibility" as a unique feature of digital media.
 
Not meaning any criticism, it just seems with a speaker list this skewed, only one point-of-view will have any meaningful representation.
 

 A partial list of confirmed speakers from education, business,
and government:

-Marybeth Peters, Register of the United States Copyright Office
  (Keynote Speaker)

-The Honorable Tammy Baldwin, U.S. House of Representative,
Wisconsin, Judiciary Committee Member

-The Honorable Robert Kastenmeier, former Wisconsin Congressman,
  U.S. House of Representatives

-Michael Remington, Attorney, Drinker Biddle and Reath, Washington, DC

-Fritz Attaway, General Counsel, Motion Picture Association of America

-Kenneth Salomon, Attorney, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC,
  Washington, DC
-Bruce Lehman, President and CEO, International Intellectual Property Institute and
 former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and United States Commissioner
 of Patents and Trademarks

-Robert Antonucci, President, Harcourt Higher Education

-Georgia Harper, Office of General Counsel, University of Texas/Austin

-Judith Saffer, Deputy Counsel, Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), New York

-Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association,
Washington Office

-Bernard R. Sorkin, Senior Counsel, AOL Time Warner/New York

-Lois Wasoff, VP and Corporate Counsel, Houghton Mifflin Co. & Chairperson, Copyright
Committee, Association of American Publishers

 
John Zulauf
private netizen

Lisa Livingston
Director, Instructional Media Development Center
University of Wisconsin/School of Education
142 Education Science Building
1025 W. Johnson Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
V: 608.262.3431  F:608.262.6447
livingston@education.wisc.edu  or
lmlivingston@facstaff.wisc.edu
http://imdc.education.wisc.edu
--============_-1231052006==_ma============-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 18:34:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15754 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:34:37 -0500 Received: from mail2.doit.wisc.edu (mail2.doit.wisc.edu [144.92.9.41]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15748 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:34:35 -0500 Received: from [128.104.41.187] by mail2.doit.wisc.edu id RAA30526 (8.9.1/50); Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:38:35 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1231051358==_ma============" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001501c08c9c$293ca140$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> References: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:45:35 -0600 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Lisa Livingston Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Intellectual Property Conference Announcement Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --============_-1231051358==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" John, The complete list of speakers (with bios) is available on the conference website - http://ipconference.education.wisc.edu/ Did you visit the site? Only a partial list went out with the announcement. Conference planners were committed to equal representation from the copyright user and holder communities. As far as panels go - there will bea panel Q&A following the presentations in each section. Take a look at the PROGRAM section of the website. Lisa >Is it just me or does the following list seem a great deal skewed toward >the media industry? The only recognizable non-media-centric voice >is Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association. > Dozens of other organizations could be identified by reviewing the >various rounds of the Library of Congress comments on exemptions. Where is >Lawrence Lessig, Ed Felton, David Touretsky, Emmuel Goldstien, Robin Gross >(or other EFF sorts), Richard Stallman, Jon Johansen, or Wendy Seltzer. >How about contacting members of the OpenLaw forum? Various members here >have crafted large chunks of a hopeful amicus (that we didn't do) but that >could be strong on point. Robert Thau wrote an excellent piece of "the >authority of the copyright holder" -- none of the representatives of the >media are willing to discuss their authority model, Robert's piece is >excellent. How about a presentation or panel pro-con on the CPSA proposal >which will permanently and systematically elimate fair use, or the >dangerous myth of "infinite digital reproducibility" as a unique feature >of digital media. > >Not meaning any criticism, it just seems with a speaker list this skewed, >only one point-of-view will have any meaningful representation. > > > A partial list of confirmed speakers from education, business, >and government: > >-Marybeth Peters, Register of the United States Copyright Office > (Keynote Speaker) > >-The Honorable Tammy Baldwin, U.S. House of Representative, >Wisconsin, Judiciary Committee Member > >-The Honorable Robert Kastenmeier, former Wisconsin Congressman, > U.S. House of Representatives > >-Michael Remington, Attorney, Drinker Biddle and Reath, Washington, DC > >-Fritz Attaway, General Counsel, Motion Picture Association of America > >-Kenneth Salomon, Attorney, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC, > Washington, DC >-Bruce Lehman, President and CEO, International Intellectual Property >Institute and > former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and United States Commissioner > of Patents and Trademarks > >-Robert Antonucci, President, Harcourt Higher Education > >-Georgia Harper, Office of General Counsel, University of Texas/Austin > >-Judith Saffer, Deputy Counsel, Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), New York > >-Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association, >Washington Office > >-Bernard R. Sorkin, Senior Counsel, AOL Time Warner/New York > >-Lois Wasoff, VP and Corporate Counsel, Houghton Mifflin Co. & >Chairperson, Copyright >Committee, Association of American Publishers > > >John Zulauf >private netizen Lisa Livingston Director, Instructional Media Development Center University of Wisconsin/School of Education 142 Education Science Building 1025 W. Johnson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53706 V: 608.262.3431 F:608.262.6447 livingston@education.wisc.edu or lmlivingston@facstaff.wisc.edu http://imdc.education.wisc.edu --============_-1231051358==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" RE: [dvd-discuss] Intellectual Property Conference Ann
John,

The complete list of speakers (with bios) is available on the conference website - http://ipconference.education.wisc.edu/
Did you visit the site? Only a partial list went out with the announcement. Conference planners were committed to equal
representation from the copyright user and holder communities. As far as panels go - there will bea panel Q&A following the
presentations in each section. Take a look at the PROGRAM section of the website.

Lisa

Is it just me or does the following list seem a great deal skewed toward the media industry?  The only recognizable non-media-centric voice is Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association.  Dozens of other organizations could be identified by reviewing the various rounds of the Library of Congress comments on exemptions. Where is Lawrence Lessig, Ed Felton, David Touretsky, Emmuel Goldstien, Robin Gross (or other EFF sorts), Richard Stallman, Jon Johansen, or Wendy Seltzer.  How about contacting members of the OpenLaw forum? Various members here have crafted large chunks of a hopeful amicus (that we didn't do) but that could be strong on point.  Robert Thau wrote an excellent piece of "the authority of the copyright holder" -- none of the representatives of the media are willing to discuss their authority model, Robert's piece is excellent.  How about a presentation or panel pro-con on the CPSA proposal which will permanently and systematically elimate fair use, or the dangerous myth of "infinite digital reproducibility" as a unique feature of digital media.
 
Not meaning any criticism, it just seems with a speaker list this skewed, only one point-of-view will have any meaningful representation.
 

 A partial list of confirmed speakers from education, business,
and government:

-Marybeth Peters, Register of the United States Copyright Office
  (Keynote Speaker)

-The Honorable Tammy Baldwin, U.S. House of Representative,
Wisconsin, Judiciary Committee Member

-The Honorable Robert Kastenmeier, former Wisconsin Congressman,
  U.S. House of Representatives

-Michael Remington, Attorney, Drinker Biddle and Reath, Washington, DC

-Fritz Attaway, General Counsel, Motion Picture Association of America

-Kenneth Salomon, Attorney, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC,
  Washington, DC
-Bruce Lehman, President and CEO, International Intellectual Property Institute and
 former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and United States Commissioner
 of Patents and Trademarks

-Robert Antonucci, President, Harcourt Higher Education

-Georgia Harper, Office of General Counsel, University of Texas/Austin

-Judith Saffer, Deputy Counsel, Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), New York

-Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association,
Washington Office

-Bernard R. Sorkin, Senior Counsel, AOL Time Warner/New York

-Lois Wasoff, VP and Corporate Counsel, Houghton Mifflin Co. & Chairperson, Copyright
Committee, Association of American Publishers

 
John Zulauf
private netizen

Lisa Livingston
Director, Instructional Media Development Center
University of Wisconsin/School of Education
142 Education Science Building
1025 W. Johnson Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
V: 608.262.3431  F:608.262.6447
livingston@education.wisc.edu  or
lmlivingston@facstaff.wisc.edu
http://imdc.education.wisc.edu
--============_-1231051358==_ma============-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 19:11:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA15927 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:11:01 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA15924 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:10:59 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:14:56 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Intellectual Property Conference Announcement To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:14:53 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/01/2001 04:14:56 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I guess I'd have to see them drawn up into two columns to sort out the players. Sorkin, Attaway, Lehman... Lisa Livingston cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Intellectual Property owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Conference Announcement arvard.edu 02/01/01 03:29 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Dear John, The speakers are almost equally split between copyright holder representative and use representatives. Three additional speakers are pending status. Two of those also represent the users. Lisa Livingston Is it just me or does the following list seem a great deal skewed toward the media industry? The only recognizable non-media-centric voice is Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association. Dozens of other organizations could be identified by reviewing the various rounds of the Library of Congress comments on exemptions. Where is Lawrence Lessig, Ed Felton, David Touretsky, Emmuel Goldstien, Robin Gross (or other EFF sorts), Richard Stallman, Jon Johansen, or Wendy Seltzer. How about contacting members of the OpenLaw forum? Various members here have crafted large chunks of a hopeful amicus (that we didn't do) but that could be strong on point. Robert Thau wrote an excellent piece of "the authority of the copyright holder" -- none of the representatives of the media are willing to discuss their authority model, Robert's piece is excellent. How about a presentation or panel pro-con on the CPSA proposal which will permanently and systematically elimate fair use, or the dangerous myth of "infinite digital reproducibility" as a unique feature of digital media. Not meaning any criticism, it just seems with a speaker list this skewed, only one point-of-view will have any meaningful representation. A partial list of confirmed speakers from education, business, and government: -Marybeth Peters, Register of the United States Copyright Office (Keynote Speaker) -The Honorable Tammy Baldwin, U.S. House of Representative, Wisconsin, Judiciary Committee Member -The Honorable Robert Kastenmeier, former Wisconsin Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives -Michael Remington, Attorney, Drinker Biddle and Reath, Washington, DC -Fritz Attaway, General Counsel, Motion Picture Association of America -Kenneth Salomon, Attorney, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC, Washington, DC -Bruce Lehman, President and CEO, International Intellectual Property Institute and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and United States Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks -Robert Antonucci, President, Harcourt Higher Education -Georgia Harper, Office of General Counsel, University of Texas/Austin -Judith Saffer, Deputy Counsel, Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), New York -Miriam Nisbet, Legislative Counsel, American Library Association, Washington Office -Bernard R. Sorkin, Senior Counsel, AOL Time Warner/New York -Lois Wasoff, VP and Corporate Counsel, Houghton Mifflin Co. & Chairperson, Copyright Committee, Association of American Publishers John Zulauf private netizen Lisa Livingston Director, Instructional Media Development Center University of Wisconsin/School of Education 142 Education Science Building 1025 W. Johnson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53706 V: 608.262.3431 F:608.262.6447 livingston@education.wisc.edu or lmlivingston@facstaff.wisc.edu http://imdc.education.wisc.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 21:44:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA16795 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:44:32 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA16792 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:44:30 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30HHW>; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:03:06 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:03:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy A Erwin [mailto:jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:07 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? > > > I found an article about a guy in Utah who sells edited videos of > Hollywood flicks. All the naughty bits are excised. > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/31/national/31UTAH.html I would tend to think that this involves copying more than would be considered "fair use". This purpose seems to fall under the classification of "derivative work". IMO, YMMV, IANAL, TTFN. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 1 22:00:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA16990 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:49:57 -0500 Received: from hall.mail.mindspring.net (hall.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.60]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA16986 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:49:51 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld5uh.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.151.209]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA24310 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:53:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A78CEC7.D8676747@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:49:44 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Works for hire Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: http://ipconference.education.wisc.edu/post.html "The tradition across higher education has been for individual faculty members to own the copyrights in the scholarly and creative works that they develop. Many argue that such works actually are works for hire under the statutory definition [ ... snip ...] How should it be advertised and "sold" to the faculty? This workshop will address all of these issues." Are there really many that argue such works are actually works for hire? mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 01:45:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA17917 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:45:02 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA17914 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:45:00 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30G57>; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:24:16 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:24:15 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com] ... > > 'Twas brillig and Michael.A.Rolenz spake on Wednesday, > January 31, 2001 > 12:07 PM ... > > Congress got it exactly backwards. They got the magnitude > right, but the > sign wrong. It is the public, not the publishers, that are at risk. > Digital media **are** critically different, but only to the > benefit of the > media companies. As you well point out, prior technology > based content > (i.e. content that needs technology to be accessed, the > copyright holders > were impotent to control post-first-sale use. If I want fire > six shots into > a book (as one might with Camus's "The Stranger" -- the sun > made me), I can. > If I want to quote the opening of the Jabberwokky (Oh > frabjous day!) -- I > can do so without restraint. Several factors change the power > balance; the > availability of highly integrated ASICs, the need for > standardization, mass > production, and the speed of technology to outstrip and addle the > legislature. With this new digital landscape, the ability for > copyright > holders to form a cartel to fully control post sale use of > their works is a > grave reality. The digital age is different, the citizenry's > rights under > the copyright clause are more at risk from agressive > corporate lawyers and > lobbyist than anytime prior. If the CPSA (a comprehensive > content control > scheme proposed from the DVD CCA and the 5C) is implemented > (there are no > technology barriers) with the full force of the US Govt > (Bureau of Alcohol, > Tobacco, Firearms and Anticircumvention, anybody?) our rights > will be buried > by the "Code as Law" horribles described by Lessig. "We the > people" are in > danger of becoming "We the consumers." With a little reworking, that could make an excellent summary argument for a brief. Well said. > > again I think we're in complete agreement... this isn't > radical. I've posed > to the group the concept that nothing encrypted should be granted a > copyright, period! You can have a secret, or you can publish > -- but you > can't publish and claim it's a secret. If you want to > obscure, fine -- just > don't expect anything from the copyright clause or laws. To draw a parallel: trade secret vs. patent If you rely upon keeping it secret (trade secret; TPM), you are not protected against infringment (e.g. reverse engineering). If you freely publish the method (patent; copyright) then no one can legally use it w/o making arrangements with you first. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 05:38:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA18750 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 05:38:25 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA18747 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 05:38:23 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25224; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:42:18 GMT Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:42:18 GMT Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Hartman wrote: > To draw a parallel: trade secret vs. patent > > If you rely upon keeping it secret (trade secret; TPM), you > are not protected against infringment (e.g. reverse engineering). > If you freely publish the method (patent; copyright) then no one > can legally use it w/o making arrangements with you first. > Thst's worse than what we've got! Suppose the DVD-CCA had gone and patented CSS(*) rather than tried to rely on keeping it secret? The Linux DVD player people would (by the argument above) not been able to use it w/o making arrangements with DVD-CCA first. Which would certainly not have been granted or have required lots of money to be granted. As it is, the situation is that of a (lost) secret and no legal fallback apart from the DMCA which is what this bunfight is all about :-) That's got to be a lot better for the Linux DVD project(s). (*) Ok, so algorithms can't be patented in many parts of the world... -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 11:04:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20040 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:04:33 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20037 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:04:31 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:08:25 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:08:23 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/02/2001 08:08:25 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That's a very good analogy. In some sense, if it's encrypted, how can anybody say just WHAT was copyrighted? Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs 02/01/01 10:51 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com] ... > > 'Twas brillig and Michael.A.Rolenz spake on Wednesday, > January 31, 2001 > 12:07 PM ... > > Congress got it exactly backwards. They got the magnitude > right, but the > sign wrong. It is the public, not the publishers, that are at risk. > Digital media **are** critically different, but only to the > benefit of the > media companies. As you well point out, prior technology > based content > (i.e. content that needs technology to be accessed, the > copyright holders > were impotent to control post-first-sale use. If I want fire > six shots into > a book (as one might with Camus's "The Stranger" -- the sun > made me), I can. > If I want to quote the opening of the Jabberwokky (Oh > frabjous day!) -- I > can do so without restraint. Several factors change the power > balance; the > availability of highly integrated ASICs, the need for > standardization, mass > production, and the speed of technology to outstrip and addle the > legislature. With this new digital landscape, the ability for > copyright > holders to form a cartel to fully control post sale use of > their works is a > grave reality. The digital age is different, the citizenry's > rights under > the copyright clause are more at risk from agressive > corporate lawyers and > lobbyist than anytime prior. If the CPSA (a comprehensive > content control > scheme proposed from the DVD CCA and the 5C) is implemented > (there are no > technology barriers) with the full force of the US Govt > (Bureau of Alcohol, > Tobacco, Firearms and Anticircumvention, anybody?) our rights > will be buried > by the "Code as Law" horribles described by Lessig. "We the > people" are in > danger of becoming "We the consumers." With a little reworking, that could make an excellent summary argument for a brief. Well said. > > again I think we're in complete agreement... this isn't > radical. I've posed > to the group the concept that nothing encrypted should be granted a > copyright, period! You can have a secret, or you can publish > -- but you > can't publish and claim it's a secret. If you want to > obscure, fine -- just > don't expect anything from the copyright clause or laws. To draw a parallel: trade secret vs. patent If you rely upon keeping it secret (trade secret; TPM), you are not protected against infringment (e.g. reverse engineering). If you freely publish the method (patent; copyright) then no one can legally use it w/o making arrangements with you first. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 11:10:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20167 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:10:49 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20164 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:10:48 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:14:45 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Works for hire To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:14:42 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/02/2001 08:14:45 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'd really like to know who those "many" that are. Selling that one to the faculty is going to be a hard one. Also, who is doing the hiring? Many grants have clauses regarding who gets the copyrights etc but universities typically do not ( A lot of academia was in arms when Wolfram took source code from SMP to build mathematica but there was nothing MIT could really do about it).I'm getting the impression that there is a whole group of people out there that get starry eyed thinking about Intellectual Property Monopolies. mickeym To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Works for hire arvard.edu 02/01/01 07:06 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss From: http://ipconference.education.wisc.edu/post.html "The tradition across higher education has been for individual faculty members to own the copyrights in the scholarly and creative works that they develop. Many argue that such works actually are works for hire under the statutory definition [ ... snip ...] How should it be advertised and "sold" to the faculty? This workshop will address all of these issues." Are there really many that argue such works are actually works for hire? mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 11:15:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20280 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:15:09 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20277 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:15:07 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:18:57 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:18:56 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/02/2001 08:18:57 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'd say that's a definite copyright infringement. But, I seriously doubt that one can argue that it is a derivative work either. Editing OUT something is really quite trivial. As with the telephone book (Feist vs. Rural Telephone?), not every action creates a derivative work that is copyrightable in its own right. To promote the science and the arts, the effort must be more substantial. In some ways, a government needs to keep the standards high to not only encourage good work but to keep its own administrative burden low. Look at the patent office. They lowered the standards in 1986 and now we have patents on cat exercisers (5,433,036). Little do most people know but shining a flashlight infront of your cat is not patented....oppps I forgot. This one had an invisible beam of light (the patent examiner didn't ask the obvious question "how can the cat see it then?") Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? 02/01/01 06:50 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy A Erwin [mailto:jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:07 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? > > > I found an article about a guy in Utah who sells edited videos of > Hollywood flicks. All the naughty bits are excised. > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/31/national/31UTAH.html I would tend to think that this involves copying more than would be considered "fair use". This purpose seems to fall under the classification of "derivative work". IMO, YMMV, IANAL, TTFN. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 11:24:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20434 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:24:39 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20431 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:24:36 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:28:11 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:28:09 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/02/2001 08:28:11 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu No the DVDCCA will not patent CSS. If they did they'd have to make a full disclosure. I believe if they do not then that invalidates the patent. Of course, given how screwed up the patent office is it probably wouldn't be an issue. The other thing is that in 20 yrs, they would have to give it up. They can't license it after that point. Also, if they did patent it, one can get a patent when one improves a patent. I don't know how the licensing works on that. I assume that one must license both patents to use the improvement. In any case, I could see a lot of programmers working to improve the CSS patent in a giant collaborative effort passing code around the Internet. "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs arvard.edu 02/02/01 02:44 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Richard Hartman wrote: > To draw a parallel: trade secret vs. patent > > If you rely upon keeping it secret (trade secret; TPM), you > are not protected against infringment (e.g. reverse engineering). > If you freely publish the method (patent; copyright) then no one > can legally use it w/o making arrangements with you first. > Thst's worse than what we've got! Suppose the DVD-CCA had gone and patented CSS(*) rather than tried to rely on keeping it secret? The Linux DVD player people would (by the argument above) not been able to use it w/o making arrangements with DVD-CCA first. Which would certainly not have been granted or have required lots of money to be granted. As it is, the situation is that of a (lost) secret and no legal fallback apart from the DMCA which is what this bunfight is all about :-) That's got to be a lot better for the Linux DVD project(s). (*) Ok, so algorithms can't be patented in many parts of the world... -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 11:28:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20536 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:28:41 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20527 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:28:39 -0500 Received: from seltzerw ([204.243.92.112]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.9.3 (PHNE_21697)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16008 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:32:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010202112241.01aa7570@pop.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:32:15 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Re: rental of edited videos. The analogy I see is Gilliam v. ABC, where Monty Python successfully argued that the broadcast of edited versions of their skits, with commercial breaks inserted, created an unauthorized derivative work. (ABC was licensed to rebroadcast, I believe, but not to create derivative works.) The Monty Python troupe argued that removal of scenes disrupted their artistic creation -- and I would guess that producers of the films modified to remove "objectionable" content could do the same. My call would be that editing is fair use for personal viewing (a parent modifying a video to show to family and friends) or possibly classroom use, but probably not in the commercial rental context. Interesting question whether it makes a difference if the Utah video store charges a premium for edited videos. --Wendy At 08:18 AM 2/2/01 -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >I'd say that's a definite copyright infringement. But, I seriously doubt >that one can argue that it is a derivative work either. Editing OUT >something is really quite trivial. As with the telephone book (Feist vs. >Rural Telephone?), not every action creates a derivative work that is >copyrightable in its own right. To promote the science and the arts, the >effort must be more substantial. In some ways, a government needs to keep >the standards high to not only encourage good work but to keep its own >administrative burden low. Look at the patent office. They lowered the >standards in 1986 and now we have patents on cat exercisers (5,433,036). >Little do most people know but shining a flashlight infront of your cat is >not patented....oppps I forgot. This one had an invisible beam of light >(the patent examiner didn't ask the obvious question "how can the cat see >it then?") > > > > > Richard > Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeremy A Erwin [mailto:jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:07 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? > > > > > > I found an article about a guy in Utah who sells edited videos of > > Hollywood flicks. All the naughty bits are excised. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/31/national/31UTAH.html > >I would tend to think that this involves copying more than >would be considered "fair use". This purpose seems to fall >under the classification of "derivative work". > >IMO, YMMV, IANAL, TTFN. Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 11:52:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20646 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:52:52 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20643 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:52:49 -0500 Received: from seltzerw ([204.243.92.112]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.9.3 (PHNE_21697)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29719 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:56:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010201181051.01bde1f0@pop.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:56:25 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici In-Reply-To: <20010131225342.G27362@duskglow.com> References: <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 10:53 PM 1/31/01 -0800, Russell Miller wrote: >That would be a good thing to wish. But I've been following this for as >long as >it's been going on, getting mad when appropriate, acting when appropriate. >I was one of the signers of the openlaw amicus brief. > >Then I started to think. What on earth would cause professional people such >as the MPAA people, who are no doubt as representative of the cross-slice of >people as anything else. I bet some of them are good people, and I bet some >of them are stinkers. But they all are very forcefully and vehemently arguing >a very *wrong* point of view. And they're willing to defend it with >everything >they have. > >Now I'm sure that there are some people very high up who are consciously >motivated by profit at the expense of everything else - but you know what I >think? I think that most of them *actually believe it*. In their heart of >hearts I think they actually believe that we are all thieves just because we >believe in the openness of the Internet and in restriction of intellectual >properties. It sounds like a combination of believing that "copyrighted content must be protected" and not having the imagination to conceive of a business that works other than by charging by the piece (or better yet, by the look or listen). The DMCA gives existing publishers no incentive to look for alternatives -- even though other methods could get their copyrighted works out to a larger audience. It's the grasping of dinosaurs, but unfortunately, the dinosaurs are still seen as good economic citizens with a lot of money to spend in Washington. We need to turn our attention away from the "right to exclude" as the most important piece of the copyright bundle, as John Gilmore suggested in his recent copy protection piece. If scarcity is not a natural "fact" for information goods, why are all the business models built around trying to re-impose it? That is, why do publishers assume they should get all the economic surplus from the cheapness of digital reproduction and distribution? The response should not be to make "intellectual property" more like real property (re-imposing barriers technology has removed), but to build upon its differences. If some of the old-line businesses won't survive the transition, so be it. We don't need their steam engines. The challenge to the other side is offering (lots of) alternative models that show artists and creators how they can make money without restricting access to their works. --Wendy Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 12:39:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA21246 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:39:32 -0500 Received: from smtp.snet.net (smtp.snet.net [204.60.6.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA21243 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:39:31 -0500 Received: from 25915 (231.11.252.64.snet.net [64.252.11.231]) by smtp.snet.net (8.11.1/8.11.1/SNET-mx-1.4/D-1.10/O-1.7) with SMTP id f12HhWL16433 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:43:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <14cb01c08d3f$c59c8840$d559fea9@25915> From: "Ernest Miller" To: References: <4.2.2.20010202112241.01aa7570@pop.bellatlantic.net> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:44:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Re: rental of edited videos. > The analogy I see is Gilliam v. ABC, where Monty Python successfully argued > that the broadcast of edited versions of their skits, with commercial > breaks inserted, created an unauthorized derivative work. (ABC was > licensed to rebroadcast, I believe, but not to create derivative > works.) The Monty Python troupe argued that removal of scenes disrupted > their artistic creation -- and I would guess that producers of the films > modified to remove "objectionable" content could do the same. > > My call would be that editing is fair use for personal viewing (a parent > modifying a video to show to family and friends) or possibly classroom use, > but probably not in the commercial rental context. Interesting question > whether it makes a difference if the Utah video store charges a premium for > edited videos. This editing concept is something that I think is very exciting about digital media. I agree that editing and renting video tapes very likely violates current law. Imagine instead, that the proprieter rents DVDs, but because DeCSS can be legally distributed and LiViD has finished their open source player, the proprieter distributes alternative viewing trees for the DVDs that skip the naughty parts. You rent the DVD, but download the viewing tree of your choice from a website. Is the viewing tree a derivative work? I wouldn't think so ... and the possibilities for this fair use would be tremendous. Directors could provide their own "director's cut" viewing tree to use with the bastardized studio DVD. Many "Special Edition" DVDs have commentary audio tracks that follow the movie. Imagine that you could have alternative commentary tracks that you download - famous film professors, people involved in the original production but now on the outs with the studio, that work in conjunction with the original work. The Annotated Alice-In-Wonderland is an incredible book, but could only be published because Alice is public domain. With digital media it would be possible to create "The Annotated" anything with the simple requirement that users purchase the original as well. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 12:40:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA21265 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:40:55 -0500 Received: from smtp.snet.net (smtp.snet.net [204.60.6.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA21262 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:40:54 -0500 Received: from 25915 (231.11.252.64.snet.net [64.252.11.231]) by smtp.snet.net (8.11.1/8.11.1/SNET-mx-1.4/D-1.10/O-1.7) with SMTP id f12HiuL17205 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:44:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <14d101c08d3f$f7788260$d559fea9@25915> From: "Ernest Miller" To: References: <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <4.2.2.20010201181051.01bde1f0@pop.bellatlantic.net> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:45:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Could you point us to this recent John Gilmore piece? > > We need to turn our attention away from the "right to exclude" as the most > important piece of the copyright bundle, as John Gilmore suggested in his > recent copy protection piece. If scarcity is not a natural "fact" for > information goods, why are all the business models built around trying to > re-impose it? That is, why do publishers assume they should get all the > economic surplus from the cheapness of digital reproduction and > distribution? The response should not be to make "intellectual property" > more like real property (re-imposing barriers technology has removed), but > to build upon its differences. If some of the old-line businesses won't > survive the transition, so be it. We don't need their steam engines. > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 12:45:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA21438 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:45:39 -0500 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA21435 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:45:37 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 14OkL5-0008RT-00; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:49:39 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 14OkL8-00080W-00; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:49:42 +0100 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:49:42 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? Message-ID: <20010202184941.A30356@inka.de> References: <4.2.2.20010202112241.01aa7570@pop.bellatlantic.net> <14cb01c08d3f$c59c8840$d559fea9@25915> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <14cb01c08d3f$c59c8840$d559fea9@25915>; from ernest.miller@yale.edu on Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 12:44:19PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 12:44:19PM -0500, Ernest Miller wrote: > This editing concept is something that I think is very exciting about > digital media. > > I agree that editing and renting video tapes very likely violates > current law. Imagine instead, that the proprieter rents DVDs, but > because DeCSS can be legally distributed and LiViD has finished their > open source player, the proprieter distributes alternative viewing > trees for the DVDs that skip the naughty parts. You rent the DVD, but > download the viewing tree of your choice from a website. Not a viewing tree as such, but I've been working on a similar concept for subtitles: http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/VOBSub/ At the moment there's only a subtitle extractor, but I have a working encoder and am quite close to being able to insert custom subtitles in VOB files. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 13:39:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA21682 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:39:48 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (adsl-63-192-8-227.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.192.8.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21679 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:39:39 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id DAA00012 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 03:23:32 -0800 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 03:23:32 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici Message-ID: <20010202032332.J7449@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <4.2.2.20010201181051.01bde1f0@pop.bellatlantic.net> <14d101c08d3f$f7788260$d559fea9@25915> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <14d101c08d3f$f7788260$d559fea9@25915>; from ernest.miller@yale.edu on Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 12:45:43PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ernest Miller writes: > Could you point us to this recent John Gilmore piece? You can find it on Cryptome. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 14:17:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA22048 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:17:49 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA22045 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:17:48 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA27949 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:21:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:21:50 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010202112241.01aa7570@pop.bellatlantic.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Re: rental of edited videos. > The analogy I see is Gilliam v. ABC, where Monty Python successfully argued > that the broadcast of edited versions of their skits, with commercial > breaks inserted, created an unauthorized derivative work. (ABC was > licensed to rebroadcast, I believe, but not to create derivative > works.) The Monty Python troupe argued that removal of scenes disrupted > their artistic creation -- and I would guess that producers of the films > modified to remove "objectionable" content could do the same. 17 USC 106A defines a right of artistic integrity which applies to works for the artist's lifetime, regardless of whether the artist is the copyright holder. But this extends only to unique visual works of art, and not to reproductions. In other words, if you bought the original of Chris Olifi's "The Holy Virgin Mary (1996), and subsequently had it publicly incinerated, Olifi might be able to sue you. If you attribute another's work to Olifi, he would be able to sue you. But this does not apply (obviously) to Motion Pictures. (Many films are cut by the movie studio against the wishes of the director. Thus the original meaning of "director's cut.") I suppose the "Alan Smithee" pseudonym confuses things a bit. BTW, The case Wendy cited is Gilliam v. ABC 538 F.2d 14 (1976). In that case, Monty Python had a specific contract with the BBC that essentailly said that "while BBC retains final authority to make changes, appellants or their representatives exercise optimum control over the scripts consistent with BBC's authority and only minor changes may be made without prior consultation with the writers. Nothing in the scriptwriters' agreement entitles BBC to alter a program once it has been recorded. The agreement further provides that, subject to the terms therein, the group retains all rights in the script." M.P. tried to sue under the Lanham Act, which governs the misrepresentaion of certain goods and trademarks. The concurring opinion, by Gurfein suggested that a disclaimer might preclude violation of the act. However, since potential viewerss had limited access to the original episodes, no comparison could be made. I note that when a film is broadcast on televison, it is usually preceeded by a note affirming that "this film has been edited for television's aspect ratio, time alloted, and content." I call it the "this film has been butchered" screen. However, a viewer could instead choose to view the orinal film on video tape, dvd, or laserdisc. Additionally, the licensing company can usually authorize the appropriate edits, as it usually owns the appropriate copyright-- whereas, in Gilliam v ABC, neither ABC (the licensee), nor the BBC (licenser), had any rights to do so. Essentailly, though, Gilliam was trying to establish an American counterpart to European trademak law. As I am sure we all realise, American copyright law is utilitarian in nature (a monopoly in order to encourage publication), whereas European copyright law tends to derive from "moral rights" blather. 17 USC 106A is morally based, but it is, at least, limited to the artist's lifetime. > My call would be that editing is fair use for personal viewing (a parent > modifying a video to show to family and friends) or possibly classroom > but probably not in the commercial rental context. Interesting question > whether it makes a difference if the Utah video store charges a premium for > edited videos. > > --Wendy > > At 08:18 AM 2/2/01 -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > >I'd say that's a definite copyright infringement. But, I seriously doubt > >that one can argue that it is a derivative work either. Editing OUT > >something is really quite trivial. As with the telephone book (Feist vs. > >Rural Telephone?), not every action creates a derivative work that is > >copyrightable in its own right. To promote the science and the arts, the > >effort must be more substantial. In some ways, a government needs to keep > >the standards high to not only encourage good work but to keep its own > >administrative burden low. Look at the patent office. They lowered the > >standards in 1986 and now we have patents on cat exercisers (5,433,036). > >Little do most people know but shining a flashlight infront of your cat is > >not patented....oppps I forgot. This one had an invisible beam of light > >(the patent examiner didn't ask the obvious question "how can the cat see > >it then?") > > > > > > > > > > Richard > > Hartman > > > > To: > > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jeremy A Erwin [mailto:jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu] > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:07 AM > > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? > > > > > > > > > I found an article about a guy in Utah who sells edited videos of > > > Hollywood flicks. All the naughty bits are excised. > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/31/national/31UTAH.html > > > >I would tend to think that this involves copying more than > >would be considered "fair use". This purpose seems to fall > >under the classification of "derivative work". > > > >IMO, YMMV, IANAL, TTFN. > > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 14:18:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA22056 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:18:44 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA22053 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:18:41 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11487 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:22:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:22:09 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? In-Reply-To: <14cb01c08d3f$c59c8840$d559fea9@25915> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Ernest Miller wrote: > > > Re: rental of edited videos. > > The analogy I see is Gilliam v. ABC, where Monty Python successfully > argued > > that the broadcast of edited versions of their skits, with > commercial > > breaks inserted, created an unauthorized derivative work. (ABC was > > licensed to rebroadcast, I believe, but not to create derivative > > works.) The Monty Python troupe argued that removal of scenes > disrupted > > their artistic creation -- and I would guess that producers of the > films > > modified to remove "objectionable" content could do the same. > > > > My call would be that editing is fair use for personal viewing (a > parent > > modifying a video to show to family and friends) or possibly > classroom use, > > but probably not in the commercial rental context. Interesting > question > > whether it makes a difference if the Utah video store charges a > premium for > > edited videos. > > > This editing concept is something that I think is very exciting about > digital media. > > I agree that editing and renting video tapes very likely violates > current law. Imagine instead, that the proprieter rents DVDs, but > because DeCSS can be legally distributed and LiViD has finished their > open source player, the proprieter distributes alternative viewing > trees for the DVDs that skip the naughty parts. You rent the DVD, but > download the viewing tree of your choice from a website. > > Is the viewing tree a derivative work? I wouldn't think so ... and > the possibilities for this fair use would be tremendous. > > Directors could provide their own "director's cut" viewing tree to use > with the bastardized studio DVD. > > Many "Special Edition" DVDs have commentary audio tracks that follow > the movie. Imagine that you could have alternative commentary tracks > that you download - famous film professors, people involved in the > original production but now on the outs with the studio, that work in > conjunction with the original work. > > The Annotated Alice-In-Wonderland is an incredible book, but could > only be published because Alice is public domain. With digital media > it would be possible to create "The Annotated" anything with the > simple requirement that users purchase the original as well. Yes, though that's a functional requirement; not a legal one. I expect that extensive annotations and commentary on copyrighted works are sufficiently creative to get independent copyrights. (e.g. reprints of public domain works _always_ include a foreword so that people can't copy the entire thing; there have been some dvds like this, IIRC) Similarly, there have been IIRC some lectures given by teachers which are said to be copyrightable. (I haven't examined that closely, but perhaps they've managed to get them) Is the part where they tell students to read pages 1-100 and 250-275 infringement on the copyright of the original work? So barring the access control issue, it ought to be legal to distribute annotation.vobs or something, and merge them with, or let them take over the tree of regular dvds. Think of them as Cliff's Notes. Is the nature of a work changed by placing other objects alongside a work (e.g. making it copyright infringement to build a building next to another one who's design has been copyrighted by the architect?) or by viewing the work in a manner not intended by the creator (e.g. every odd-numbered page in a book; the back of a canvas) Anyway, I doubt it. ADDING vob files or whatnot to a DVD is not the same as changing the copyrighted movie on a DVD. And is a typical DVD's menu structure copyrightable? Links to 'Play Movie' 'Chapters' and 'Special Features' don't strike me as creative enough for a copyright, particularly since 1) virtually every disc is like that 2) it sets up the very first DVD menu's author for a great copyright suit. Yessir, just another example of an entire CLASS of copyrightable works that can clearly be seen to have an positive effect on the Arts killed by access control. Not to mention that if Jack were to again claim that it's possible with VHS, he'd be wrong: then it would require actually copying the work and distributing it onto new (linear) VHS tapes which really might be infringement. Ignoring the problem of DVDs for which there are no VHS versions, and the sections of footage that often appear on DVD and nowhere else (Director's Cuts, restored editions, cut scenes, blooper reels, etc.) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 14:22:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA22211 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:22:12 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA22208 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:22:11 -0500 Received: from seltzerw ([204.243.92.112]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.9.3 (PHNE_21697)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26866 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:26:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010202125332.01a9b650@pop.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 14:25:46 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? In-Reply-To: <14cb01c08d3f$c59c8840$d559fea9@25915> References: <4.2.2.20010202112241.01aa7570@pop.bellatlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 12:44 PM 2/2/01 -0500, Ernest Miller wrote: >This editing concept is something that I think is very exciting about >digital media. > >I agree that editing and renting video tapes very likely violates >current law. Imagine instead, that the proprieter rents DVDs, but >because DeCSS can be legally distributed and LiViD has finished their >open source player, the proprieter distributes alternative viewing >trees for the DVDs that skip the naughty parts. You rent the DVD, but >download the viewing tree of your choice from a website. > >Is the viewing tree a derivative work? I wouldn't think so ... and >the possibilities for this fair use would be tremendous. I agree -- and I like your elaboration on the point. (It's the same concept I've been using for the Annotator, which, sadly, no one has looked at long enough to challenge.) The distinction I see is that an overlay always provides a way to get back to the underlying original. You're given the opportunity to see the artists original conception and someone else's commentary on the original, as opposed to getting only the derivative. That also clearly separates the attribution of the original and the "patch file." (I believe there's been debate, in conjunction with the GPL/LGPL, about whether a program that makes use of an interface provided by another is a derivative, but I'm not aware of a definitive answer. I'd lean toward no.) A moral rights advocate might see it differently, that the artist is somehow harmed just by the noncommercial viewing of his work in other than original form, but US law hasn't adopted that view so far, save VARA. >Directors could provide their own "director's cut" viewing tree to use >with the bastardized studio DVD. > >Many "Special Edition" DVDs have commentary audio tracks that follow >the movie. Imagine that you could have alternative commentary tracks >that you download - famous film professors, people involved in the >original production but now on the outs with the studio, that work in >conjunction with the original work. > >The Annotated Alice-In-Wonderland is an incredible book, but could >only be published because Alice is public domain. With digital media >it would be possible to create "The Annotated" anything with the >simple requirement that users purchase the original as well. It's updating the concordance to modern media. I can underline my physical copy of a book, write notes in the margins, put another book beside it, or cut it apart and intersperse it with commentary. I very much hope this is something we'll see expanded for digital media, and not be stifled by TPMs and proprietary players that bar outside interaction with the viewing of works. Thinking aloud .. is there any way we might demonstrate the possibilities of these technologies to raise public awareness? --Wendy Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 15:28:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23256 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:28:24 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA23253 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:28:18 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:32:14 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:32:13 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/02/2001 12:32:14 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The MPAA, DVDCCA etc are trying to eliminate personal use as well. But that's an interesting point regarding how much they charge. If the video store owner were to have purchased 1 copy for each edited copy then it would be difficult to argue that they have reduced the revenues of the copyright holder. I could see an arguement that the salvage value of the rental tape would be increased if it had never been played or only once but not if the store owner destroyed it or his copies afterwards. Personally, I agree with Monty Python. If you don't want to watch it as created, don't. No one is forcing you to watch it afterall. Actually, I believe the argument in Gillian vs. ABC was contractual in nature. I believe that their contract with the BBC stated that works were not to be changed and that clause was passed on to ABC. The particular scene had some frontal nudity and ABC snipped it out. Wendy Seltzer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? arvard.edu 02/02/01 08:34 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Re: rental of edited videos. The analogy I see is Gilliam v. ABC, where Monty Python successfully argued that the broadcast of edited versions of their skits, with commercial breaks inserted, created an unauthorized derivative work. (ABC was licensed to rebroadcast, I believe, but not to create derivative works.) The Monty Python troupe argued that removal of scenes disrupted their artistic creation -- and I would guess that producers of the films modified to remove "objectionable" content could do the same. My call would be that editing is fair use for personal viewing (a parent modifying a video to show to family and friends) or possibly classroom use, but probably not in the commercial rental context. Interesting question whether it makes a difference if the Utah video store charges a premium for edited videos. --Wendy At 08:18 AM 2/2/01 -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >I'd say that's a definite copyright infringement. But, I seriously doubt >that one can argue that it is a derivative work either. Editing OUT >something is really quite trivial. As with the telephone book (Feist vs. >Rural Telephone?), not every action creates a derivative work that is >copyrightable in its own right. To promote the science and the arts, the >effort must be more substantial. In some ways, a government needs to keep >the standards high to not only encourage good work but to keep its own >administrative burden low. Look at the patent office. They lowered the >standards in 1986 and now we have patents on cat exercisers (5,433,036). >Little do most people know but shining a flashlight infront of your cat is >not patented....oppps I forgot. This one had an invisible beam of light >(the patent examiner didn't ask the obvious question "how can the cat see >it then?") > > > > > Richard > Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeremy A Erwin [mailto:jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:07 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? > > > > > > I found an article about a guy in Utah who sells edited videos of > > Hollywood flicks. All the naughty bits are excised. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/31/national/31UTAH.html > >I would tend to think that this involves copying more than >would be considered "fair use". This purpose seems to fall >under the classification of "derivative work". > >IMO, YMMV, IANAL, TTFN. Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 15:30:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23300 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:30:21 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA23293 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:30:15 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:34:11 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:34:11 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/02/2001 12:34:11 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu True. Somebody once wrote that General Relativity only got accepted into physics after a generation of physicist died off.. Wendy Seltzer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the arvard.edu Amici 02/02/01 08:59 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 10:53 PM 1/31/01 -0800, Russell Miller wrote: >That would be a good thing to wish. But I've been following this for as >long as >it's been going on, getting mad when appropriate, acting when appropriate. >I was one of the signers of the openlaw amicus brief. > >Then I started to think. What on earth would cause professional people such >as the MPAA people, who are no doubt as representative of the cross-slice of >people as anything else. I bet some of them are good people, and I bet some >of them are stinkers. But they all are very forcefully and vehemently arguing >a very *wrong* point of view. And they're willing to defend it with >everything >they have. > >Now I'm sure that there are some people very high up who are consciously >motivated by profit at the expense of everything else - but you know what I >think? I think that most of them *actually believe it*. In their heart of >hearts I think they actually believe that we are all thieves just because we >believe in the openness of the Internet and in restriction of intellectual >properties. It sounds like a combination of believing that "copyrighted content must be protected" and not having the imagination to conceive of a business that works other than by charging by the piece (or better yet, by the look or listen). The DMCA gives existing publishers no incentive to look for alternatives -- even though other methods could get their copyrighted works out to a larger audience. It's the grasping of dinosaurs, but unfortunately, the dinosaurs are still seen as good economic citizens with a lot of money to spend in Washington. We need to turn our attention away from the "right to exclude" as the most important piece of the copyright bundle, as John Gilmore suggested in his recent copy protection piece. If scarcity is not a natural "fact" for information goods, why are all the business models built around trying to re-impose it? That is, why do publishers assume they should get all the economic surplus from the cheapness of digital reproduction and distribution? The response should not be to make "intellectual property" more like real property (re-imposing barriers technology has removed), but to build upon its differences. If some of the old-line businesses won't survive the transition, so be it. We don't need their steam engines. The challenge to the other side is offering (lots of) alternative models that show artists and creators how they can make money without restricting access to their works. --Wendy Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 15:35:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23421 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:35:21 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA23418 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:35:19 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:39:10 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:39:10 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/02/2001 12:39:10 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Viewing tree...Well if there are N segments There are only N! possible ways to view them. Do you copyright all of them? Copyright 1 - Viewing backwards Copyright 2- Viewing titles backwards, movie forwards Copyright 3. Viewing titles forwards, movie backwards etc etc "Ernest Miller" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? arvard.edu 02/02/01 09:45 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss > Re: rental of edited videos. > The analogy I see is Gilliam v. ABC, where Monty Python successfully argued > that the broadcast of edited versions of their skits, with commercial > breaks inserted, created an unauthorized derivative work. (ABC was > licensed to rebroadcast, I believe, but not to create derivative > works.) The Monty Python troupe argued that removal of scenes disrupted > their artistic creation -- and I would guess that producers of the films > modified to remove "objectionable" content could do the same. > > My call would be that editing is fair use for personal viewing (a parent > modifying a video to show to family and friends) or possibly classroom use, > but probably not in the commercial rental context. Interesting question > whether it makes a difference if the Utah video store charges a premium for > edited videos. This editing concept is something that I think is very exciting about digital media. I agree that editing and renting video tapes very likely violates current law. Imagine instead, that the proprieter rents DVDs, but because DeCSS can be legally distributed and LiViD has finished their open source player, the proprieter distributes alternative viewing trees for the DVDs that skip the naughty parts. You rent the DVD, but download the viewing tree of your choice from a website. Is the viewing tree a derivative work? I wouldn't think so ... and the possibilities for this fair use would be tremendous. Directors could provide their own "director's cut" viewing tree to use with the bastardized studio DVD. Many "Special Edition" DVDs have commentary audio tracks that follow the movie. Imagine that you could have alternative commentary tracks that you download - famous film professors, people involved in the original production but now on the outs with the studio, that work in conjunction with the original work. The Annotated Alice-In-Wonderland is an incredible book, but could only be published because Alice is public domain. With digital media it would be possible to create "The Annotated" anything with the simple requirement that users purchase the original as well. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 15:43:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23477 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:43:28 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA23474 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:43:19 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:47:18 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:47:17 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/02/2001 12:47:18 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu How interesting. You have just brought up a whole series of traditional "fair uses" that the access controls do not permit. The difference with digital media is that I need not physically alter the medium to do those. It's also the germ of a simple argument that people can understand. Somewhat of a counterargument to "you break a TPM it's like breaking a lock" Wendy Seltzer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? arvard.edu 02/02/01 11:28 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 12:44 PM 2/2/01 -0500, Ernest Miller wrote: >This editing concept is something that I think is very exciting about >digital media. > >I agree that editing and renting video tapes very likely violates >current law. Imagine instead, that the proprieter rents DVDs, but >because DeCSS can be legally distributed and LiViD has finished their >open source player, the proprieter distributes alternative viewing >trees for the DVDs that skip the naughty parts. You rent the DVD, but >download the viewing tree of your choice from a website. > >Is the viewing tree a derivative work? I wouldn't think so ... and >the possibilities for this fair use would be tremendous. I agree -- and I like your elaboration on the point. (It's the same concept I've been using for the Annotator, which, sadly, no one has looked at long enough to challenge.) The distinction I see is that an overlay always provides a way to get back to the underlying original. You're given the opportunity to see the artists original conception and someone else's commentary on the original, as opposed to getting only the derivative. That also clearly separates the attribution of the original and the "patch file." (I believe there's been debate, in conjunction with the GPL/LGPL, about whether a program that makes use of an interface provided by another is a derivative, but I'm not aware of a definitive answer. I'd lean toward no.) A moral rights advocate might see it differently, that the artist is somehow harmed just by the noncommercial viewing of his work in other than original form, but US law hasn't adopted that view so far, save VARA. >Directors could provide their own "director's cut" viewing tree to use >with the bastardized studio DVD. > >Many "Special Edition" DVDs have commentary audio tracks that follow >the movie. Imagine that you could have alternative commentary tracks >that you download - famous film professors, people involved in the >original production but now on the outs with the studio, that work in >conjunction with the original work. > >The Annotated Alice-In-Wonderland is an incredible book, but could >only be published because Alice is public domain. With digital media >it would be possible to create "The Annotated" anything with the >simple requirement that users purchase the original as well. It's updating the concordance to modern media. I can underline my physical copy of a book, write notes in the margins, put another book beside it, or cut it apart and intersperse it with commentary. I very much hope this is something we'll see expanded for digital media, and not be stifled by TPMs and proprietary players that bar outside interaction with the viewing of works. Thinking aloud .. is there any way we might demonstrate the possibilities of these technologies to raise public awareness? --Wendy Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 17:21:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA24282 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:21:58 -0500 Received: from shaft.bitmine.net (shaft.bitmine.net [216.231.58.163]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA24279 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:21:55 -0500 Received: from localhost (jbrelin@localhost) by shaft.bitmine.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id OAA20194 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:31:01 -0800 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:31:01 -0800 (PST) From: Jeme A Brelin X-Sender: jbrelin@shaft.bitmine.net To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs In-Reply-To: <20010201050048.F18845@lemuria.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Tom wrote: > I have a project running in that direction. anyone interested in > helping out can contact me. will probably go public in about 2 months > (since I'm about to go on a lengthy holiday). What's the nature of the project and what needs doing? J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 17:33:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA24418 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:33:32 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA24415 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:33:30 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id OAA07068 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:37:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma006194; Fri, 2 Feb 01 14:34:06 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Fri, 02 Feb 2001 14:35:32 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA23175; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:34:03 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:42:55 -0700 Message-ID: <000501c08d69$7bddf480$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 1665E9B91229764-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The more I look at this, the more TPM's so clearly attack the essence of the copyright clause. Promoting progress means providing the broadest access to and use of a work which still preserves the authors exclusive right to publish. TPM's provide the narrowest access to a work possible meeting the minimum standard for product marketability. This is clearly at odds with the Constitution and the intent of the framers. Early copyrights covered books and charts. A 19th century chart publisher could not restrict a sailor's choice of shipwright, cargo, or course. Nor could the publisher prevent a sailor looking to see if in fact the chart was accurate (and marking it if not) or by sailing the charted coastline, creating a new and more accurate chart (even if based on markings or overlays on the original). One could imagine a 19th century Sorkin wishing to encrypt the chart such that it could only be used on licensed schooners made from unmarkable parchment, and classifying tracing vellum as circumvention technology for the unmarkability of those parchments. A 19th century Valenti would appeal to the public to remember the important economic benefits of the chart publishing industry. The 18th century framers of the Constitution would be unimpressed. > Viewing tree... a.k.a. edit decision list (EDL) -- automates the editing process. If done post-first-sale its the equivalent of a "decoupage" kit. The concept of allowing "edit decision lists" (EDL) to be applied to digital, but traditionally linear, media is exactly the exciting sort of "to promote progress" that the copyright clause is for. This allows an entirely new class of work. The possibilities are endless**, providing revenue to the copyright holders of the work to be EDL'd (as the original is required), the creators of the EDL's, makers of advanced "EDL capable" video players, and EDL playback and authoring software. EDL overlays would provide yet another excuse to re-release every movie ever made (this time with outtakes, alternate scenes, music, etc.) -- and then re-release them yet again with "new, just discovered footage" -- and then yet again as collections of movies which can be EDL'd. Movie preservation would also be encouraged, as the whole database of film becomes the raw material from which EDL material could be drawn. This would drive the requirement for better "meta-data" (content markup, chapterization, etc.) for digital media (s.t. the EDL can be revision independent) better enabling research, criticism, scholarship, history, and authoring. Allowing EDL based audience targeting actually expands the "total available market." There are certainly movies people won't buy for the kids because of one or two gratuitously "non-age-appropriate" scenes, shots, words. EDL targeted G, PG, or PG-13 versions of any movie could even be part of the original. I know this "censorship" offends some here, but this provides the CHOICE for individuals. Think on the converse. "Offensive" (to someone) bits edited out to achieve a PG rating for marketing or political reasons could be re-added at the individuals discretion. This allows an individual adult's sensibilities to control what they view, not just Jack Valenti's. ** Watching X-Men, I rather liked several of the longer alternate versions (appended at the end of the VHS tape) of scenes abridged in the theatrical release -- I'd like to the movie with those scenes added back (of course that label me a hopeless geek, but ah well). Imagine an interactive EDL which brings up a hot-link on the screen every time an outtake of a particular scene is available -- excellent for Jackie Chan movies. For family viewing an EDL that excised the offensive bits (defined arbitrarily as violence, sexuality, language, references to non-kosher food, armadillos, or the LA Lakers (why not?) just as some folks choose to skim past sections of a book). For bachelor parties, EDL's that excised **all but** the naughty bits of a movie certainly is a time saver over interactive fast forwarding. Allowing for "Mars and Venus" differences one could contrive an EDL that slow-mo'd some amazing kiss or repeated every big punch, explosion, or crash. While clearly (as with everything) 90+% will be useless dreck (think 99% of all collages ever created), but an entire new medium will be opened. This is what comprises the heart of "promote progress in..." is all about. > Well if there are N segments There are only N! > possible ways > to view them. Do you copyright all of them? How could one copyright the uses of a work? One might copyright novel EDL's (backward ain't novel), but only the EDL's themselves would be subject to copyright, not the concept of "play frames 200954 to 130457 backwards. That's part of the expression / information duality. Regarding whether editing violates the artists rights in some way... ever read the ending of a book first, fast-forward through a tedious, pretentious visual montage in a movie (Star Trek I -- fly-by of the new Enterprise?), cut out pictures from a magazine a paste them together in a schoolroom collage? Post-first-sale editing of a/v content is no different. You are violating the "vision" of the artist equally to read a linear novel out of order (or skipping dull or offensive chapters). If the author didn't want you to have fair use, they shouldn't have publish the work. John Zulauf techno-enthusiast and private netizen when it comes time to spell check, i most enjoy clicking "Ignore all" for the words "Valenti," "TPM," and "DMCA." -- John Zulauf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 17:41:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA24540 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:41:21 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA24537 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:41:19 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id OAA09714 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:45:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma008467; Fri, 2 Feb 01 14:42:00 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Fri, 02 Feb 2001 14:43:25 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA23644; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:41:49 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:50:41 -0700 Message-ID: <000601c08d6a$91d85ea0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 1665E7861231182-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > How interesting. You have just brought up a whole series of traditional > "fair uses" that the access controls do not permit. The difference with > digital media is that I need not physically alter the medium to do those. > It's also the germ of a simple argument that people can understand. > Somewhat of a counterargument to "you break a TPM it's like breaking a > lock" > When you break a TPM it's like opening a magazine so that you can use scissors to cut out the pictures and glue them together as you did when you were in kindergarten It may be destructive, sticky, and ugly -- but it's no crime. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 18:03:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA24686 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:03:29 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA24683 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:03:27 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:07:16 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:07:15 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/02/2001 03:07:16 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Last things first: Thepoint with my N! arguement was that you really can't define "novel" in a way that makes sense to allow you to copyright it. We don't allow people to copyright all possible combination of musical notes either. Furthermore, the amount of effort to create an edit decision list is miniscule compared to the effort in creating the original work. I don't see that it meets the subtantial effort that is required to grant a copyright (feist vs. rural telephone?) The more I consider directors cuts, widescreen cuts, etc etc etc, the less likely I am to grant them derivative status if the original cut is not preserved. First things last: That's a great analogy. Let's get rid of tracing paper! The more I ponder this and consider the arguments, the more clear it becomes that TPMs really violate the principles of copyright. What's more. There is a clear and present danger (I realize that Holmes' test is old fashioned) that if they become widespread then they can stiffle or even shut off the traditional flow of information that has been one of the foundations of a countriy's prosperity. Rather like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? arvard.edu 02/02/01 02:39 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss The more I look at this, the more TPM's so clearly attack the essence of the copyright clause. Promoting progress means providing the broadest access to and use of a work which still preserves the authors exclusive right to publish. TPM's provide the narrowest access to a work possible meeting the minimum standard for product marketability. This is clearly at odds with the Constitution and the intent of the framers. Early copyrights covered books and charts. A 19th century chart publisher could not restrict a sailor's choice of shipwright, cargo, or course. Nor could the publisher prevent a sailor looking to see if in fact the chart was accurate (and marking it if not) or by sailing the charted coastline, creating a new and more accurate chart (even if based on markings or overlays on the original). One could imagine a 19th century Sorkin wishing to encrypt the chart such that it could only be used on licensed schooners made from unmarkable parchment, and classifying tracing vellum as circumvention technology for the unmarkability of those parchments. A 19th century Valenti would appeal to the public to remember the important economic benefits of the chart publishing industry. The 18th century framers of the Constitution would be unimpressed. > Viewing tree... a.k.a. edit decision list (EDL) -- automates the editing process. If done post-first-sale its the equivalent of a "decoupage" kit. The concept of allowing "edit decision lists" (EDL) to be applied to digital, but traditionally linear, media is exactly the exciting sort of "to promote progress" that the copyright clause is for. This allows an entirely new class of work. The possibilities are endless**, providing revenue to the copyright holders of the work to be EDL'd (as the original is required), the creators of the EDL's, makers of advanced "EDL capable" video players, and EDL playback and authoring software. EDL overlays would provide yet another excuse to re-release every movie ever made (this time with outtakes, alternate scenes, music, etc.) -- and then re-release them yet again with "new, just discovered footage" -- and then yet again as collections of movies which can be EDL'd. Movie preservation would also be encouraged, as the whole database of film becomes the raw material from which EDL material could be drawn. This would drive the requirement for better "meta-data" (content markup, chapterization, etc.) for digital media (s.t. the EDL can be revision independent) better enabling research, criticism, scholarship, history, and authoring. Allowing EDL based audience targeting actually expands the "total available market." There are certainly movies people won't buy for the kids because of one or two gratuitously "non-age-appropriate" scenes, shots, words. EDL targeted G, PG, or PG-13 versions of any movie could even be part of the original. I know this "censorship" offends some here, but this provides the CHOICE for individuals. Think on the converse. "Offensive" (to someone) bits edited out to achieve a PG rating for marketing or political reasons could be re-added at the individuals discretion. This allows an individual adult's sensibilities to control what they view, not just Jack Valenti's. ** Watching X-Men, I rather liked several of the longer alternate versions (appended at the end of the VHS tape) of scenes abridged in the theatrical release -- I'd like to the movie with those scenes added back (of course that label me a hopeless geek, but ah well). Imagine an interactive EDL which brings up a hot-link on the screen every time an outtake of a particular scene is available -- excellent for Jackie Chan movies. For family viewing an EDL that excised the offensive bits (defined arbitrarily as violence, sexuality, language, references to non-kosher food, armadillos, or the LA Lakers (why not?) just as some folks choose to skim past sections of a book). For bachelor parties, EDL's that excised **all but** the naughty bits of a movie certainly is a time saver over interactive fast forwarding. Allowing for "Mars and Venus" differences one could contrive an EDL that slow-mo'd some amazing kiss or repeated every big punch, explosion, or crash. While clearly (as with everything) 90+% will be useless dreck (think 99% of all collages ever created), but an entire new medium will be opened. This is what comprises the heart of "promote progress in..." is all about. > Well if there are N segments There are only N! > possible ways > to view them. Do you copyright all of them? How could one copyright the uses of a work? One might copyright novel EDL's (backward ain't novel), but only the EDL's themselves would be subject to copyright, not the concept of "play frames 200954 to 130457 backwards. That's part of the expression / information duality. Regarding whether editing violates the artists rights in some way... ever read the ending of a book first, fast-forward through a tedious, pretentious visual montage in a movie (Star Trek I -- fly-by of the new Enterprise?), cut out pictures from a magazine a paste them together in a schoolroom collage? Post-first-sale editing of a/v content is no different. You are violating the "vision" of the artist equally to read a linear novel out of order (or skipping dull or offensive chapters). If the author didn't want you to have fair use, they shouldn't have publish the work. John Zulauf techno-enthusiast and private netizen when it comes time to spell check, i most enjoy clicking "Ignore all" for the words "Valenti," "TPM," and "DMCA." -- John Zulauf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 2 18:07:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA24794 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:07:05 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA24791 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:07:04 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:11:03 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:11:02 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/02/2001 03:11:03 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Actually, that too is a great analogy.... "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? arvard.edu 02/02/01 02:47 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > > How interesting. You have just brought up a whole series of traditional > "fair uses" that the access controls do not permit. The difference with > digital media is that I need not physically alter the medium to do those. > It's also the germ of a simple argument that people can understand. > Somewhat of a counterargument to "you break a TPM it's like breaking a > lock" > When you break a TPM it's like opening a magazine so that you can use scissors to cut out the pictures and glue them together as you did when you were in kindergarten It may be destructive, sticky, and ugly -- but it's no crime. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 5 02:34:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA07453 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 02:34:03 -0500 Received: from rasputin.trustix.com (rasputin.trustix.com [195.139.104.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA07450 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 02:33:59 -0500 Received: from trustix.com (singsing.trustix.com [195.139.105.100]) by rasputin.trustix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA1661DC3 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:40:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A7E5871.22F24BBA@trustix.com> Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 08:38:25 +0100 From: Lars Gaarden Organization: Trustix AS X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0-ac9 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs References: <20010201050048.F18845@lemuria.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 03:27:29PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > And so they want to divide the world into the technological haves and the > > technological have nots. And the latter can never get technology by sheer > > intellect, industry or being smarter than the technological haves because > > they are forbidden to tell what they know..... > > bullseye. > > I have a project running in that direction. anyone interested in > helping out can contact me. will probably go public in about 2 months > (since I'm about to go on a lengthy holiday). Sounds interesting. -- "I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one of these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw out reverse engineering; he threw out linking." - Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 5 12:42:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA12438 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:42:31 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA12435 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:42:30 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30JNX>; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:46:59 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:46:58 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu A follow-up on this. I heard a radio spot on this guy. He doesn't make copies. People can send him tapes to be edited, or he will buy the tape for you and edit it before he sends it to you. This is a much more interesting approach than what I had first thought (which would definately have been illegal). Presumably, you may do what you wish with a copy of a work that you have purchased -- including burning it if you so choose. I don't see how editing for your own private use could be illegal. Now ... if you do not have the technical skill to do your own editing, this guy is selling that service. But he is -not- really selling illegal copies of the movies (-re-selling, perhaps). I wonder how such a service interacts with copyright law ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy A Erwin [mailto:jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:07 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? > > > I found an article about a guy in Utah who sells edited videos of > Hollywood flicks. All the naughty bits are excised. > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/31/national/31UTAH.html > > Somewhat related is Lieberman's dennunciation of MGM and > Warner Bros. for > airing ads for violent movies during the Superbowl, which was > described as > "a family activity." RIGHT... A family activity that just > happens to open > with a commercial for Budweiser. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63904-2001Jan29.html > > Jeremy Erwin > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 5 17:52:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA15968 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:52:08 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA15965 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:52:06 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30J6J>; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:56:36 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Planet IT article on reverse engineering Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:56:29 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu http://www.planetit.com/techcenters/docs/security/news/PIT20010123S0001 One of the replies to this article contains a nice simplification of what DeCSS does by comparing it to CDs. I think this is a good comparison. People are more comfortable w/ CDs & think they have a better idea of what they are / how they work than DVDs (which some regard as akin to magic). This bit really brings it home:
Keith's claim is very akin to saying that when I buy a CD published by Sony music, they can legally require me to only play it on a Sony brand CD player. Obviously absurd.
When phrased in terms of a single company (Sony) it really makes it clear what the CSS consortium is for. Why is it legal when a consortium does it when it would be illegal for any single company? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 5 21:52:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA17565 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 21:52:27 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA17562 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 21:52:25 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30JN7>; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:51:22 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:51:21 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Hosgood [mailto:steve@i2it.co.uk] ... > > Richard Hartman wrote: > > To draw a parallel: trade secret vs. patent > > > > If you rely upon keeping it secret (trade secret; TPM), you > > are not protected against infringment (e.g. reverse engineering). > > If you freely publish the method (patent; copyright) then no one > > can legally use it w/o making arrangements with you first. > > > > Thst's worse than what we've got! Suppose the DVD-CCA had > gone and patented > CSS(*) rather than tried to rely on keeping it secret? The > Linux DVD player > people would (by the argument above) not been able to use it > w/o making > arrangements with DVD-CCA first. Give the man a cee-gar! That is exactly correct. If they had gone through the patent route, we would have been up a creek. Good thing they didn't think of that ... Otoh, the patent would expire after what ... 17 years? Thereby ensuring that the work would be able to enter into the public domain ... with the current system & the DMCA there is no legal way to gain access to the work even after the copyright lapses! ... > As it is, the situation is that of a (lost) secret and no > legal fallback > apart from the DMCA which is what this bunfight is all about > :-) Yep. And if we can show that the DMCA is unconstitutional and/or self-contradictory we should be ok ... for a while. >That's > got to be a lot better for the Linux DVD project(s). yes it is, imo -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 07:01:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA21759 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:01:09 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA21756 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:01:05 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03601; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:05:06 GMT Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:05:06 GMT Subject: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu So here we are. The amicus briefs have been filed, and this forum have patted themselves on the backs for all the careful arguments that have been explored. We have crowed with delight on reading the other amicus briefs that back up our point of view. All is set for the actual court case. However, our job is surely not over by a long way. Apart from some rather non-specific speculation, have we *any* idea of what the enemy's arguments are going to be? Is it our job on ths forum to start working up defences to what we guess may be the main planks of these arguments? It strikes me that there is no way that the MPAA (or the DVD-CCA) are going to go to court with nothing more than the claim "the DMCA says it's illegal to publish information about breaking a TPM, so there". They (like us) are going to have worked hard on their case, and I see them having at least the following four prongs to it: 1) A detailed list of legal precedent to back up the idea that reverse engineering constitutes "theft of secrets". 2) A detailed list of legal precedent to back up the idea that publishing details of a stolen trade secret is illegal. 3) Attempt at all times to make the CSS system look like a legitimate protection system within the meanings of the DMCA, and not as a cartel management system. 4) Make it look as much as possible that evil internet hackers are trying to bleed America's honest labours dry. Should we not be considering these cases (and all the others that I've not thought of) and preparing defences against them? The last of the situations I listed above might prove very interesting! I may be way off base here, but I reckon that when all the legal arguments have been presented, the judge (or judges) will probably find themselves having to decide the outcomes of a number of grey areas one way or another according to their perception of the "rights" and "wrongs" involved. At this point, being human, they are to some extent susceptable to the propaganda campaigns of the two parties involved. I feel we are in danger of going into court without a propaganda campaign of any sort - and this leaves us open to the enemy's FUD-spreading activities. If they start making specious claims that for instance "if CSS is not granted legal protection, then all Hollywood's expensive efforts will be distributed free on internet the same day the DVD is released" what are we going to say? If we can't point out in clear language that there is no threat to Hollywood from CSS being broken, we can expect the judges to rule the gray areas against us - and that might lose us the case. Indeed, maybe we should be ready with a reverse-FUD capaign! Rather then just refuting all the claims of "internet will destroy Hollywood" thrown at us, why not trumpet a campaign based on "look at all this extra money Hollywood could be making if only they didn't have CSS crippling them"? I particularly liked the suggestion from yesterday that the LiViD player might be able to download home-made play-lists for DVDs, thus allowing all sorts of unofficial creative derivative works to be circulated. Hollywood lose nothing there - anyone wanting to play the "PG-certificate version of Terminator II" would still have to buy a copy of T2 as well as download the playlist. So that's an extra sale for the T2 disk that might otherwise not have been made... Hollywood could even get on the bandwagon themselves. Why should they not sell "add-on playlists" themselves? More income for them - slightly ironic that these add-on playlists will only play on LiViD players to start with(:-)), but they could easily rewrite the DVD player cartel licences (or even tear them up) to allow all the other manufacturers to join in too. What have I missed? How many other ways are there for Hollywood to *benefit* if the content of DVDs was user-accessable? And how to make sure the court gets to hear of them? -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 07:49:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA22017 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:49:24 -0500 Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA22014 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:49:21 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38lci0e.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.72.14]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA09533 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:53:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A7FF301.EDE56739@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 07:50:09 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss Subject: [dvd-discuss] EU votes against copyright changes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Saw this in the morning news: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010205/tc/eu_copyright_1.html mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 09:19:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA22751 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:19:58 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f194.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.194]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA22748 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:19:57 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 06:23:39 -0800 Received: from 12.109.34.93 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 06 Feb 2001 14:23:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.109.34.93] From: "Richard Bowers" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:23:39 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2001 14:23:39.0854 (UTC) FILETIME=[6686F6E0:01C09048] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >So here we are. The amicus briefs have been filed, and this forum have >patted themselves on the backs for all the careful arguments that have been >explored. We have crowed with delight on reading the other amicus briefs >that back up our point of view. All is set for the actual court case. >It strikes me that there is no way that the MPAA (or the DVD-CCA) are going >to go to court with nothing more than the claim "the DMCA says it's illegal >to publish information about breaking a TPM, so there". They (like us) are >going >to have worked hard on their case, and I see them having at least the >following >four prongs to it: > >1) A detailed list of legal precedent to back up the idea that reverse > engineering constitutes "theft of secrets". >2) A detailed list of legal precedent to back up the idea that publishing > details of a stolen trade secret is illegal. >3) Attempt at all times to make the CSS system look like a legitimate > protection system within the meanings of the DMCA, and not as a cartel > management system. >4) Make it look as much as possible that evil internet hackers are trying >to > bleed America's honest labours dry. > >Should we not be considering these cases (and all the others that I've not >thought of) and preparing defences against them? I think its pretty clear that they're going to push the fourth prong you have above. Judge Kaplan seemed to indicate that his perception of 2600 as being a bunch of evil internet hackers was the main consideration he had. How can we show who the true community is? Is there some sort of survey or petition we can construct, to show what the demographics are of pro-DeCSSers? I'm sure that, while there are plenty of stereotypical "hackers" who want DeCSS, there are also plenty of wage-slaves, upper management, lawyers, artists, and other people that can't be smeared as effectively. I'm not sure what the first step is to compiling those statistics, but we need some way to stand up and be counted. Richard Bowers _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 09:26:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA22963 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:26:45 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA22960 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:26:44 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id DBE6727AF0; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:26:02 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:26:02 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Message-ID: <20010206152602.A2534@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from richardsbowers@hotmail.com on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 09:23:39AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 09:23:39AM -0500, Richard Bowers wrote: > How can we show who the true community is? Is there some sort of survey or > petition we can construct, to show what the demographics are of the amici should go a long way there. quite a number of people in them that you can't easily put down as "evil hackers". -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 09:48:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA23692 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:48:31 -0500 Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA23689 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:48:30 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2iniikh.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.74.145]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA29924 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:52:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102061452.JAA29924@smtp10.atl.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:43:52 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] Coders v. e-Comms In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Geert Lovink has written an essay, released today, on the conflict about the history and future of the Internet between "ACSII/Linux" open-source people and e-Commerce proponents who want the Net to be all about flashy proprietary advertising, games, and entertainment: http://cryptome.org/bandwidth-gl.htm Lovink is countering a recent e-comm advocate's article which blaims the meltdown of dotcoms on the NASDAQ as being due to nerdish technology which prevents consumers from getting lazy-boy TV-like experiences of packaged escapism. And that the end of the "first Internet" has now occurred, and that the "second Internet" will require greater broadband so that marketers can easily satify consumer demand for more stupefying candy and less empowering information -- especially to be crushed is the geniality of coders who are sharing tools and technologies that should be controlled by global corporations. He notes that for e-comm "first Internet" is defined as that dated 1996-2000, completely ignoring the Net's first 25 years before the WWW and e-commerce set out to grab control of the whole infrastructure for itself, as it apparently intends to do with the "second Internet." Copyright is just one of the means and methods to be used for this takeover, the others being legislation and pervasive public relations, and, as always, marketers treating consumers like idiots as complicit government contemns citizens who cannot be trusted to know terrible secrets about porky pig. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 10:27:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA24387 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:27:27 -0500 Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA24381 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:27:25 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2iniikh.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.74.145]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA06478 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:31:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102061531.KAA06478@smtp10.atl.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:22:50 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] Cop Mail In-Reply-To: <200102061452.JAA29924@smtp10.atl.mindspring.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu If I am the exclusive recipient of this message, by any means trash my mail to lurking cops: From: nobody@spamcop.net Message-Id: <200102061510.f16FA7N06893@sam.julianhaight.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: SpamCop detained your email Precedence: list Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:10 -0500 To: jya@pipeline.com You have attempted to send a message to dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu. The subject of your message was "[dvd-discuss] Coders v. e-Comms". The recipient (or one of the recipients) of this message subscribes to SpamCop, a system that filters unwanted email, to cut down on electronic "junk mail." We apologize for the inconvenience, but SpamCop needs to see if you are sending from a valid address before it can allow your message to go through. This only happens the first time you try to send an email, so you won't see this message again. Please click here to finish sending your message: http://spamcop.net/release?i=z451747d9f81600bf24995be1e0f3906bz5000048 This tells SpamCop that your address is valid. When you go to that link, you will receive immediate confirmation that your email has been sent. If you do not have access to the web, you can confirm your address by sending another (empty) email to: release.z451747d9f81600bf24995be1e0f3906bz5000048@cmds.spamcop.net If you confirm your address now, your next email to this person will go right through without delay. If you don't confirm it and the recipient also ignores it, you will be blocked from sending to this person in the future. We apologize for the inconvenience and hope you understand the reason this recipient has chosen to entrust SpamCop with their email. -SpamCop - http://spamcop.net/ Espanol http://spamcop.net/block.shtml?es Esperanto http://spamcop.net/block.shtml?eo Francais http://spamcop.net/block.shtml?fr Deutsch http://spamcop.net/block.shtml?de Italiano http://spamcop.net/block.shtml?it Norsk http://spamcop.net/block.shtml?no Suomeksi http://spamcop.net/block.shtml?fi Svenska http://spamcop.net/block.shtml?sv From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 10:26:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA24330 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:26:43 -0500 Received: from sgi04-e.std.COM (sgi04-e.std.com [199.172.62.134]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA24327 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:26:41 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by sgi04-e.std.COM (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA1316442 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:23:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from [24.218.56.92] (h000a2792745c.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.56.92]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04278 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:29:32 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010201181051.01bde1f0@pop.bellatlantic.net> References: <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <4.2.2.20010201181051.01bde1f0@pop.bellatlantic.net> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:15:27 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 11:56 AM -0500 2/2/2001, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >... > > >We need to turn our attention away from the "right to exclude" as >the most important piece of the copyright bundle, as John Gilmore >suggested in his recent copy protection piece. If scarcity is not a >natural "fact" for information goods, why are all the business >models built around trying to re-impose it? That is, why do >publishers assume they should get all the economic surplus from the >cheapness of digital reproduction and distribution? The response >should not be to make "intellectual property" more like real >property (re-imposing barriers technology has removed), but to build >upon its differences. If some of the old-line businesses won't >survive the transition, so be it. We don't need their steam engines. > > >The challenge to the other side is offering (lots of) alternative >models that show artists and creators how they can make money >without restricting access to their works. > In some sense we are fighting an uphill battle. The copyright lobby has Congress, international treaties and a lot of money on their side. We have the Constitution (as we see it), certain sectors of public opinion and technological imperatives on ours. I can see us winning some relief in the courts, but further legislation will then be likely. I would like to suggest another path that I think should be explored in parallel: strengthening the public domain. Here are some ideas: 1. A PD Registry. How do you tell if an electronic work is PD? Even if a work says "Public Domain on it," it could be a copyrighted work that was maliciously altered. I think there should be a law creating public domain registry, just as there is a copyright registry. Authors could enter works into this registry for some fee per megabyte. They would be required to affirm their authorship. There would be a waiting period to allow copyright holders to pose test searches, watermark checks, etc, after which the public could access the work in the registry. A copyright holder could challenge a work in the PD register at anytime after that, but people who made use of the work in the interim would be protected from liability. Such a registry would be a natural function for the Library of Congress, since the PD works would also serve as a library. 2. Compulsory licensing. This would affect copyright works after an initial period. The period might be 14 years (the original copyright duration) or there might be a shorter period for works whose value is clearly time limited, like software. After the initial period works could then be copied for a set fee to a central fund that could be claimed by the copyright holder. A copyright holder could specify a shorter period, or they could opt out of the compulsory licensing by paying a fee. Compulsory licensing might be mandatory (no opt out) for works created under government research grants. 3. Tax deduction for putting works in the public domain. Once there is a clear mechanism for placing works in the PD, one way to incentivize copyright holders to do so would be to allow a tax deduction for doing so, based on the capitalized value of profits forgone. This may even be possible under the present tax laws for all I know. Perhaps all that is needed is a charitable organization willing to accept donation of such rights as a contribution. 4. Better open content licenses for non-software content. I'm thinking of a standard license that would require attribution, limit modification (artistic control), allow non-commercial copying and limited commercial copying, set a royalty fee for large-scale commercial copying, and reserve "windfall" rights, such as a feature motion picture. 5. An electronic payment system for making voluntary contributions to authors of PD content. http://www.fairtunes.com/ is attempting to do this for music. The last two could be implemented immediately, but the first 2 and probably 3 would require new laws. I think there is a strong case that such laws would not materially diminish the legitimate economic interests of Copyright holders and might even strengthen them. I believe it would be desirable to have a well-developed public domain legislative agenda that we could press if and when the copyright industry goes back to Congress for new laws extending _their_ rights.. Arnold Reinhold Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 10:35:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA24731 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:35:19 -0500 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA24728 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:35:16 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 14QADI-0006je-00; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:39:28 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 14QADL-00025l-00; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:39:31 +0100 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:39:30 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici Message-ID: <20010206163930.A30743@inka.de> References: <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <4.2.2.20010201181051.01bde1f0@pop.bellatlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from reinhold@world.std.com on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 10:15:27AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 10:15:27AM -0500, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote: > 5. An electronic payment system for making voluntary contributions to > authors of PD content. http://www.fairtunes.com/ is attempting to do > this for music. Fairtunes maybe geared towards compensating musicians, but as is mentioned in a few places on their site, they will accept contributions to anyone they can locate. Try a search for Linus Torvalds. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 10:38:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA24761 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:38:02 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA24755 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:38:00 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04119; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:42:09 GMT Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:42:09 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <20010206152602.A2534@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom (Vogt?) wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 09:23:39AM -0500, Richard Bowers wrote: > > How can we show who the true community is? Is there some sort of survey or > > petition we can construct, to show what the demographics are of > > the amici should go a long way there. quite a number of people in them > that you can't easily put down as "evil hackers". > I thought of that, but dismissed it. My reasoning was that the other amicii were (on the whole) expressing opposition to specific legal points arising in the 2600 case. For instance, the "Law Professors'" submission was all to do with the legal aspects of denying someone the rights to free "speech" just because the "speech" was actually source code. I never detected that (say) the Law Professors were interested in any way *what* the source code represented. The fact that it was deCSS wasn't the issue. So we can't easily claim that all these fine upstanding men and women of the legal business all want deCSS to prevail so they can run LiViD on their computers at home! Unfortunately :-( But then again, maybe I'm wrong. I didn't read their amicii curiae(sp??) very closely. Maybe there *is* something useable in there. If you can see anything, please pull it out and let's see it. ----------------------------- I was thinking along different lines. I thought that maybe if we could present a clear list of how Hollywood might benefit from not using CSS, we might be able to wave it front of the movie moguls and get *them* questioning why they are bothering to spend $$$ defending a situation which loses them trade. Remember - we'd get a partial win out of this if we could convince the enemy to give up their case! Sowing seeds of doubt in *their* minds will do no harm whatsoever. (P.S: Many smaller European movie makers release DVDs without CSS on them. Evidently, lack of the so-called protections offered by CSS doesn't bother *them*. Why not Hollywood?) -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 10:47:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA25007 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:47:37 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA25004 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:47:36 -0500 Received: from ip19.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.10.19]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 14QAPF-00024x-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:51:49 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:52:02 -0500 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id KAA25005 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:23:39 -0500, "Richard Bowers" wrote: >I think its pretty clear that they're going to push the fourth prong you >have above. Judge Kaplan seemed to indicate that his perception of 2600 as >being a bunch of evil internet hackers was the main consideration he had. The inclusion of Macrovision undermines their fear of digital copies argument. Why are they blocking analog copies? Have digitized VHS copies flooded the Internet? Why not? Valenti referred to the choice of VHS for anyone needing to make fair use of DVDs. That DVD players contain Macrovision --making those players incompatible with most home entertainment systems-- forbodes a future without VHS. When the average home electronics consumer learns that his home taping may no longer be permitted, you can add that entire throng to the thin column of evil internet hackers. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 12:05:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA26194 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:05:26 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA26189 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:05:14 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA06050 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:08:21 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:08:16 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici Message-ID: <20010206120816.B5876@eldritchpress.org> References: <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <4.2.2.20010201181051.01bde1f0@pop.bellatlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from reinhold@world.std.com on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 10:15:27AM -0500 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 10:15:27AM -0500, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote: >... > I can see us > winning some relief in the courts, but further legislation will then > be likely. I would like to suggest another path that I think should > be explored in parallel: strengthening the public domain. Here are > some ideas: > > 1. A PD Registry... > > 3. Tax deduction for putting works in the public domain.... > > the first 2 and > probably 3 would require new laws. I think there is a strong case > that such laws would not materially diminish the legitimate economic > interests of Copyright holders and might even strengthen them. I > believe it would be desirable to have a well-developed public domain > legislative agenda that we could press if and when the copyright > industry goes back to Congress for new laws extending _their_ rights.. excellent ideas. a group of us are working on a 'creative commons' to implement them and more. you will hear more shortly i hope. we should not give up the legal battles though. this forum is excellent for discussing those. but arnold you are right that having something positive to propose, to reinstate the value of copyright instead of locking up works, is an excellent strategy for combating the propaganda from the big publishers and movie studios and record industry and software publishers and other media giants. the old quaker saying is speak truth to power. in this case it is sort of judo--if "intellectual property" has value in a legal sense then let's leverage that for our own purposes. if we can unite the various groups who are confronting this attempt by companies to seize control of our intellectual commons then we will have some powerful issues for political action. i can think of nothing more important. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 13:30:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA03145 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:30:50 -0500 Received: from waltz.rahul.net (postfix@waltz.rahul.net [192.160.13.9]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA03118 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:30:48 -0500 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4001) id 897EC99C96; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:34:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61E6C938C0 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:34:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:34:56 -0800 (PST) From: Ken Arromdee To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I already pointed out a big hole in the EFF's brief. The EFF pointed to the clause in the DMCA which said that it doesn't affect fair use. But what it says is that it doesn't affect fair use as a defense to copyright infringement, not that it doesn't affect fair use at all. I'd expect the MPAA to argue that since they are not accusing anyone of copyright infringement, that clause doesn't apply. But I'm also thinking of a comparison to the Microsoft case. Microsoft *couldn't* make any decent arguments, because they were, after all, wrong, and trying to argue for something wrong probably won't work no matter how good you are at arguing. The MPAA's strategy so far was to use a biased judge, where it didn't *matter* how good their arguments were--Kaplan was quite willing to reject the defendant's concerns without addressing them. The outcome may depend more on how many judges the MPAA bought, and how well it can claim it's fighting the "evil hackers". From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 13:50:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA07007 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:50:39 -0500 Received: from sgi04-e.std.COM (sgi04-e.std.com [199.172.62.134]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA06991 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:50:37 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by sgi04-e.std.COM (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA1365918 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:47:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from [24.218.56.92] (h000a2792745c.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.56.92]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10851 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:54:50 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20010206163930.A30743@inka.de> References: <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <20010201052048.21672.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> <4.2.2.20010201181051.01bde1f0@pop.bellatlantic.net> <20010206163930.A30743@inka.de> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:01:02 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 10:15:27AM -0500, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote: >> 5. An electronic payment system for making voluntary contributions to >> authors of PD content. http://www.fairtunes.com/ is attempting to do >> this for music. > >Fairtunes maybe geared towards compensating musicians, but as is mentioned >in a few places on their site, they will accept contributions to anyone they >can locate. Try a search for Linus Torvalds. > >Sham > Perhaps, but I would like to see something more explicit. It wouldn't take much. Arnold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 14:18:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA14725 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:18:11 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA14716 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:18:08 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26264 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:21:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:21:50 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Fair use though, while recognized by Congress and written in copyright law exists as a Constitutional principle. The courts developed it and it existed w/o having to be in law for IIRC ~100 years. If Congress ruled that fair use was illegal, it would be an unconstitutional law because it's independent of Congress and unassailable without an Amendment. (of course, the utility of fair use in any given case has a lot to do with the judge, as we saw) The DMCA is an attempt to weasel around the Constitution; AFAIC that includes what we infer from it w/o any other laws being considered. On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Ken Arromdee wrote: > I already pointed out a big hole in the EFF's brief. The EFF pointed to > the clause in the DMCA which said that it doesn't affect fair use. But what > it says is that it doesn't affect fair use as a defense to copyright > infringement, not that it doesn't affect fair use at all. I'd expect the MPAA > to argue that since they are not accusing anyone of copyright infringement, > that clause doesn't apply. > > But I'm also thinking of a comparison to the Microsoft case. Microsoft > *couldn't* make any decent arguments, because they were, after all, wrong, and > trying to argue for something wrong probably won't work no matter how good you > are at arguing. The MPAA's strategy so far was to use a biased judge, where > it didn't *matter* how good their arguments were--Kaplan was quite willing to > reject the defendant's concerns without addressing them. The outcome may > depend more on how many judges the MPAA bought, and how well it can claim it's > fighting the "evil hackers". > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 14:53:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA24125 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:53:05 -0500 Received: from sgi04-e.std.COM (sgi04-e.std.com [199.172.62.134]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA24122 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:53:03 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by sgi04-e.std.COM (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA1414966 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:49:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from [24.218.56.92] (h000a2792745c.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.56.92]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21996 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:57:16 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:56:06 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 10:34 AM -0800 2/6/2001, Ken Arromdee wrote: >I already pointed out a big hole in the EFF's brief. The EFF pointed to >the clause in the DMCA which said that it doesn't affect fair use. But what >it says is that it doesn't affect fair use as a defense to copyright >infringement, not that it doesn't affect fair use at all. I'd expect the MPAA >to argue that since they are not accusing anyone of copyright infringement, >that clause doesn't apply. > >But I'm also thinking of a comparison to the Microsoft case. Microsoft >*couldn't* make any decent arguments, because they were, after all, wrong, and >trying to argue for something wrong probably won't work no matter how good you >are at arguing. The MPAA's strategy so far was to use a biased judge, where >it didn't *matter* how good their arguments were--Kaplan was quite willing to >reject the defendant's concerns without addressing them. The outcome may >depend more on how many judges the MPAA bought, and how well it can claim it's >fighting the "evil hackers". What the DCMA says is "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." 1201(c)(1) You can parse that sentence more than one way. For example: "Nothing in this section shall affect rights ... under this title." Fair use is a right under Title 17. The question is do the words "to copyright infringement" modify just "defenses" or do they modify "rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses"? If you believe the latter, as Judge Kaplan did, what are "rights to copyright infringement"? Infringement normally refers to copying that is impermissible. By contrast "defenses to copyright infringement" would make sense, referring arguments that the copying in question wasn't infringing. As I understand their argument, the EFF claims "fair use" is a Constitutionally mandated right and is inviting the appeals court to interpret 1201(c)(1) as protecting fair use more broadly than Kaplan found in order to rescue DCMA from being unconstitutional. Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 14:58:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA24253 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:58:55 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA24250 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:58:53 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id MAA25608 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:03:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma009081; Tue, 6 Feb 01 11:27:01 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 06 Feb 2001 11:28:32 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA12030; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:27:00 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:35:59 -0700 Message-ID: <000a01c09074$080f4b40$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 169E8FD5249639-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > The outcome may depend more ... how well it > can claim it's fighting the "evil hackers". >From reading the various briefs, it seems to me that while attacking the speaker (and picking a "despised speaker") tends to prevail in lower courts, it the very thing to raise the hackles of the appeals or supreme courts. Pointing out that CNN (an AOL Time Warner company), the New York Time, SJ Mecury News, et. al. were not sued as co-defendants smells worse the higher up the appeals ladder one goes. IANAL -- but that's the sense that recurs in citation after citation regarding speech -- lower courts, or the congress prohibiting "icky" speech -- and the higher courts reminding them of the First Amendment. John Zulauf private netizen (and potential "despised speaker") From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 15:02:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA24325 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:02:52 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA24322 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:02:50 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id MAA27307 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:07:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma010785; Tue, 6 Feb 01 11:30:12 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 06 Feb 2001 11:31:42 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA12229; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:30:11 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:39:09 -0700 Message-ID: <000c01c09074$79a16400$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <20010206120816.B5876@eldritchpress.org> Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 169E8E94250183-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Eric Eldred Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 10:08 AM > but arnold you are right that having something > positive to propose, to reinstate the value of > copyright instead of locking up works, is an > excellent strategy for combating the propaganda > from the big publishers and movie studios and > record industry and software publishers and > other media giants. the old quaker saying is > speak truth to power. in this case it is sort > of judo--if "intellectual property" has value > in a legal sense then let's leverage that > for our own purposes. I think some compare and contrast of copyright vs. patent might be handy. When the transistor, Tylenol, keyframe animation, pencillin, and numerous other vital technologies with the 20 year protection of the patent are compared with "Land Before Time VII." The Valenti-ism of "forever minus one day" is cast into the bright-light of folly that it is. Contrasting a $3 billion development of an anti-cancer drug (again 20 year patent) vs. the 95year protection for Waterworld, Mickey Mouse, or "Fly, Robin, fly" shows an copyright landscape so out of balance, so void of rationale, so far from "promoting progress", and inverted in terms of protection for the media vs. the true value of their contribution to the intellectual commons. Here is a list of elements that could be handy in a public/congressional/judiciary "education" campaign: (a) Tell the media companies "shut up and stop whining" (1) media company rights fair outweigh their contributions (vs. patents) (2) a cost (to the public) benefit (to the media holder) comparison of current copyright law vs. the original (media company small $ gains vs. huge loss to the public) (an extension of Eldred vs. Reno conceptually) (3) push to restore original (or even 1900) copyright law. Has media somehow magic- ally gotten more valuable (b) "digital, schmigital" (1) actively and aggressively debunk the myths of "infinite reproducibility" (1.1) "digital is uniquely at risk" demonstrate DIVX;-)'ing VHS using low-cost PC hardware (1.2) "anticircumvention protects digital media" demonstrate use of professional video equipment to defeat content protection e.g. route DVD output (VGA/TFT and/or S-Video) to professional video editing and reproduction equipment -- note that quality is indistinguishable. (1.3) "Media is more a risk now than before" -- repeat 1.1 and 1.2 with HBO or PPV content off circa 1990 satellite or high-quality cable. (2) build case that copying is no easier now than before (relatively) (2.1) the same technology is always available to publishers as pirates (2.2) movable-type vs. movable-type then digital vs. digital now. (2.3) the whole premise of the copyright is that pirating is as easy as publishing -- that's why the right to control copying is needed (if it were hard to copy, few pirates would emerge and no laws would be needed) (c) "Author -- not publisher" (1) The copyright clause focuses on authors not publisher (2) With high capital cost and scarce distrib- ution channel, publishers traditionally have been the means by which authors are compensated. We need to show this is no longer required. (see d infra) (3) This challenges DMCA/CTEA as actually involving a compelling gov't interest. If the publishers aren't needed, then protecting them no longer falls within the powers of the copyright clause. (d) "Buggywhips!" -- technology has it's victims (1) Business models based on high barriers to entry of publish will not survive the transition to digital distribution. (2) Artificially supporting old business models leads to (pace Greenspan) "substantial economic inefficiencies" (3) "Promote progress" is incompatible with subsidies to obsolete business models (Publishers == Buggy Whip mfgs.) Thus, Copyright power cannot be used to support publishers' business model. Actually it would be interesting to see if the industry's words could be used against them in this regard. If they have testified under oath that average citizens have the same ability to reproduce and distribute content (over the internet and elsewhere) then they are no longer needed and cannot be held to have any unique or protected status -- since they no longer further the goals stated in the "Copyright clause." One must be essential to rewarding authors to have that status one would think. Other elements anyone? John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 15:21:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA24575 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:21:59 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA24572 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:21:58 -0500 Received: from ip236.bedford10.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.82.236]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 14QEgk-00076p-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 06 Feb 2001 15:26:11 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Coders v. e-Comms Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 15:26:24 -0500 Message-ID: References: <200102061452.JAA29924@smtp10.atl.mindspring.net> In-Reply-To: <200102061452.JAA29924@smtp10.atl.mindspring.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id PAA24573 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:43:52 -0500, John Young wrote: >Geert Lovink has written an essay, released today, on the conflict >about the history and future of the Internet between "ACSII/Linux" >open-source people and e-Commerce proponents who want the >Net to be all about flashy proprietary advertising, games, and >entertainment: It looks like the original paper he was reacting to was itself a case of its author's "ignorance management." The ASCII vs multimedia divide is a Manichaean strawman that has been obsolete ever since the advent of base 64 and MIME. Fortunately, reality is grayer. Ignorance management and its tilt toward Hollywood and wall st saviors is an easy cop out: "Technology is confusing. Even my computer is sometimes hard to boot. Why have to learn about email attachments and all these dang viruses? Disney makes cartoons; Peter Lynch makes money; all's right with the world." People who are too busy to bother learning about their tools will always be with us. But even these folks want to send their family pics and wavs of the grandchildren. And the grandchildren will always more aware and ambitious than their parents. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 15:26:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA24697 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:26:24 -0500 Received: from train.sweet-haven.com (cx48762-a.cv1.sdca.home.com [24.0.158.22]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA25733 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:19:13 -0500 Received: from localhost (wolfgang@localhost) by train.sweet-haven.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f16GMrG29090 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 08:22:53 -0800 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 08:22:53 -0800 (PST) From: Lew Wolfgang To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Cop Mail In-Reply-To: <200102061531.KAA06478@smtp10.atl.mindspring.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Wow, what a crock! They want to cut down on "Junk Mail" by adding to the problem. They could also be trolling for valid addresses to sell to spammers. There are other, non-intrusive ways to minimize spam without giving up personal information. Regards, Lew Wolfgang On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, John Young wrote: > If I am the exclusive recipient of this message, by any means trash > my mail to lurking cops: > > From: nobody@spamcop.net > Subject: SpamCop detained your email > Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:10 -0500 > To: jya@pipeline.com > > > You have attempted to send a message to dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu. > The subject of your message was "[dvd-discuss] Coders v. e-Comms". > The recipient (or one of the recipients) of this message subscribes to > SpamCop, a system that filters unwanted email, to cut down on electronic > "junk mail." We apologize for the inconvenience, but SpamCop needs to see > if you are sending from a valid address before it can allow your message > to go through. This only happens the first time you try to send an email, > so you won't see this message again. < snip > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 15:25:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA24678 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:25:52 -0500 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA18276 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:05:53 -0500 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA06389 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:08:58 -0600 Message-ID: <3A7F8963.451868C2@mninter.net> Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 23:19:32 -0600 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Hartman wrote: > Otoh, the patent would expire after what ... 17 years? Thereby > ensuring that the work would be able to enter into the public > domain ... with the current system & the DMCA there is no legal > way to gain access to the work even after the copyright lapses! OtOOh, they would have a hard time fighting the abuse of copyright and illegal tying lawsuits. That's why they didn't patent it and went the route they did. I'm sure they had this discussion long before DVDs came to market. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 16:02:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA26172 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:02:49 -0500 Received: from ntmail2n.interaccess.com (ntmail2n.interaccess.com [207.70.121.239]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA26169 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:02:45 -0500 Received: from elkornt1.elkor.com ([207.208.143.150]) by ntmail2n.interaccess.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52801U100L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:14:39 -0600 Received: from GABRIELLE ([192.168.1.217]) by elkornt1.elkor.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id 1HJPLPR5; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:08:32 -0600 From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:06:39 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Coders v. e-Comms Message-ID: <3A8012FF.2983.6DEF8D@localhost> In-reply-to: References: <200102061452.JAA29924@smtp10.atl.mindspring.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 6 Feb 2001, at 15:26, Ron Gustavson wrote: > On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:43:52 -0500, John Young wrote: > > >Geert Lovink has written an essay, released today, on the conflict > >about the history and future of the Internet between "ACSII/Linux" > >open-source people and e-Commerce proponents who want the Net to be > >all about flashy proprietary advertising, games, and entertainment: > > It looks like the original paper he was reacting to was itself a case > of its author's "ignorance management." The ASCII vs multimedia divide > is a Manichaean strawman that has been obsolete ever since the advent > of base 64 and MIME. This guy is the polar opposite of those scientists who found that users of Palm Pilots are becoming stupid: http://www.sunday- times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/02/04/stinwenws01005.html Lampooning both would surely kill two nerds with one .. um.. what rhymes with stone? > > Fortunately, reality is grayer. > > Ignorance management and its tilt toward Hollywood and wall st saviors > is an easy cop out: "Technology is confusing. Even my computer is > sometimes hard to boot. Why have to learn about email attachments and > all these dang viruses? Disney makes cartoons; Peter Lynch makes > money; all's right with the world." > > People who are too busy to bother learning about their tools will > always be with us. But even these folks want to send their family pics > and wavs of the grandchildren. > > And the grandchildren will always more aware and ambitious > than their parents. > > > __________NO-∞-DO__________ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 16:21:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA26420 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:21:30 -0500 Received: from waltz.rahul.net (postfix@waltz.rahul.net [192.160.13.9]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA26417 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:21:28 -0500 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4001) id 3AE0699C96; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:25:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2623938C0 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:25:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:25:39 -0800 (PST) From: Ken Arromdee To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote: > The question is do the words "to copyright infringement" modify just > "defenses" or do they modify "rights, remedies, limitations, or > defenses"? Hmm. You're right; I didn't think of that. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 17:02:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA26860 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:02:21 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA26855 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:02:14 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f16M5Bf07434 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:05:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A807508.BE13C8E9@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 17:04:56 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd Subject: [dvd-discuss] EU votes against new copyright laws Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010205/tc/eu_copyright_1.html "Meanwhile educators and libraries worry the new restrictions will would hamper their access to books, music and other resources now found online. Teresa Hackett, from the European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations, referred to what might become a pay-as-you go system for online resources. ``We are very afraid that we will be inadvertently caught up in an on-demand situation,'' she said." mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 17:25:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA27399 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:25:00 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA27396 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:24:57 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f16MSUf08149 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:28:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A807A7F.2E4A9735@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 17:28:16 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd Subject: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: http://www.etown.com/news/article.jhtml;$sessionid$M2W10JAAAAAZRTYPVYXSFEY?articleID=3969 "Hollywood studios have adamantly stated that they will not release high-definition versions of their crown jewels if they can be easily copied and pirated. Hollywood wants hardware makers to create and implement technology that prevents unregulated digital copying of its copyrighted material." There it is, "unregulated digital copying." "[T]he DVI with HDCP scheme is in direct competition with the so-called 5C digital copy protection format, which uses FireWire as the connector and is backed by a group of major HDTV makers including Sony and RCA. The result is what could turn into a copy-protection format war, which could delay the implementation of any digital copy protection scheme. Worse, neither proposed copy protection format is compatible with any HDTVs currently on the market." When, you ask? "Though he was unable to elaborate further, Lee said, "One top-three DVD player manufacturer will be putting it in a standard definition player by next year."" Here is a link to an overview of the chipset being used: http://www.siimage.com/products/sii991rx.asp mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 17:54:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA27734 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:54:24 -0500 Received: from charon.cargill.com (charon.cargill.com [167.136.225.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA27699 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:50:25 -0500 Received: from hermes.cargill.com (hermes.cargill.com [167.136.226.140]) by charon.cargill.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA13664 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:54:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from cdmpls02m.cdpoly.cargill.com (cdmpls02m.cdpoly.cargill.com [10.25.1.21]) by hermes.cargill.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA14373 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:54:34 -0600 (CST) Received: by cdmpls02m.cdpoly.cargill.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1A00GZ7A>; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:52:22 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Kroll, Dave" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:52:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >From another article, it looks like even analog copies are too good for the MPAA! http://www.etown.com/news/article.jhtml?articleID=3944 "Keeping the MPAA happy? The movie industry's trade association, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), has expressed the desire to end the ability of viewing HDTV (either 1080i or 720p) content via analog outputs on set-top boxes to prevent copying. These boxes currently output either in the form of component video (YPbPr), or in the case of RCA, RGBHV. The MPAA feels that the boxes' analog outputs may give consumers the ability to illegally copy and redistribute movies and programs in high definition. At present, however, there are no consumer HDTV recorders available with analog inputs. Nevertheless, the motion picture industry wants high definition to only be available via encrypted digital outputs on set-top boxes and digital inputs on televisions." This doesn't even make sense! (Or I don't understand.) Is a high definition signal transmitted through an analog output any better than an analog signal through an analog output? ---Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: mickeym [SMTP:mickeym@mindspring.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 4:28 PM > To: dvd > Subject: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C > > > From: > http://www.etown.com/news/article.jhtml;$sessionid$M2W10JAAAAAZRTYPVYXSFEY > ?articleID=3969 > > "Hollywood studios have adamantly stated that they will not release > high-definition versions of their crown jewels if they can be easily > copied and pirated. Hollywood wants hardware makers to create and > implement technology that prevents unregulated digital copying of its > copyrighted material." > > There it is, "unregulated digital copying." > > mickeym > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 18:20:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA28085 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:20:41 -0500 Received: from bigbrother.net (0@w072.z064002212.chi-il.dsl.cnc.net [64.2.212.72]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA28082 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:20:40 -0500 Received: from localhost (sterno@localhost) by bigbrother.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f16NOtB08821 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:24:55 -0600 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:24:55 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Stearns To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > This doesn't even make sense! (Or I don't understand.) > Is a high definition signal transmitted through an analog > output any better than an analog signal through an > analog output? Well, if you are recording an analog source that is of HDTV quality, even if you get some degradation you would get quality superior to current DVD technology. Given that analog source, you could encode it digitally, and thus, in theory, have really good digital copies (although not as good as HDTV) which you could distribute. I have a thought on this issue. What if all HDTV signals were encoded digitally, and required copy protection measures, but that all would also be required to provide analog outputs which could be recorded at say SVHS quality without copy protection enforcement. This would insure that people couldn't make high quality pirated copies of copyrighted material but it would not eliminate fair use rights. The problem as I see it right now is that the MPAA and their ilk are taking a hardline stance that eliminates even the basic notion of fair use. Copyright is a balance between the good of society and good of copyright holder, so laws should be constructed that protect this. So, if a copyright owner produces a format that uses some sort of digital rights management, it must protect fair use rights. Incorporated into that would probably need to be a standard that defines what a given medium must minimally provide to be considered protective of fair use rights (like resolution of video, fidelity of audio, etc). ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 18:40:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA28294 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:40:01 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (adsl-63-192-8-227.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.192.8.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA28291 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:39:58 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id IAA08148 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 08:23:44 -0800 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 08:23:43 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Message-ID: <20010206082343.J7449@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd References: <3A807A7F.2E4A9735@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <3A807A7F.2E4A9735@mindspring.com>; from mickeym@mindspring.com on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 05:28:16PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu As has been said here before, the 5C scheme is officially called DTCP (Digital Transmission Content Protection). mickeym writes: > "[T]he DVI with HDCP scheme is in direct competition with the so-called > 5C digital copy protection format, which uses FireWire as the connector > and is backed by a group of major HDTV makers including Sony and RCA. > The result is what could turn into a copy-protection format war, which > could delay the implementation of any digital copy protection scheme. > Worse, neither proposed copy protection format is compatible with any > HDTVs currently on the market." All true. The DVI/HDCP scheme is remarkably less general than DTCP -- which would make me think that DTCP will win (if anything does). I say "less general" mainly because you can use FireWire for so many other things (even at the same time); DVI is just DVI. But I'm sure DVI has a lot of appeal to videophiles and hobbyists: it seemed to me that it could have quality advantages over FireWire. I wish I knew more about the technical issues there. > When, you ask? > > "Though he was unable to elaborate further, Lee said, "One top-three DVD > player manufacturer will be putting it in a standard definition player > by next year."" > > Here is a link to an overview of the chipset being used: > > http://www.siimage.com/products/sii991rx.asp I saw their demo at the one CPTWG meeting I attended. It looked like very fine engineering by very fine engineers (although I didn't have an opportunity to call in the cryptanalysts or anything). I was going to write that It's currently still extremely unusual to find any TV in the U.S. with digital inputs at all. Then I remembered that that's wrong; I just think so because I've never owned a TV, so I have absolutely no idea what the current market looks like. But I think it's still relatively uncommon. In theory, according to one Silicon Image engineer, there is no reason that a TV couldn't have a variety of different inputs: analog (NTSC or PAL or both), DVI, FireWire, USB. It's mostly just a cost issue (and I guess maybe standards alliances and politics that way). I wonder whether they'll try to put all these chips inside a single ASIC to prevent tampering and diverting a decrypted signal. I'd actually guess that the CP standardization efforts are _way_ behind consumer demand for digital TV products. I suspect this is causing a lot of stress in the copyright industry right now. To make a specific prediction: really high-end TVs are going to come out really soon that support several different input standards, including both of these CP schemes. They will use a modular design like Ethernet hubs do; but like Ethernet hub vendors, they will keep the details of their own proprietary internal bus secret. This is a strategy to deal with the prospect that standards in the market will change very quickly: you can just replace a single module in your product in order to support a new or different standard. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 18:52:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA28501 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:52:30 -0500 Received: from web513.mail.yahoo.com (web513.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA28496 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:52:29 -0500 Message-ID: <20010206235642.17772.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.81.113.152] by web513.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 06 Feb 2001 15:56:42 PST Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:56:42 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Ken Arromdee wrote: > I already pointed out a big hole in the EFF's brief. The EFF pointed to > the clause in the DMCA which said that it doesn't affect fair use. But what > it says is that it doesn't affect fair use as a defense to copyright > infringement, not that it doesn't affect fair use at all. I'd expect the > MPAA to argue that since they are not accusing anyone of copyright > infringement, that clause doesn't apply. I think many of the amici provide the retort to this. If the DMCA sanctions a protection of copyright which fair use isn't an affirmative defense for, then it doesn't fit with the Copyright Clause / First Amendment balance. "Copyright Infringement" is exactly what the Copyright clause authorizes Congress to ban, so if the DMCA bans something that fair use doesn't provide a defense for, then it needs to identify some alternate source of Constitutional authority and square itself against the First Amendment AND the inherent limitations of the Copyright Clause. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 19:04:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA28659 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:04:51 -0500 Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA28656 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:04:50 -0500 Received: from 66-44-92-38.s546.tnt6.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([66.44.92.38]) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #5) id 14QIAQ-0002iU-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 06 Feb 2001 19:09:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 19:07:34 EST From: Jeremy Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C X-Mailer: Spruce 0.6.5 for X11 w/smtpio 0.7.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Steve Stearns wrote: > > I have a thought on this issue. What if all HDTV signals were encoded > digitally, and required copy protection measures, but that all would also > be required to provide analog outputs which could be recorded at say SVHS > quality without copy protection enforcement. This would insure that > people couldn't make high quality pirated copies of copyrighted material > but it would not eliminate fair use rights. > The big problem is that most HDTV sets are sold as HDTV compatible. You have to buy a seperate tuner. That tuner (or settop box, if you prefer) decodes the ATSC digital signal, and outputs high quality analog signals-- usually component video. I think the scheme is YCbCr, rather than RGB. This system mirrors that of the PC. Rather than send a digital signal to a monitor (as is done with some flatpanel displays), the PC uses a RAMDAC to convert digital pixel information into the appropriate analog scanlines. Although a digital connection is theoretically more robust, most monitors do not accept digital connections. There are also (probably minor) compatibility issues with some flatpanel displays-- problemsthat will be exacerbated by the introduction of yet another "standard" digital connection. Just like a multisync monitor, the maximum amount of information that can be delivered along the same physical caple interface varies, depending on the outputs and inputs. Most DVD players output at 480i-- some at the noninterlaced 480p. Some HDTV signals are 720p, others, 1080i. The various media cartel members are proposing limiting the maximum frequency that is accepted by a HDTV monitor, or output by a stand alone tuner, to 480p. But rather than phase this change in by removing exteranal tuners from the market, the content providers are working top make sure that HDTV is mad incompatible with early generation equipment-- thus pissing off the "early adopters." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 19:49:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA29090 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:49:07 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA29087 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:49:04 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id QAA18387 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:53:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma011970; Tue, 6 Feb 01 16:35:43 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 06 Feb 2001 16:37:14 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id RAA28790; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:35:42 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:44:41 -0700 Message-ID: <001501c0909f$28717d60$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 169E4730311491-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Stearns Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 4:25 PM > > > The problem as I see it right now is that the MPAA and their ilk are > taking a hardline stance that eliminates even the basic notion of fair > use. "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." -- Napoleon This to me seem like a huge miscalculation on the part of the media industry. We'd need a bad USSC decision on the level of Dredd-Scott to allow this obvious a rights-grab to succeed. The more extreme the media companies get, the more they attempt to exclude fair use (with 5C, CPSA*, et. al.), the more obvious the instrusion on long establish legal principle and the balance of the Copyright clause. Bring on the digital equivalent of the "Sony" decision -- it's one (correctly and ardently fought) we the people win going away. I believe even the congressional record supports the DMCA not overturning "Sony." * Sorkin referred to LOC the comment regarding the death of fair use as "fever dreams." When they start to implement this stuff, we'll be there to remind them, the LOC, and Congress of their obvious deception. Further, this is a public relations nightmare. Sony's memory stick audio player was savaged in reviews over it's overly agressive and intrusive DRM encorporated in it's download software. Generic (non-DRM'd) MP3 player are killing the product in the marketplace. Taking away "time shift" taping and you might as well put a fork in HD. The 5C standard allows for time-shifting only onto non-removable media (and even that can be overridden by the content provider. This is going to hurt the consumer electronics and media companies public and political support the more people have to interact with it. > Incorporated into that would > probably need to be a standard that defines what a given medium must > minimally provide to be considered protective of fair use rights (like > resolution of video, fidelity of audio, etc). Based on a at least one recent case cited by the amici, fair use of audio/visual material requires the ability to make and "exact copy" of the fairly used content. So apparently the legal standard for A/V fair use has been established. For fair use, the exact character of the image or the sound may be important (for analysis of the image itself, it's compression, information content, or other exact information extraction). I'd fight ANY sub-resolution, quality limitation restrictions diminishing that exact copy standard. It's like saying I can quote the latest John Grisham work only if paraphrased in ig-pay atin-lay. ohn-Jay ulauf-Zay ivate-pray etizen-nay From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 21:16:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA30952 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:16:14 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA30949 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:16:11 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27777 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:19:54 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:19:53 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu No. This is practically what Jack proposed. If you decide that high quality copies of media are not valid for fair use, even if low quality copies have to be made available you're doing several bad things. 1) Potentially barring things like the EDLs we were talking about last week (Jack said that rather than bother trying to watch DVDs, why didn't we use VHS instead, remember) 2) Barring use of materials in RE efforts. Difficult to RE CSS if you're only legally allowed to view the DVD on a sanctioned player, and can't make a copy. 3) Barring use of high quality materials in transformative art 4) Requiring Congress (which tends to get bought) and the judicial system (which has better things to do) to establish quality levels of video and audio, which in my opinon no one's ever been able to do. I'm sure that one of the pits of hell contains nothing but lost souls trapped in between the vinyl, cd, mp3, film, ld, dvd, direct-view, rear projection and front projection camps. I really don't see that there is any need for DRM that DRM would be good for. Even in olden days of yore, when pirates owned printing presses, though it took them more effort to pirate a book than it does now, it took no more effort than it did to print it in the first place. That's the situation that makes copyright infringement likely. Hell, the movie studios were lucky for a while; no one had really good video codecs like Divx, no one still has full-length DVD burners and it even took quite a while to work out the decryption, menu and decoding matters. They've had a free ride ;) On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Steve Stearns wrote: > > This doesn't even make sense! (Or I don't understand.) > > Is a high definition signal transmitted through an analog > > output any better than an analog signal through an > > analog output? > > Well, if you are recording an analog source that is of HDTV quality, even > if you get some degradation you would get quality superior to current DVD > technology. Given that analog source, you could encode it digitally, and > thus, in theory, have really good digital copies (although not as good as > HDTV) which you could distribute. > > I have a thought on this issue. What if all HDTV signals were encoded > digitally, and required copy protection measures, but that all would also > be required to provide analog outputs which could be recorded at say SVHS > quality without copy protection enforcement. This would insure that > people couldn't make high quality pirated copies of copyrighted material > but it would not eliminate fair use rights. > > The problem as I see it right now is that the MPAA and their ilk are > taking a hardline stance that eliminates even the basic notion of fair > use. Copyright is a balance between the good of society and good of > copyright holder, so laws should be constructed that protect this. So, if > a copyright owner produces a format that uses some sort of digital rights > management, it must protect fair use rights. Incorporated into that would > probably need to be a standard that defines what a given medium must > minimally provide to be considered protective of fair use rights (like > resolution of video, fidelity of audio, etc). > > ---Steve > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 21:32:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA31111 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:32:07 -0500 Received: from smtp10.phx.gblx.net (smtp10.phx.gblx.net [206.165.6.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA31108 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:32:05 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp10.phx.gblx.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA49348 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:35:44 -0700 Received: from 64-212-26-155.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.26.155), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp10.phx.gblx.net, id smtpdbqrvUa; Tue Feb 6 19:35:40 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA27859 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:36:11 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:36:14 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <000a01c09074$080f4b40$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> In-Reply-To: <000a01c09074$080f4b40$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01020619361400.10992@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tuesday 06 February 2001 12:35, you wrote: # IANAL -- but that's the sense that recurs in citation after citation # regarding speech -- lower courts, or the congress prohibiting "icky" # speech -- and the higher courts reminding them of the First Amendment. Sorry for the OT, but the coincidence hit pretty close to home. A couple of weeks ago the honorable James M. Ackerman, of the Arizona Court of Appeals, died of cancer. Jim was a dear friend for more than forty years, and "icky" was, to him, a term of art for things that Could Not Be Tolerated In Law. For him, calling a legal conclusion "icky" meant that it was fundamentally incompatible with the best of American principles. I think, following one of our latest^H^H^H^Hst conversations, that it's safe to say that he would have found the District Court's conclusion "icky." -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 21:51:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA31386 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:51:09 -0500 Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA31383 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:51:07 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01295 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:50:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from 64-212-27-36.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.27.36), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAgBaWDc; Tue Feb 6 19:50:25 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA27975 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:55:06 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:55:09 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01020619550902.10992@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tuesday 06 February 2001 16:24, you wrote: # > This doesn't even make sense! (Or I don't understand.) # > Is a high definition signal transmitted through an analog # > output any better than an analog signal through an # > analog output? # # Well, if you are recording an analog source that is of HDTV quality, even # if you get some degradation you would get quality superior to current DVD # technology. Given that analog source, you could encode it digitally, and # thus, in theory, have really good digital copies (although not as good as # HDTV) which you could distribute. The thing to remember is that the MPAA got the FCC to rule, basically, that all legal equipment in the USA had to follow "digital rights managment." Which means that very, very soon there won't BE any signal to record on the (obsolete) videotape recorder anyway, shortly followed by the total disappearance of consumer recording equipment. In other words, it will have taken a couple of decades but they will have overturned _Betamax_, which was always a dream of theirs. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 6 22:09:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA31588 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 22:09:22 -0500 Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA31585 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 22:09:20 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06208 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:08:43 -0700 (MST) Received: from 64-212-27-36.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.27.36), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAd.aOdm; Tue Feb 6 20:08:37 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA28079 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:13:18 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:13:22 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01020620132204.10992@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tuesday 06 February 2001 19:19, you wrote: # I really don't see that there is any need for DRM that DRM would be good # for. Even in olden days of yore, when pirates owned printing presses, # though it took them more effort to pirate a book than it does now, it took # no more effort than it did to print it in the first place. That's the # situation that makes copyright infringement likely. Once upon a time, the only difference between a pirated work and the official one was the royalty paid to the author. Which, frankly, was never a big part of the price; the result was that there was too little market for pirated works to really be worthwhile. Somehow, I don't think that the musicians get the difference between a $15 CD and the $0.25 that it costs to make, even allowing for markup along the chain. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 03:37:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA01199 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 03:37:33 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA01196 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 03:37:30 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd950061f.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.31]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C7A27AE2 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:36:48 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A8514175195; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:39:05 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:39:05 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Message-ID: <20010207093905.E30304@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from arromdee@rahul.net on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 10:34:56AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 10:34:56AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote: > But I'm also thinking of a comparison to the Microsoft case. Microsoft > *couldn't* make any decent arguments, because they were, after all, wrong, and > trying to argue for something wrong probably won't work no matter how good you > are at arguing. The MPAA's strategy so far was to use a biased judge, where > it didn't *matter* how good their arguments were--Kaplan was quite willing to > reject the defendant's concerns without addressing them. The outcome may > depend more on how many judges the MPAA bought, and how well it can claim it's > fighting the "evil hackers". then we may have to show much, much more clearly just how biased kaplan was. one thing a judge has to lose is his reputation for being honest and fair. if we can make it clear that we will drag any bias out into the spotlight, they might just step more carefully. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 03:53:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA01352 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 03:53:49 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA01349 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 03:53:48 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd950061f.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.31]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C6427AE2 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:53:11 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E861F175195; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:55:29 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:55:29 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Message-ID: <20010207095529.F30304@lemuria.org> References: <01020620132204.10992@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <01020620132204.10992@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com>; from dcs@lumbercartel.com on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 08:13:22PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 08:13:22PM -0700, D. C. Sessions wrote: > Somehow, I don't think that the musicians get the difference between a > $15 CD and the $0.25 that it costs to make, even allowing for markup > along the chain. just in case you didn't know: the musician usually gets between $0.5 and $1. and if they got screwed at the contract making (which happens quite often), the have several thousand dollars liabilities to the music mafia before the CD ever hits the shelves, for studio time and other expenses. several musicians HAVE gone broke, even though they were selling a shitload of albums. guess where the money went. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 05:11:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA02103 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 05:11:38 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA02098 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 05:11:35 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05314; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:15:50 GMT Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:15:50 GMT Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Steve Stearns wrote: > > I have a thought on this issue. What if all HDTV signals were encoded > > digitally, and required copy protection measures, but that all would also > > be required to provide analog outputs which could be recorded at say SVHS > > quality without copy protection enforcement. This would insure that > > people couldn't make high quality pirated copies of copyrighted material > > but it would not eliminate fair use rights. > Don't even think about it! That's playing straight into Valenti's hands - he's already on record as claiming that if people want to exercise "fair use" they should make do with VHS versions of movies, not DVDs. If I've *paid* for HDTV equipment so I can watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer in mega-quality sound and pictures, why should I be forced to watch it in cruddo SVHS quality occasionally just because I happened to be out that night and had to record it? It would be like us currently having to accept that if we timeshifted some programme, we could only do so in black and white because colour VCRs were deemed "too high a quality" for us to be allowed to have them! --------------------------------- Fair use is fair use. If I'm able to watch something live at 'X' quality, I should be able to record it and watch it some other time at as near to 'X' quality as I can manage. No legal constraints, nothing. Oh, and I should be able to re-watch it as often as I care too. No reason not to, and no loss is caused to the artists who created it. What I accept I *can't* do is run off a load of copies and sell them down at the car boot sale. *That's* beyond fair use. When the cops descend on me I can hardly complain. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 08:05:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA02975 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:05:09 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA02972 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:05:07 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA06150; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:09:21 GMT Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:09:21 GMT Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <000c01c09074$79a16400$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Zulauf wrote: > I think some compare and contrast of copyright vs. patent might be handy. > When the transistor, Tylenol, keyframe animation, pencillin, and numerous > other vital technologies with the 20 year protection of the patent are > compared with "Land Before Time VII." The Valenti-ism of "forever minus one > day" is cast into the bright-light of folly that it is. > We want to be careful here. Though I agree completely with John on this specific example, the one that's likely to come up in any court case would be more like the "silly" 20 year patent protection for the lemon-scented paper napkin vs. the "obviously necessary" 95 year protection for "Casablanca" or "2001 a Space Odyssey". It all depends on your point of view, and on specific examples. Trouble is that the law can't be expected to treat turkeys like "The Avengers" or "Piranha II" or "Land Before Time VII" any differently to "Casablanca" or "2001". Surely the law cannot and should not decide things on artistic merit? I did however like the ideas being mooted here a while back along the lines of protection for things being determined by them having to be renewed from time to time. That way me might see a system which (quite rightly?) protects the "Casablancas" and "The Mickey Mouse Icon" for as long as their creators care, whilst letting "The Avengers" and its ilk drop into the public domain in possibly no more than (say) 10 years after publication. But of course, we're not here to argue all this! The 2600 appeal case won't want to be troubled with such prattlings for sure. ---------------------- Of course, if it is in the interests of EFF to campaign for the overthrow of the existing patent/copyright rules and replace them, that's a different argument for a different day. And this forum's musings on the subject may be welcome reading material at that time. As for *how* to get it to happen, might I suggest that if a workable system can be thought out, wave it in front of the movie studio moguls and try and convince them that they'd be better off with such a system than trying to patch up the existing laws with "95 year extension hacks" as they are currently trying to do. Just make sure that all our concerns of fair use and other such things are well catered-for in the suggested "new improved" system! -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 09:22:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA03601 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:22:01 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA03598 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:21:59 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06212; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:26:14 GMT Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:26:14 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ken Arromdee writes: > But I'm also thinking of a comparison to the Microsoft case. Microsoft > *couldn't* make any decent arguments, because they were, after all, wrong, > and trying to argue for something wrong probably won't work.... > Sorry Ken, but this is exactly the sort of thinking that IMHO could lose us the whole battle! Let's learn a bit from WWII can we? Germany thought their Enigma coding machine couldn't be broken because it was capable of being set up in so many possible ways that it was "mathematically impossible" for Britain and her allies to be breaking it. So they never tried to break it themselves. They didn't take many precautions against operator mistakes that reduced the strength of the cypher. They never (so it seems) tried sending dummy messages using the system to see if they could cause Allied activity against a fake threat. But Britain (and later, America) were reading it, and it possibly cost Germany the war. Let's not go into court assuming that the MPAA and DVD-CCA "can't defend their case because it's just plain undefendable". They *will* defend it. They will spend millions of dollars on the best "dream team" of lawyers seen since the O.J Simpson trial or the Clinton/Lewinsky case. We need to be anticipating their defence, and finding ways to refute them. We should be trying to get Joe Public (and therefore the judges) aware of the issues involved, and that we are not evil pirates. We need to be looking for the holes and weaknesses in our own case and be plugging them. We should be trying to sow seeds of discontent within Hollywood so that the MPAA case might lose direction from within. We must start doing this *now*. (Ok, so how do we get Wendy and Robin onto the "Tonight Show"? :-) -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 11:07:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA06690 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:07:59 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA06687 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:07:57 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:12:07 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:12:03 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 08:12:07 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes...you can bet on that. Judge Kaplan's law firm was involved but obviously he had no involvement or even bias regarding the validity of his ex-partners legal "theories" Chris Moseng To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs arvard.edu 02/06/01 12:31 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Richard Hartman wrote: > Otoh, the patent would expire after what ... 17 years? Thereby > ensuring that the work would be able to enter into the public > domain ... with the current system & the DMCA there is no legal > way to gain access to the work even after the copyright lapses! OtOOh, they would have a hard time fighting the abuse of copyright and illegal tying lawsuits. That's why they didn't patent it and went the route they did. I'm sure they had this discussion long before DVDs came to market. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 11:30:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA06960 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:30:20 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA06955 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:30:18 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:34:29 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:34:26 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 08:34:29 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It's rather like rebinding a book. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? 02/05/01 09:48 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss A follow-up on this. I heard a radio spot on this guy. He doesn't make copies. People can send him tapes to be edited, or he will buy the tape for you and edit it before he sends it to you. This is a much more interesting approach than what I had first thought (which would definately have been illegal). Presumably, you may do what you wish with a copy of a work that you have purchased -- including burning it if you so choose. I don't see how editing for your own private use could be illegal. Now ... if you do not have the technical skill to do your own editing, this guy is selling that service. But he is -not- really selling illegal copies of the movies (-re-selling, perhaps). I wonder how such a service interacts with copyright law ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy A Erwin [mailto:jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:07 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is this fair use? > > > I found an article about a guy in Utah who sells edited videos of > Hollywood flicks. All the naughty bits are excised. > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/31/national/31UTAH.html > > Somewhat related is Lieberman's dennunciation of MGM and > Warner Bros. for > airing ads for violent movies during the Superbowl, which was > described as > "a family activity." RIGHT... A family activity that just > happens to open > with a commercial for Budweiser. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63904-2001Jan29.html > > Jeremy Erwin > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 11:36:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07048 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:36:32 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA07045 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:36:31 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:40:42 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Planet IT article on reverse engineering To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:40:38 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 08:40:42 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It is just as illegal for a consortium as it is for a single company. Both are illegal under the anti-trust acts. The problem with a consortium is that it is more difficult to prove that a group of people who actually should be competing are actually working in concert. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Planet IT article on reverse engineering 02/05/01 02:58 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss http://www.planetit.com/techcenters/docs/security/news/PIT20010123S0001 One of the replies to this article contains a nice simplification of what DeCSS does by comparing it to CDs. I think this is a good comparison. People are more comfortable w/ CDs & think they have a better idea of what they are / how they work than DVDs (which some regard as akin to magic). This bit really brings it home:
Keith's claim is very akin to saying that when I buy a CD published by Sony music, they can legally require me to only play it on a Sony brand CD player. Obviously absurd.
When phrased in terms of a single company (Sony) it really makes it clear what the CSS consortium is for. Why is it legal when a consortium does it when it would be illegal for any single company? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 11:49:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07258 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:49:49 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA07255 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:49:42 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:53:39 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:53:35 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 08:53:39 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The two briefs from law professors and cryptographers should help some of that but I fear you are right on #4. Numbers 1 and 2 are of the "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS" variety. The way to counter that is to check the conditions of each and look for the fine print which shows that it does not apply. #3 is the most dangerous. My professional opinion is that the creators of CSS are incompetent and could have benefited from reading some of the IEEE journals and Sol Golomb's book. It is fortunate that they were. Triple DES would have really complicated the matter especially if the key were embedded in an ASIC that took cipher text in and spit out plaintext out. "Richard Bowers" cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h arguments arvard.edu 02/06/01 06:27 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss >So here we are. The amicus briefs have been filed, and this forum have >patted themselves on the backs for all the careful arguments that have been >explored. We have crowed with delight on reading the other amicus briefs >that back up our point of view. All is set for the actual court case. >It strikes me that there is no way that the MPAA (or the DVD-CCA) are going >to go to court with nothing more than the claim "the DMCA says it's illegal >to publish information about breaking a TPM, so there". They (like us) are >going >to have worked hard on their case, and I see them having at least the >following >four prongs to it: > >1) A detailed list of legal precedent to back up the idea that reverse > engineering constitutes "theft of secrets". >2) A detailed list of legal precedent to back up the idea that publishing > details of a stolen trade secret is illegal. >3) Attempt at all times to make the CSS system look like a legitimate > protection system within the meanings of the DMCA, and not as a cartel > management system. >4) Make it look as much as possible that evil internet hackers are trying >to > bleed America's honest labours dry. > >Should we not be considering these cases (and all the others that I've not >thought of) and preparing defences against them? I think its pretty clear that they're going to push the fourth prong you have above. Judge Kaplan seemed to indicate that his perception of 2600 as being a bunch of evil internet hackers was the main consideration he had. How can we show who the true community is? Is there some sort of survey or petition we can construct, to show what the demographics are of pro-DeCSSers? I'm sure that, while there are plenty of stereotypical "hackers" who want DeCSS, there are also plenty of wage-slaves, upper management, lawyers, artists, and other people that can't be smeared as effectively. I'm not sure what the first step is to compiling those statistics, but we need some way to stand up and be counted. Richard Bowers _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 11:51:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07341 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:51:35 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA07335 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:51:33 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 9E83327AE3; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:50:56 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:50:56 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Planet IT article on reverse engineering Message-ID: <20010207175056.C12617@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:40:38AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:40:38AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > It is just as illegal for a consortium as it is for a single company. Both > are illegal under the anti-trust acts. The problem with a consortium is > that it is more difficult to prove that a group of people who actually > should be competing are actually working in concert. in this case, they have actually signed "do not compete" documents, since the CSS license enforces region coding and the regions just "happen" to coincide with the movie mafia's distribution borders. unfortunately, the whole scheme is (on purpose?) just not clear enough to serve as proof. e.g. there is no actual paragraph saying "major movie studios will not compete for distribution outside their assigned regions", it just "happens" to be that way if all provisions in the scheme are followed. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 11:55:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07527 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:55:30 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA07524 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:55:29 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:59:39 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Coders v. e-Comms To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:59:36 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 08:59:38 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I've read other essays that liken the meltdown of the dot.coms to a lack of basic business sense-WHAT are you providing that somebody can't get elsewhere? There really is nothing new under the sun. While the technology was different, what the dot.coms offered was done before.They should look at Sears and Roebuck Catalog sales. Sears put out this huge catalog of merchandise you could get through the mail - guaranteed with little risk (until recently, you bought Sears brands because they were high quality and supported...not so today). In it's day it was the ultimate website.... John Young To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Coders v. e-Comms arvard.edu 02/06/01 06:55 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Geert Lovink has written an essay, released today, on the conflict about the history and future of the Internet between "ACSII/Linux" open-source people and e-Commerce proponents who want the Net to be all about flashy proprietary advertising, games, and entertainment: http://cryptome.org/bandwidth-gl.htm Lovink is countering a recent e-comm advocate's article which blaims the meltdown of dotcoms on the NASDAQ as being due to nerdish technology which prevents consumers from getting lazy-boy TV-like experiences of packaged escapism. And that the end of the "first Internet" has now occurred, and that the "second Internet" will require greater broadband so that marketers can easily satify consumer demand for more stupefying candy and less empowering information -- especially to be crushed is the geniality of coders who are sharing tools and technologies that should be controlled by global corporations. He notes that for e-comm "first Internet" is defined as that dated 1996-2000, completely ignoring the Net's first 25 years before the WWW and e-commerce set out to grab control of the whole infrastructure for itself, as it apparently intends to do with the "second Internet." Copyright is just one of the means and methods to be used for this takeover, the others being legislation and pervasive public relations, and, as always, marketers treating consumers like idiots as complicit government contemns citizens who cannot be trusted to know terrible secrets about porky pig. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 12:04:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA07721 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:04:25 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA07718 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:04:23 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id D740027A96; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:03:46 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:03:46 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Message-ID: <20010207180346.E12617@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:53:35AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:53:35AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > #3 is the most dangerous. My professional opinion is that the creators of > CSS are incompetent and could have benefited from reading some of the IEEE > journals and Sol Golomb's book. It is fortunate that they were. Triple DES > would have really complicated the matter especially if the key were > embedded in an ASIC that took cipher text in and spit out plaintext out. do we have an uncontested expert statement in evidence that CSS is, in fact, pretty crappy? -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 12:06:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA07824 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:06:44 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA07816 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:06:43 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:10:46 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:10:43 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 09:10:45 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu How about requireing works to be registered with the Library of Congress and have the COPYRIGHT notice and the year published (that worked before 1976). Add to that now the year it enteres the public domain on ALL copies or else no copyright will be issued (to stop congress from changing the durations again and again and again. Copyright consideration is AT the time the copyright is granted)....The original creators of the system 200yrs ago seemed to have a better sense of theory vs pragmatic implementation than the twits in congress today. "Arnold G. Reinhold" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the arvard.edu Amici 02/06/01 07:32 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 11:56 AM -0500 2/2/2001, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >... > > >We need to turn our attention away from the "right to exclude" as >the most important piece of the copyright bundle, as John Gilmore >suggested in his recent copy protection piece. If scarcity is not a >natural "fact" for information goods, why are all the business >models built around trying to re-impose it? That is, why do >publishers assume they should get all the economic surplus from the >cheapness of digital reproduction and distribution? The response >should not be to make "intellectual property" more like real >property (re-imposing barriers technology has removed), but to build >upon its differences. If some of the old-line businesses won't >survive the transition, so be it. We don't need their steam engines. > > >The challenge to the other side is offering (lots of) alternative >models that show artists and creators how they can make money >without restricting access to their works. > In some sense we are fighting an uphill battle. The copyright lobby has Congress, international treaties and a lot of money on their side. We have the Constitution (as we see it), certain sectors of public opinion and technological imperatives on ours. I can see us winning some relief in the courts, but further legislation will then be likely. I would like to suggest another path that I think should be explored in parallel: strengthening the public domain. Here are some ideas: 1. A PD Registry. How do you tell if an electronic work is PD? Even if a work says "Public Domain on it," it could be a copyrighted work that was maliciously altered. I think there should be a law creating public domain registry, just as there is a copyright registry. Authors could enter works into this registry for some fee per megabyte. They would be required to affirm their authorship. There would be a waiting period to allow copyright holders to pose test searches, watermark checks, etc, after which the public could access the work in the registry. A copyright holder could challenge a work in the PD register at anytime after that, but people who made use of the work in the interim would be protected from liability. Such a registry would be a natural function for the Library of Congress, since the PD works would also serve as a library. 2. Compulsory licensing. This would affect copyright works after an initial period. The period might be 14 years (the original copyright duration) or there might be a shorter period for works whose value is clearly time limited, like software. After the initial period works could then be copied for a set fee to a central fund that could be claimed by the copyright holder. A copyright holder could specify a shorter period, or they could opt out of the compulsory licensing by paying a fee. Compulsory licensing might be mandatory (no opt out) for works created under government research grants. 3. Tax deduction for putting works in the public domain. Once there is a clear mechanism for placing works in the PD, one way to incentivize copyright holders to do so would be to allow a tax deduction for doing so, based on the capitalized value of profits forgone. This may even be possible under the present tax laws for all I know. Perhaps all that is needed is a charitable organization willing to accept donation of such rights as a contribution. 4. Better open content licenses for non-software content. I'm thinking of a standard license that would require attribution, limit modification (artistic control), allow non-commercial copying and limited commercial copying, set a royalty fee for large-scale commercial copying, and reserve "windfall" rights, such as a feature motion picture. 5. An electronic payment system for making voluntary contributions to authors of PD content. http://www.fairtunes.com/ is attempting to do this for music. The last two could be implemented immediately, but the first 2 and probably 3 would require new laws. I think there is a strong case that such laws would not materially diminish the legitimate economic interests of Copyright holders and might even strengthen them. I believe it would be desirable to have a well-developed public domain legislative agenda that we could press if and when the copyright industry goes back to Congress for new laws extending _their_ rights.. Arnold Reinhold Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 12:10:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA07901 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:10:50 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA07898 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:10:44 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:14:54 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:14:50 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 09:14:54 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Also to provide legal protection for the technology that they want to create to obviate the constitution. Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/06/01 11:25 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Fair use though, while recognized by Congress and written in copyright law exists as a Constitutional principle. The courts developed it and it existed w/o having to be in law for IIRC ~100 years. If Congress ruled that fair use was illegal, it would be an unconstitutional law because it's independent of Congress and unassailable without an Amendment. (of course, the utility of fair use in any given case has a lot to do with the judge, as we saw) The DMCA is an attempt to weasel around the Constitution; AFAIC that includes what we infer from it w/o any other laws being considered. On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Ken Arromdee wrote: > I already pointed out a big hole in the EFF's brief. The EFF pointed to > the clause in the DMCA which said that it doesn't affect fair use. But what > it says is that it doesn't affect fair use as a defense to copyright > infringement, not that it doesn't affect fair use at all. I'd expect the MPAA > to argue that since they are not accusing anyone of copyright infringement, > that clause doesn't apply. > > But I'm also thinking of a comparison to the Microsoft case. Microsoft > *couldn't* make any decent arguments, because they were, after all, wrong, and > trying to argue for something wrong probably won't work no matter how good you > are at arguing. The MPAA's strategy so far was to use a biased judge, where > it didn't *matter* how good their arguments were--Kaplan was quite willing to > reject the defendant's concerns without addressing them. The outcome may > depend more on how many judges the MPAA bought, and how well it can claim it's > fighting the "evil hackers". > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 12:17:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA07977 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:17:34 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA07974 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:17:30 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:21:41 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:21:37 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 09:21:41 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It's a badly written English sentence (How about a new book:"Why Johnny can't read, write and shouldn't be in Congress") It is not clear if the prepositional phrase "including fair use" is relating to the defense or as A better wording would be "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, fair use ,or defenses to copyright infringement, under this title." Also, the whole notion of fair use as a defense to copyright infringement is backwards. The phrase connotes that copyright infringement has occured and that there is a defense against it when in fact, fair use really states that no infringement has occured because the material has been used fairly. I realize that this is not the legal systems intepretation but merely what "English" grammer and usage implies. "Arnold G. Reinhold" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/06/01 12:00 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 10:34 AM -0800 2/6/2001, Ken Arromdee wrote: >I already pointed out a big hole in the EFF's brief. The EFF pointed to >the clause in the DMCA which said that it doesn't affect fair use. But what >it says is that it doesn't affect fair use as a defense to copyright >infringement, not that it doesn't affect fair use at all. I'd expect the MPAA >to argue that since they are not accusing anyone of copyright infringement, >that clause doesn't apply. > >But I'm also thinking of a comparison to the Microsoft case. Microsoft >*couldn't* make any decent arguments, because they were, after all, wrong, and >trying to argue for something wrong probably won't work no matter how good you >are at arguing. The MPAA's strategy so far was to use a biased judge, where >it didn't *matter* how good their arguments were--Kaplan was quite willing to >reject the defendant's concerns without addressing them. The outcome may >depend more on how many judges the MPAA bought, and how well it can claim it's >fighting the "evil hackers". What the DCMA says is "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." 1201(c)(1) You can parse that sentence more than one way. For example: "Nothing in this section shall affect rights ... under this title." Fair use is a right under Title 17. The question is do the words "to copyright infringement" modify just "defenses" or do they modify "rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses"? If you believe the latter, as Judge Kaplan did, what are "rights to copyright infringement"? Infringement normally refers to copying that is impermissible. By contrast "defenses to copyright infringement" would make sense, referring arguments that the copying in question wasn't infringing. As I understand their argument, the EFF claims "fair use" is a Constitutionally mandated right and is inviting the appeals court to interpret 1201(c)(1) as protecting fair use more broadly than Kaplan found in order to rescue DCMA from being unconstitutional. Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 12:19:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA08055 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:19:22 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA08048 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:19:20 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:23:30 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:23:27 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 09:23:30 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That's been my impression too. Appelate court judges do not care for rhetoric. They read the record and the briefs. Of course, that doesn't always work - look at Sacco and Vanzetti or the Scottsboro Cases. "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/06/01 12:05 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > The outcome may depend more ... how well it > can claim it's fighting the "evil hackers". >From reading the various briefs, it seems to me that while attacking the speaker (and picking a "despised speaker") tends to prevail in lower courts, it the very thing to raise the hackles of the appeals or supreme courts. Pointing out that CNN (an AOL Time Warner company), the New York Time, SJ Mecury News, et. al. were not sued as co-defendants smells worse the higher up the appeals ladder one goes. IANAL -- but that's the sense that recurs in citation after citation regarding speech -- lower courts, or the congress prohibiting "icky" speech -- and the higher courts reminding them of the First Amendment. John Zulauf private netizen (and potential "despised speaker") From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 12:21:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA08118 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:21:48 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA08115 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:21:46 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:25:47 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:25:43 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 09:25:47 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes Author not publisher...The one brief mentioned the Statues of Anne and the fact if one changes some of the language of Parliment, it's uncanny how it describes the situation today. "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the arvard.edu Amici 02/06/01 12:09 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > Eric Eldred Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 10:08 AM > but arnold you are right that having something > positive to propose, to reinstate the value of > copyright instead of locking up works, is an > excellent strategy for combating the propaganda > from the big publishers and movie studios and > record industry and software publishers and > other media giants. the old quaker saying is > speak truth to power. in this case it is sort > of judo--if "intellectual property" has value > in a legal sense then let's leverage that > for our own purposes. I think some compare and contrast of copyright vs. patent might be handy. When the transistor, Tylenol, keyframe animation, pencillin, and numerous other vital technologies with the 20 year protection of the patent are compared with "Land Before Time VII." The Valenti-ism of "forever minus one day" is cast into the bright-light of folly that it is. Contrasting a $3 billion development of an anti-cancer drug (again 20 year patent) vs. the 95year protection for Waterworld, Mickey Mouse, or "Fly, Robin, fly" shows an copyright landscape so out of balance, so void of rationale, so far from "promoting progress", and inverted in terms of protection for the media vs. the true value of their contribution to the intellectual commons. Here is a list of elements that could be handy in a public/congressional/judiciary "education" campaign: (a) Tell the media companies "shut up and stop whining" (1) media company rights fair outweigh their contributions (vs. patents) (2) a cost (to the public) benefit (to the media holder) comparison of current copyright law vs. the original (media company small $ gains vs. huge loss to the public) (an extension of Eldred vs. Reno conceptually) (3) push to restore original (or even 1900) copyright law. Has media somehow magic- ally gotten more valuable (b) "digital, schmigital" (1) actively and aggressively debunk the myths of "infinite reproducibility" (1.1) "digital is uniquely at risk" demonstrate DIVX;-)'ing VHS using low-cost PC hardware (1.2) "anticircumvention protects digital media" demonstrate use of professional video equipment to defeat content protection e.g. route DVD output (VGA/TFT and/or S-Video) to professional video editing and reproduction equipment -- note that quality is indistinguishable. (1.3) "Media is more a risk now than before" -- repeat 1.1 and 1.2 with HBO or PPV content off circa 1990 satellite or high-quality cable. (2) build case that copying is no easier now than before (relatively) (2.1) the same technology is always available to publishers as pirates (2.2) movable-type vs. movable-type then digital vs. digital now. (2.3) the whole premise of the copyright is that pirating is as easy as publishing -- that's why the right to control copying is needed (if it were hard to copy, few pirates would emerge and no laws would be needed) (c) "Author -- not publisher" (1) The copyright clause focuses on authors not publisher (2) With high capital cost and scarce distrib- ution channel, publishers traditionally have been the means by which authors are compensated. We need to show this is no longer required. (see d infra) (3) This challenges DMCA/CTEA as actually involving a compelling gov't interest. If the publishers aren't needed, then protecting them no longer falls within the powers of the copyright clause. (d) "Buggywhips!" -- technology has it's victims (1) Business models based on high barriers to entry of publish will not survive the transition to digital distribution. (2) Artificially supporting old business models leads to (pace Greenspan) "substantial economic inefficiencies" (3) "Promote progress" is incompatible with subsidies to obsolete business models (Publishers == Buggy Whip mfgs.) Thus, Copyright power cannot be used to support publishers' business model. Actually it would be interesting to see if the industry's words could be used against them in this regard. If they have testified under oath that average citizens have the same ability to reproduce and distribute content (over the internet and elsewhere) then they are no longer needed and cannot be held to have any unique or protected status -- since they no longer further the goals stated in the "Copyright clause." One must be essential to rewarding authors to have that status one would think. Other elements anyone? John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 12:28:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA08224 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:28:18 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA08221 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:28:14 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:32:22 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:32:19 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 09:32:22 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu As has been observed before...this is a C O N T R O L issue. They want to go back to the kind of control they had 60yrs ago. "Kroll, Dave" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C 02/06/01 03:01 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss >From another article, it looks like even analog copies are too good for the MPAA! http://www.etown.com/news/article.jhtml?articleID=3944 "Keeping the MPAA happy? The movie industry's trade association, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), has expressed the desire to end the ability of viewing HDTV (either 1080i or 720p) content via analog outputs on set-top boxes to prevent copying. These boxes currently output either in the form of component video (YPbPr), or in the case of RCA, RGBHV. The MPAA feels that the boxes' analog outputs may give consumers the ability to illegally copy and redistribute movies and programs in high definition. At present, however, there are no consumer HDTV recorders available with analog inputs. Nevertheless, the motion picture industry wants high definition to only be available via encrypted digital outputs on set-top boxes and digital inputs on televisions." This doesn't even make sense! (Or I don't understand.) Is a high definition signal transmitted through an analog output any better than an analog signal through an analog output? ---Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: mickeym [SMTP:mickeym@mindspring.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 4:28 PM > To: dvd > Subject: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C > > > From: > http://www.etown.com/news/article.jhtml;$sessionid$M2W10JAAAAAZRTYPVYXSFEY > ?articleID=3969 > > "Hollywood studios have adamantly stated that they will not release > high-definition versions of their crown jewels if they can be easily > copied and pirated. Hollywood wants hardware makers to create and > implement technology that prevents unregulated digital copying of its > copyrighted material." > > There it is, "unregulated digital copying." > > mickeym > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 12:34:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA08361 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:34:45 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA08356 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:34:43 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:38:54 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:38:51 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 09:38:54 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Nice quote from Napoleon...although Wellington could have used it at Waterloo as well One nice arguement for the USSC is that "these are the "things" that the law and the USSC have stated are permissible. This is an attempt to create technology to overturn them outside the courts. This is contempt for those laws and the court" "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C arvard.edu 02/06/01 04:55 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Steve Stearns Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 4:25 PM > > > The problem as I see it right now is that the MPAA and their ilk are > taking a hardline stance that eliminates even the basic notion of fair > use. "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." -- Napoleon This to me seem like a huge miscalculation on the part of the media industry. We'd need a bad USSC decision on the level of Dredd-Scott to allow this obvious a rights-grab to succeed. The more extreme the media companies get, the more they attempt to exclude fair use (with 5C, CPSA*, et. al.), the more obvious the instrusion on long establish legal principle and the balance of the Copyright clause. Bring on the digital equivalent of the "Sony" decision -- it's one (correctly and ardently fought) we the people win going away. I believe even the congressional record supports the DMCA not overturning "Sony." * Sorkin referred to LOC the comment regarding the death of fair use as "fever dreams." When they start to implement this stuff, we'll be there to remind them, the LOC, and Congress of their obvious deception. Further, this is a public relations nightmare. Sony's memory stick audio player was savaged in reviews over it's overly agressive and intrusive DRM encorporated in it's download software. Generic (non-DRM'd) MP3 player are killing the product in the marketplace. Taking away "time shift" taping and you might as well put a fork in HD. The 5C standard allows for time-shifting only onto non-removable media (and even that can be overridden by the content provider. This is going to hurt the consumer electronics and media companies public and political support the more people have to interact with it. > Incorporated into that would > probably need to be a standard that defines what a given medium must > minimally provide to be considered protective of fair use rights (like > resolution of video, fidelity of audio, etc). Based on a at least one recent case cited by the amici, fair use of audio/visual material requires the ability to make and "exact copy" of the fairly used content. So apparently the legal standard for A/V fair use has been established. For fair use, the exact character of the image or the sound may be important (for analysis of the image itself, it's compression, information content, or other exact information extraction). I'd fight ANY sub-resolution, quality limitation restrictions diminishing that exact copy standard. It's like saying I can quote the latest John Grisham work only if paraphrased in ig-pay atin-lay. ohn-Jay ulauf-Zay ivate-pray etizen-nay From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 12:55:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA08826 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:55:53 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA08821 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:55:46 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:59:58 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:59:55 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 09:59:58 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The more I consider Jacky Boot's arguments, the more I believe that their hidden agenda is to keep the consumer purchasing the same thing OVER and OVER again in new and improved media-that works for the media providers AND the consumer electronics. That's worked for 35yrs so far hasn't it? Don't like reel-to-reel, try this nice 4 track tape. Oh now try the 8 track convenience. Too bad they self destruct, go buy cassette...oh you now want it to sound good....you gotta have Dolby! NOW...we have the CD get rid of your LPs, get rid of your cassettes, get rid of everything.....and now the DeVil Disk - Audio is coming... "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C arvard.edu 02/07/01 02:17 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Steve Stearns wrote: > > I have a thought on this issue. What if all HDTV signals were encoded > > digitally, and required copy protection measures, but that all would also > > be required to provide analog outputs which could be recorded at say SVHS > > quality without copy protection enforcement. This would insure that > > people couldn't make high quality pirated copies of copyrighted material > > but it would not eliminate fair use rights. > Don't even think about it! That's playing straight into Valenti's hands - he's already on record as claiming that if people want to exercise "fair use" they should make do with VHS versions of movies, not DVDs. If I've *paid* for HDTV equipment so I can watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer in mega-quality sound and pictures, why should I be forced to watch it in cruddo SVHS quality occasionally just because I happened to be out that night and had to record it? It would be like us currently having to accept that if we timeshifted some programme, we could only do so in black and white because colour VCRs were deemed "too high a quality" for us to be allowed to have them! --------------------------------- Fair use is fair use. If I'm able to watch something live at 'X' quality, I should be able to record it and watch it some other time at as near to 'X' quality as I can manage. No legal constraints, nothing. Oh, and I should be able to re-watch it as often as I care too. No reason not to, and no loss is caused to the artists who created it. What I accept I *can't* do is run off a load of copies and sell them down at the car boot sale. *That's* beyond fair use. When the cops descend on me I can hardly complain. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 13:06:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA09254 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:06:15 -0500 Received: from godzilla.monsters.org (root@[204.180.109.4]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09251 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:06:13 -0500 Received: from zero.monsters.org (IDENT:root@zero.monsters.org [208.191.248.1]) by godzilla.monsters.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA32085 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:09:37 -0600 Received: from zero.monsters.org by zero.monsters.org (8.11.0) id f17I4O928956; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:04:28 -0600 Message-Id: <200102071804.f17I4O928956@zero.monsters.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] A new battle line is being drawn: Publishers vs. Librarians Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 12:04:24 -0600 From: Stephen L Johnson Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Noticed this one on SlashDot this morning. Will it never end? http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36584-2001Feb7.html >From the Washinton Post article: Pat Schroeder's New Chapter The Former Congresswoman Is Battling For America's Publishers "They're terrified," she says. ... And who, you might be wondering, is giving Schroeder and her publishers such a fright? Librarians, of course. ... Publishers and librarians are squaring off for a battle royal over the way electronic books and journals are lent out from libraries and over what constitutes fair use of written material. -- Stephen L Johnson From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 13:11:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA09495 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:11:19 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09486 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:11:14 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:15:22 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:15:19 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 10:15:22 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Surely the law cannot and should not decide things on artistic merit?" Agreed. That's a requirement for a level playing field...also otherwise imposes censorship. I keep thinking pragmatically on this issue but long copyrights impose a burden on governments for enforcement, providing CRIMINAL courts (even in civil cases, the court costs do not cover the cost of running the court I've been told), administration etc. If nothing else, just trying to find a copyright owner is practically impossible (except for large publishers..but then that argument has been tried before - 400 years ago. So I don't buy the MPAA's argument that "we will protect our heritage. just give it to us to administer"). Requiring a fee for copyright only make sense. Similarly, the copyright office can publish legal notices that fees have not been paid and copyrights will expire (even better if it's available ONLINE!). The fees need not be large but MUST be paid. Also, there must be a definite END of the copyright. This business of getting extensions creates administrative nightmares. I guess lemon scented napkins does advance some art...or some science...what that is is beyond my comprehension.....could one patent perfumed handkerchiefs as an enhancement? More varied scents and more durable...also reusable with the proper reapplication. "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the arvard.edu Amici 02/07/01 05:11 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss John Zulauf wrote: > I think some compare and contrast of copyright vs. patent might be handy. > When the transistor, Tylenol, keyframe animation, pencillin, and numerous > other vital technologies with the 20 year protection of the patent are > compared with "Land Before Time VII." The Valenti-ism of "forever minus one > day" is cast into the bright-light of folly that it is. > We want to be careful here. Though I agree completely with John on this specific example, the one that's likely to come up in any court case would be more like the "silly" 20 year patent protection for the lemon-scented paper napkin vs. the "obviously necessary" 95 year protection for "Casablanca" or "2001 a Space Odyssey". It all depends on your point of view, and on specific examples. Trouble is that the law can't be expected to treat turkeys like "The Avengers" or "Piranha II" or "Land Before Time VII" any differently to "Casablanca" or "2001". Surely the law cannot and should not decide things on artistic merit? I did however like the ideas being mooted here a while back along the lines of protection for things being determined by them having to be renewed from time to time. That way me might see a system which (quite rightly?) protects the "Casablancas" and "The Mickey Mouse Icon" for as long as their creators care, whilst letting "The Avengers" and its ilk drop into the public domain in possibly no more than (say) 10 years after publication. But of course, we're not here to argue all this! The 2600 appeal case won't want to be troubled with such prattlings for sure. ---------------------- Of course, if it is in the interests of EFF to campaign for the overthrow of the existing patent/copyright rules and replace them, that's a different argument for a different day. And this forum's musings on the subject may be welcome reading material at that time. As for *how* to get it to happen, might I suggest that if a workable system can be thought out, wave it in front of the movie studio moguls and try and convince them that they'd be better off with such a system than trying to patch up the existing laws with "95 year extension hacks" as they are currently trying to do. Just make sure that all our concerns of fair use and other such things are well catered-for in the suggested "new improved" system! -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 13:13:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA09531 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:13:34 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09528 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:13:27 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:17:31 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:17:28 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 10:17:31 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes. People argue wrong things all the time...and get away with it...Jack Valenti's been making a whole career out of it at the MPAA....that's what rhetoric is. "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/07/01 06:28 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Ken Arromdee writes: > But I'm also thinking of a comparison to the Microsoft case. Microsoft > *couldn't* make any decent arguments, because they were, after all, wrong, > and trying to argue for something wrong probably won't work.... > Sorry Ken, but this is exactly the sort of thinking that IMHO could lose us the whole battle! Let's learn a bit from WWII can we? Germany thought their Enigma coding machine couldn't be broken because it was capable of being set up in so many possible ways that it was "mathematically impossible" for Britain and her allies to be breaking it. So they never tried to break it themselves. They didn't take many precautions against operator mistakes that reduced the strength of the cypher. They never (so it seems) tried sending dummy messages using the system to see if they could cause Allied activity against a fake threat. But Britain (and later, America) were reading it, and it possibly cost Germany the war. Let's not go into court assuming that the MPAA and DVD-CCA "can't defend their case because it's just plain undefendable". They *will* defend it. They will spend millions of dollars on the best "dream team" of lawyers seen since the O.J Simpson trial or the Clinton/Lewinsky case. We need to be anticipating their defence, and finding ways to refute them. We should be trying to get Joe Public (and therefore the judges) aware of the issues involved, and that we are not evil pirates. We need to be looking for the holes and weaknesses in our own case and be plugging them. We should be trying to sow seeds of discontent within Hollywood so that the MPAA case might lose direction from within. We must start doing this *now*. (Ok, so how do we get Wendy and Robin onto the "Tonight Show"? :-) -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 13:17:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA09738 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:17:03 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09729 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:16:54 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:20:37 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Planet IT article on reverse engineering To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:20:35 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 10:20:37 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes. You can bet that their lawyers (Kaplan's former employer infact) work out all the obfuscation... In some ways the LIVID project demonstrates the Anti-Trust quite nicely. Here a group of individuals are attempting to create something new over the internet, albeit not in their garage as in classical silicon valley fashion, and are getting stomped on since it impacts the consortium. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Planet IT article on reverse engineering 02/07/01 08:58 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:40:38AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > It is just as illegal for a consortium as it is for a single company. Both > are illegal under the anti-trust acts. The problem with a consortium is > that it is more difficult to prove that a group of people who actually > should be competing are actually working in concert. in this case, they have actually signed "do not compete" documents, since the CSS license enforces region coding and the regions just "happen" to coincide with the movie mafia's distribution borders. unfortunately, the whole scheme is (on purpose?) just not clear enough to serve as proof. e.g. there is no actual paragraph saying "major movie studios will not compete for distribution outside their assigned regions", it just "happens" to be that way if all provisions in the scheme are followed. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 13:16:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA09687 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:16:10 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09678 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:16:06 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3EE2D5D5.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.213]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50FED27A96 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:15:29 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A0CAD175195; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:17:39 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:17:39 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Message-ID: <20010207191738.B30571@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 09:59:55AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 09:59:55AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > The more I consider Jacky Boot's arguments, the more I believe that their > hidden agenda is to keep the consumer purchasing the same thing OVER and > OVER again in new and improved media-that works for the media providers AND wrong. all they want is a continuous revenue stream. basic business sense. if you buying the same thing again and again is the way to do it, they will. if you /paying/ for the same thing again and again (without buying it new, thus without them needing to produce it new) is the way, fine. if, and only if, actual creativity is the way, it will also be done. why only if there's no other way? simple, it involves work, well-payed artists instead of created-to-market-specs-boy-groups and actual innovation. on the bottom line, all of that means expenses, which reduces the profit. see, they're not really evil. just primitive and single-minded. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 13:19:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA09868 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:19:19 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09865 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:19:15 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:23:21 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:23:19 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 10:23:21 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Frank Stevenson's testimony is pretty damning. Look at the enigma, purple, or other ciphers of WWII. It took teams of people weeks to years to solve. He did it in a few days and really didn't need much high class computing power to do it either. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments 02/07/01 09:10 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:53:35AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > #3 is the most dangerous. My professional opinion is that the creators of > CSS are incompetent and could have benefited from reading some of the IEEE > journals and Sol Golomb's book. It is fortunate that they were. Triple DES > would have really complicated the matter especially if the key were > embedded in an ASIC that took cipher text in and spit out plaintext out. do we have an uncontested expert statement in evidence that CSS is, in fact, pretty crappy? -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 13:25:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA09957 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:25:13 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09952 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:25:10 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:29:19 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A new battle line is being drawn: Publishers vs. Librarians To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:29:17 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 10:29:19 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I knew a career sargent in the AirForce who kept Colorado as his official residence so he could continue to vote against her...I'm beginning to understand why....Add the dreaded librarian spread to the screaming hoards of hackers.... Stephen L Johnson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] A new battle line is arvard.edu being drawn: Publishers vs. Librarians 02/07/01 10:12 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Noticed this one on SlashDot this morning. Will it never end? http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36584-2001Feb7.html >From the Washinton Post article: Pat Schroeder's New Chapter The Former Congresswoman Is Battling For America's Publishers "They're terrified," she says. ... And who, you might be wondering, is giving Schroeder and her publishers such a fright? Librarians, of course. ... Publishers and librarians are squaring off for a battle royal over the way electronic books and journals are lent out from libraries and over what constitutes fair use of written material. -- Stephen L Johnson From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 13:29:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10059 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:29:15 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10051 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:29:12 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:33:26 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:33:24 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 10:33:26 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think we are in violent agreement here. Any good plan has multiple facets.Repurchasing things over is not their only idea. But the overarching protecting their balance sheet at all costs is the "bottom line" for them. Your statments remind me of Frank Capra's commentary on the film industry in the late 40's early 50's. He argued that the way to get out of financial problems was not to create cheaper films but BETTER ones. In some ways, they have the situation even rosier now than then. They can continue to generate revenues off previously generated work instead of paying storage costs for prints. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C 02/07/01 10:23 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 09:59:55AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > The more I consider Jacky Boot's arguments, the more I believe that their > hidden agenda is to keep the consumer purchasing the same thing OVER and > OVER again in new and improved media-that works for the media providers AND wrong. all they want is a continuous revenue stream. basic business sense. if you buying the same thing again and again is the way to do it, they will. if you /paying/ for the same thing again and again (without buying it new, thus without them needing to produce it new) is the way, fine. if, and only if, actual creativity is the way, it will also be done. why only if there's no other way? simple, it involves work, well-payed artists instead of created-to-market-specs-boy-groups and actual innovation. on the bottom line, all of that means expenses, which reduces the profit. see, they're not really evil. just primitive and single-minded. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 13:36:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10344 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:36:18 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10271 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:33:49 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id KAA08871 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:38:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma023888; Wed, 7 Feb 01 10:03:36 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Wed, 07 Feb 2001 10:05:07 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id LAA13664; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:03:35 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:12:35 -0700 Message-ID: <000101c09131$8bcd81a0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 169F51D9453494-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Contention: The poor quality of modern media creations is in direct relation to the poverty of the public domain given 40 years of continual term extensions, and the lack of incentive to create novel works absent the Damaclesian threat real, timely, copyright term limitations pose. Alternatively, with no inflow from lapsed copyrights, public domain well is dry, and it an artist knows that one hit work and their set for life (unless they have Ted Nugent's financial advisers or the too common addictions) why do they need to continue to create? Steve Hosgood Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 6:09 AM > John Zulauf wrote: > > I think some compare and contrast of copyright vs. patent might > > be handy. When the transistor, Tylenol, keyframe animation, > > pencillin, and numerous other vital technologies with the 20 > > year protection of the patent are compared with "Land Before > > Time VII." The Valenti-ism of "forever minus one > > day" is cast into the bright-light of folly that it is. > > We want to be careful here. Though I agree completely with John > on this specific example, the one that's likely to come up in > any court case would be more like the "silly" 20 year patent > protection for the lemon-scented paper napkin vs. the > "obviously necessary" 95 year protection for "Casablanca" or > "2001 a Space Odyssey". You're right. While I think Casblanca and 2001 are marvelous works, I don't think they are worthy of more protection than "lemon scented paper." This is true for several reasons. The public domain is meaningless if it is populated only with culturally irrelevant content. Relevance implies but timeliness and quality. Poor quality works capture none of the zeitgeist, non-timely works capture at best the sensibility of a time long past. That 2001 is not in the public domain surely chilled derivative works that could have compared and contrasted "2001" vs. 2001. >From a practical matter the quality of a work (as measured by it's popularity) is immediately rewarded. If an author can't manage to profit from his, her, or its works in 20 years they never will. 20 years Conversely, the value to the public of a work coming into the public domain **is** time sensitive. If a work created in my lifetime won't become public in my working lifetime, then the work can inspire little derivate work for fear of lawsuit. The much more limited times of the patent means that a seminal patent in an emerging field will expire within the useful life of derivative developments. > I did however like the ideas being mooted here a while back along > the lines of protection for things being determined by them > having to be renewed from time to time. One like the original copyright? It's odd that the courts haven't put more weight on the original implementation of the Copyright Power contemporary with (and written by some of?) the framers of the US Const. As I've said before, I'd be happen to rewind copyright law to status quo circa 1900 -- before technology-based content began. That technology-based content has garnered increasingly greater protections for the publishers as opposed to the citizens (or even the authors) is one of the great errors of the 20th century culminating the greatest blunders of all -- the CTEA and the DMCA. > That way me might see a system which (quite rightly?) > protects the "Casablancas" and "The Mickey Mouse Icon" > for as long as their creators care, whilst letting "The > Avengers" and its ilk drop into the public domain in > possibly no more than (say) 10 years after publication. This is another slant on the "quality" vs. "fair use" argument. The public domain cannot be the rubbish bin for only poor quality works. To "promote progress" implies creating valuable, novel work which after a limited time become part of the fabric of the culture. > But of course, we're not here to argue all this! The 2600 appeal > case won't want to be troubled with such prattlings for sure. Too right (and I having been accused of verbosity on rare occasions ;-) but it may be only the first volly in the war to reclaim fair use and a timely, contemporary public domain for creative works. John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 13:51:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10759 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:51:20 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10756 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:51:17 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb3e.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.62]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8FF27AE3 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:50:40 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5DC57175195; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:52:59 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:52:59 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Message-ID: <20010207195258.B30607@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:23:19AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:23:19AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Frank Stevenson's testimony is pretty damning. Look at the enigma, purple, > or other ciphers of WWII. It took teams of people weeks to years to solve. > He did it in a few days and really didn't need much high class computing > power to do it either. anyone know the testimony by heart (or has it ready)? did he actually say anything that is a clear statement to the effect of "CSS is very weak" or worse? if so, did it go uncontested? if yes on both accounts, we should be able to strike down the #3 very quickly. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 13:59:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10954 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:59:56 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10950 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:59:54 -0500 Received: from seltzerw ([204.243.92.112]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.9.3 (PHNE_21697)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA25892 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:04:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010207121742.02e6f540@pop.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:03:42 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: <20010207180346.E12617@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 06:03 PM 2/7/01 +0100, Tom wrote: >On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:53:35AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > #3 is the most dangerous. My professional opinion is that the creators of > > CSS are incompetent and could have benefited from reading some of the IEEE > > journals and Sol Golomb's book. It is fortunate that they were. Triple DES > > would have really complicated the matter especially if the key were > > embedded in an ASIC that took cipher text in and spit out plaintext out. > >do we have an uncontested expert statement in evidence that CSS is, in >fact, pretty crappy? It doesn't matter. Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access to a work'' may have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace with 'has the effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. The whole point of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and still import 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the need to break 1201. Anything we say about how weak CSS is will most likely be misinterpreted as a flawed claim that it's "ineffective," so I'd stay away from that line. --Wendy Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 14:08:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA11315 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:08:52 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA11304 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:08:44 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb3e.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.62]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B0F27AE5 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:08:06 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D92B1175195; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:10:24 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:10:24 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Message-ID: <20010207201024.D30607@lemuria.org> References: <20010207180346.E12617@lemuria.org> <4.2.2.20010207121742.02e6f540@pop.bellatlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010207121742.02e6f540@pop.bellatlantic.net>; from wendy@seltzer.com on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:03:42PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:03:42PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access to a work'' may > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace with 'has the > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. The whole point > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and still import > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the need to break 1201. I see. that was it's whole purpose, wasn't it? the WIPO document on my website says so quite clearly. so according to kaplan, a simple XOR would've been sufficient. I think we have underestimated the enemy. they're not a dinosaur thrashing around in it's last attempts to save itself from oblivion. they're very cleverly implementing a long-range plan, where all the little puzzle pieces are slowly falling in place. maybe that explains the extreme prejudice with which they defend a crappy encryption system. maybe we should stop arguing and just shoot 'em. that's what you do with the villains in hollywood movies, isn't it? -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 14:21:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA11508 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:21:53 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA11505 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:21:51 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id OAA14661 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:25:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id OAA02873; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:25:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:25:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102071925.OAA02873@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010207121742.02e6f540@pop.bellatlantic.net> References: <20010207180346.E12617@lemuria.org> <4.2.2.20010207121742.02e6f540@pop.bellatlantic.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Wendy Seltzer writes: > >do we have an uncontested expert statement in evidence that CSS is, in > >fact, pretty crappy? > > It doesn't matter. > > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access to a work'' may > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace with 'has the > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. The whole point > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and still import > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the need to break 1201. > > Anything we say about how weak CSS is will most likely be misinterpreted as > a flawed claim that it's "ineffective," so I'd stay away from that line. Hmmm... I thought the actual claim (a few messages back by now) was a kind of allegation of bad faith --- that CSS isn't really intended in good faith as a TPM at all, but rather as a cartelization scheme, and that the MPAA's failure to design a protection measure that actually, well... protects stuff was evidence of that bad faith. That doesn't negate your point of course; an argument of this kind is awfully easy to misinterpret, particularly since the argument is very indirect, and the strength of CSS encryption has no direct legal relevance at all. (BTW, this is one of the things I don't fault Congress for in the drafting of the DMCA. New cracks are discovered in encryption schemes all the time. If "effective" in the DMCA were taken to mean "resistant to currently known forms of attack", then someone relying on 1201(a) access control would lose that protection as soon as a crack were discovered --- the only situation under which the law could do them any good. Which is not to argue that they need the protection in the first place, of course, or that Congress was wise to grant it, but that's another kettle of eels...). rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 14:32:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA11740 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:32:43 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA11737 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:32:40 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f17JaHf03063 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:36:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A81A398.3DF002DA@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:35:52 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments References: <20010207180346.E12617@lemuria.org> <4.2.2.20010207121742.02e6f540@pop.bellatlantic.net> <20010207201024.D30607@lemuria.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:03:42PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access to a work'' may > > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace with 'has the > > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. The whole point > > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and still import > > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the need to break 1201. > > I see. that was it's whole purpose, wasn't it? the WIPO document on my > website says so quite clearly. so according to kaplan, a simple XOR > would've been sufficient. In the world of computers, almost any method could then be argued to meet the requirement of 'has the effect of controlling access', to the extreme of saying that any file format or filesystem type is complicated enough to prevent access. This would potentially mean that *all* data files can be claimed as being in this new category of works, and that hex editors will get you into trouble since they easily reveal what is inside. mickey From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 14:43:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA11878 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:43:38 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA11875 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:43:37 -0500 Received: from ip102.bedford17.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.91.102]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 14QaZF-0005oX-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:47:53 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:48:10 -0500 Message-ID: References: <000101c09131$8bcd81a0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> In-Reply-To: <000101c09131$8bcd81a0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id OAA11876 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:12:35 -0700, "John Zulauf" wrote: >The poor quality of modern media creations is in direct relation to the >poverty of the public domain given 40 years of continual term extensions, >and the lack of incentive to create novel works absent the Damaclesian >threat real, timely, copyright term limitations pose. Well one question is who gets permission. We just saw Ken Burns' Jazz on PBS. It's interesting to note that Burns built his national reputation on still photographs and letters from the Civil War. While he had to get permission for access to photograph these materials, their use was unquestioned. Now, based on his reputation, he is able to obtain permission to use film and TV footage from non-PD sources. What hoops does the next Ken Burns have to jump through to produce a Jazz? __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 15:09:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12296 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:09:23 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12293 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:09:20 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id MAA20583 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:13:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma029878; Wed, 7 Feb 01 11:27:43 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Wed, 07 Feb 2001 11:29:14 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA18180; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:27:40 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:36:39 -0700 Message-ID: <000701c0913d$4a709a60$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 169F7D83469388-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu If you really want to understand where the media industry wants to go to the 4C website http://www.dvdcca.org/4centity/ and explore, understand, and weep, grieve, or rage. As I cited in my LOC comments http://www.loc.gov/copyright/reports/studies/dmca/comments/Init011.pdf the CPSA is the death of fair use and first sale as viable users rights. Note that the CPSA spec is now downloadable (which is was not when I wrote my comment AFAIK) -- but the ironic reality remains. If the CPSA spec where protected by the schemes proposed in the CPSA, no critique or disclosure (aside from manual transcription to paper) would be possible. Somehow the courts need to see that the logical conclusion of a comprehensive "lockbox" for copyright works has no logical bounds to simply audio, visual works. It can be applied to the schemes that would bind us themselves, and to the broad discourse that constitutes our culture. Under CPSA protections, first source citation or quotation would be impossible by any but the established media. Without the ability for individuals to quote, disclaim, dennounce, exposed and critique, the whole of first amendment protections are worthless. With the special status of the media cartels under the CPSA, "some pigs are more equal than others." > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:00 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C > > > > The more I consider Jacky Boot's arguments, the more I believe that their > hidden agenda is to keep the consumer purchasing the same thing OVER and > OVER again in new and improved media-that works for the media > providers AND > the consumer electronics. That's worked for 35yrs so far hasn't it? Don't > like reel-to-reel, try this nice 4 track tape. Oh now try the 8 track > convenience. Too bad they self destruct, go buy cassette...oh you now want > it to sound good....you gotta have Dolby! NOW...we have the CD get rid of > your LPs, get rid of your cassettes, get rid of everything.....and now the > DeVil Disk - Audio is coming... > > > > > "Steve Hosgood" > > To: > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: > RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C > arvard.edu > > > > > > 02/07/01 02:17 AM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Steve Stearns wrote: > > > I have a thought on this issue. What if all HDTV signals were encoded > > > digitally, and required copy protection measures, but that all would > also > > > be required to provide analog outputs which could be recorded at say > SVHS > > > quality without copy protection enforcement. This would insure that > > > people couldn't make high quality pirated copies of copyrighted > material > > > but it would not eliminate fair use rights. > > > > Don't even think about it! That's playing straight into Valenti's hands - > he's already on record as claiming that if people want to exercise "fair > use" they should make do with VHS versions of movies, not DVDs. > > If I've *paid* for HDTV equipment so I can watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer > in > mega-quality sound and pictures, why should I be forced to watch it in > cruddo SVHS quality occasionally just because I happened to be out that > night > and had to record it? > > It would be like us currently having to accept that if we timeshifted some > programme, we could only do so in black and white because colour VCRs were > deemed "too high a quality" for us to be allowed to have them! > > --------------------------------- > > Fair use is fair use. If I'm able to watch something live at 'X' > quality, I > should be able to record it and watch it some other time at as near to 'X' > quality as I can manage. No legal constraints, nothing. Oh, and I > should be > able to re-watch it as often as I care too. No reason not to, and no loss > is caused to the artists who created it. > > What I accept I *can't* do is run off a load of copies and sell them down > at the car boot sale. *That's* beyond fair use. When the cops > descend on me > I can hardly complain. > > -- > > Steve | > S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better > Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan > tomorrow" > Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean > --------------------------------------------+ > http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the > Dog" ) > > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 15:33:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12657 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:33:15 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12653 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:33:09 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:37:11 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:37:10 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 12:37:11 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu You have a point there...I had forgotten that what is technically obvious may not be legally obvious.... Where are you Frank? You've posted here before I believe. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments 02/07/01 10:57 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:23:19AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Frank Stevenson's testimony is pretty damning. Look at the enigma, purple, > or other ciphers of WWII. It took teams of people weeks to years to solve. > He did it in a few days and really didn't need much high class computing > power to do it either. anyone know the testimony by heart (or has it ready)? did he actually say anything that is a clear statement to the effect of "CSS is very weak" or worse? if so, did it go uncontested? if yes on both accounts, we should be able to strike down the #3 very quickly. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 15:37:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12776 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:37:20 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12773 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:37:17 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:41:28 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:41:28 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 12:41:28 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Good Point. The problem with DMCA is that the writers have no concept of what technical people consider effective control. Also, they really lack a fundamental understanding of how the cryptographic community works...as the cryptographer's brief pointed out. You are quite correct on 1201. I will also add that the DMCA as a whole needs to be thrown out. Wendy Seltzer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/07/01 11:06 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 06:03 PM 2/7/01 +0100, Tom wrote: >On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:53:35AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > #3 is the most dangerous. My professional opinion is that the creators of > > CSS are incompetent and could have benefited from reading some of the IEEE > > journals and Sol Golomb's book. It is fortunate that they were. Triple DES > > would have really complicated the matter especially if the key were > > embedded in an ASIC that took cipher text in and spit out plaintext out. > >do we have an uncontested expert statement in evidence that CSS is, in >fact, pretty crappy? It doesn't matter. Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access to a work'' may have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace with 'has the effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. The whole point of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and still import 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the need to break 1201. Anything we say about how weak CSS is will most likely be misinterpreted as a flawed claim that it's "ineffective," so I'd stay away from that line. --Wendy Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 15:46:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12932 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:46:58 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12926 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:46:46 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:50:53 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:50:52 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 12:50:53 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think that's just about the picture.....I can see the MPAA lobbying to outlaw hex editors... mickeym To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/07/01 11:39 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Tom wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:03:42PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access to a work'' may > > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace with 'has the > > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. The whole point > > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and still import > > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the need to break 1201. > > I see. that was it's whole purpose, wasn't it? the WIPO document on my > website says so quite clearly. so according to kaplan, a simple XOR > would've been sufficient. In the world of computers, almost any method could then be argued to meet the requirement of 'has the effect of controlling access', to the extreme of saying that any file format or filesystem type is complicated enough to prevent access. This would potentially mean that *all* data files can be claimed as being in this new category of works, and that hex editors will get you into trouble since they easily reveal what is inside. mickey From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 15:45:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12917 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:45:43 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12914 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:45:33 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:49:35 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:49:35 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 12:49:35 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Oh yes. It has been a long term plan. They may be dinosaurs but they have very cunning ones and have created a very good plan. If the Movie industry can bankroll Heidi Fleice for $5M over a few years, they have hundreds of millions to spend on other things (I'd LOVE for the IRS to do a tax audit of any major studio but then that's part of what they lobby, er bribe, congress to stop). Like any good long term plan, the steps are subtle until you begin to look at them all together.They provide the content. They provide the media (TWI is the largest producer of DVDs in the world). They control the access using DVDCCA. They control the licensing. They got the SonnyBono extension of the copyright (any conspiracy theorists out there? Sonny was assassinated by them to keep him from changing his mind and getting the sympathy vote!). They got the DMCA to put legal teeth into the control since it is now a crime to talk about it. What does all of this provide for them? A return to the status quo of 60yrs ago where they controlled everything: Production, distribution, viewing places and times. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments 02/07/01 11:15 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:03:42PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access to a work'' may > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace with 'has the > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. The whole point > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and still import > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the need to break 1201. I see. that was it's whole purpose, wasn't it? the WIPO document on my website says so quite clearly. so according to kaplan, a simple XOR would've been sufficient. I think we have underestimated the enemy. they're not a dinosaur thrashing around in it's last attempts to save itself from oblivion. they're very cleverly implementing a long-range plan, where all the little puzzle pieces are slowly falling in place. maybe that explains the extreme prejudice with which they defend a crappy encryption system. maybe we should stop arguing and just shoot 'em. that's what you do with the villains in hollywood movies, isn't it? -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 15:50:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA13074 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:50:27 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA13071 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:50:20 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:54:28 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:54:27 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 12:54:28 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Given the extensions to the copyright act, if the next Ken Burns wanted to do a film about the beginning of films he wouldn't be able to do it. BIrth of A Nation was in 1915 and As I recall the PD line is 1910 (although I believe BOAN is in the PD). Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the arvard.edu Amici 02/07/01 11:49 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:12:35 -0700, "John Zulauf" wrote: >The poor quality of modern media creations is in direct relation to the >poverty of the public domain given 40 years of continual term extensions, >and the lack of incentive to create novel works absent the Damaclesian >threat real, timely, copyright term limitations pose. Well one question is who gets permission. We just saw Ken Burns' Jazz on PBS. It's interesting to note that Burns built his national reputation on still photographs and letters from the Civil War. While he had to get permission for access to photograph these materials, their use was unquestioned. Now, based on his reputation, he is able to obtain permission to use film and TV footage from non-PD sources. What hoops does the next Ken Burns have to jump through to produce a Jazz? __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 16:01:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA13259 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:01:56 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA13249 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:01:49 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:05:47 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:05:46 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 01:05:47 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This keeps getting more and more depressing... "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C arvard.edu 02/07/01 12:16 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss If you really want to understand where the media industry wants to go to the 4C website http://www.dvdcca.org/4centity/ and explore, understand, and weep, grieve, or rage. As I cited in my LOC comments http://www.loc.gov/copyright/reports/studies/dmca/comments/Init011.pdf the CPSA is the death of fair use and first sale as viable users rights. Note that the CPSA spec is now downloadable (which is was not when I wrote my comment AFAIK) -- but the ironic reality remains. If the CPSA spec where protected by the schemes proposed in the CPSA, no critique or disclosure (aside from manual transcription to paper) would be possible. Somehow the courts need to see that the logical conclusion of a comprehensive "lockbox" for copyright works has no logical bounds to simply audio, visual works. It can be applied to the schemes that would bind us themselves, and to the broad discourse that constitutes our culture. Under CPSA protections, first source citation or quotation would be impossible by any but the established media. Without the ability for individuals to quote, disclaim, dennounce, exposed and critique, the whole of first amendment protections are worthless. With the special status of the media cartels under the CPSA, "some pigs are more equal than others." > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:00 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C > > > > The more I consider Jacky Boot's arguments, the more I believe that their > hidden agenda is to keep the consumer purchasing the same thing OVER and > OVER again in new and improved media-that works for the media > providers AND > the consumer electronics. That's worked for 35yrs so far hasn't it? Don't > like reel-to-reel, try this nice 4 track tape. Oh now try the 8 track > convenience. Too bad they self destruct, go buy cassette...oh you now want > it to sound good....you gotta have Dolby! NOW...we have the CD get rid of > your LPs, get rid of your cassettes, get rid of everything.....and now the > DeVil Disk - Audio is coming... > > > > > "Steve Hosgood" > > To: > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: > RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C > arvard.edu > > > > > > 02/07/01 02:17 AM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Steve Stearns wrote: > > > I have a thought on this issue. What if all HDTV signals were encoded > > > digitally, and required copy protection measures, but that all would > also > > > be required to provide analog outputs which could be recorded at say > SVHS > > > quality without copy protection enforcement. This would insure that > > > people couldn't make high quality pirated copies of copyrighted > material > > > but it would not eliminate fair use rights. > > > > Don't even think about it! That's playing straight into Valenti's hands - > he's already on record as claiming that if people want to exercise "fair > use" they should make do with VHS versions of movies, not DVDs. > > If I've *paid* for HDTV equipment so I can watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer > in > mega-quality sound and pictures, why should I be forced to watch it in > cruddo SVHS quality occasionally just because I happened to be out that > night > and had to record it? > > It would be like us currently having to accept that if we timeshifted some > programme, we could only do so in black and white because colour VCRs were > deemed "too high a quality" for us to be allowed to have them! > > --------------------------------- > > Fair use is fair use. If I'm able to watch something live at 'X' > quality, I > should be able to record it and watch it some other time at as near to 'X' > quality as I can manage. No legal constraints, nothing. Oh, and I > should be > able to re-watch it as often as I care too. No reason not to, and no loss > is caused to the artists who created it. > > What I accept I *can't* do is run off a load of copies and sell them down > at the car boot sale. *That's* beyond fair use. When the cops > descend on me > I can hardly complain. > > -- > > Steve | > S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better > Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan > tomorrow" > Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean > --------------------------------------------+ > http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the > Dog" ) > > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 16:15:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA13464 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:15:10 -0500 Received: from inconnu.isu.edu (root@inconnu.isu.edu [134.50.8.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA13461 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:15:08 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16164 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:19:22 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:19:22 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: dvd discussion list Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: <20010207093905.E30304@lemuria.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I REALLY don't like this approach. It amounts to terrorism. "If we don't get what we want, we'll trash your reputation": this is just WRONG if you want to wear the White Hat. If Kaplan was truly biased, we DO need to prove it, not as revenge for a bad decision, but because we cannot let another group's rights get ignored in this way again. On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Tom wrote: >On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 10:34:56AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote: >> But I'm also thinking of a comparison to the Microsoft case. Microsoft >> *couldn't* make any decent arguments, because they were, after all, wrong, and >> trying to argue for something wrong probably won't work no matter how good you >> are at arguing. The MPAA's strategy so far was to use a biased judge, where >> it didn't *matter* how good their arguments were--Kaplan was quite willing to >> reject the defendant's concerns without addressing them. The outcome may >> depend more on how many judges the MPAA bought, and how well it can claim it's >> fighting the "evil hackers". > >then we may have to show much, much more clearly just how biased kaplan >was. one thing a judge has to lose is his reputation for being honest >and fair. if we can make it clear that we will drag any bias out into >the spotlight, they might just step more carefully. > > > -- Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry. Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 16:25:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA13828 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:25:17 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA13825 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:25:15 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd9500f08.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.15.8]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A190727A96 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:24:37 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DD342175195; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:26:55 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:26:55 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Message-ID: <20010207222654.A30694@lemuria.org> References: <20010207093905.E30304@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from galt@inconnu.isu.edu on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:19:22PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:19:22PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > I REALLY don't like this approach. It amounts to terrorism. "If we don't > get what we want, we'll trash your reputation": this is just WRONG if you > want to wear the White Hat. If Kaplan was truly biased, we DO need to > prove it, not as revenge for a bad decision, but because we cannot let > another group's rights get ignored in this way again. that is what I'm saying. kaplan's bias is clearly visible and should be pointed out. it CAN'T be the job of a judge to redraw the plaintiff's arguments so they make sense. he's supposed to be impartial, not provide free counseling for one of the parties. but then again, judges are just humans, too, and tend to go the way of least resistance in case of doubt. surely in "a billion dollar industry vs. a lone individual" it's pretty clear which one that is. by exposing his extreme bias, we level the playing field. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 16:29:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA13972 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:29:18 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA13968 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:29:16 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd9500f08.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.15.8]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660A227A96 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:28:38 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6CB65175195; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:30:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:30:57 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Message-ID: <20010207223055.B30694@lemuria.org> References: <20010207180346.E12617@lemuria.org> <4.2.2.20010207121742.02e6f540@pop.bellatlantic.net> <200102071925.OAA02873@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200102071925.OAA02873@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:25:59PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:25:59PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > (BTW, this is one of the things I don't fault Congress for in the > drafting of the DMCA. New cracks are discovered in encryption > schemes all the time. If "effective" in the DMCA were taken to mean > "resistant to currently known forms of attack", then someone relying > on 1201(a) access control would lose that protection as soon as a > crack were discovered --- the only situation under which the law could > do them any good. Which is not to argue that they need the protection > in the first place, of course, or that Congress was wise to grant it, > but that's another kettle of eels...). I disagree. first, there are several other issues where the law would provide you with something useful. taken from the congress comments on DMCA it is clear that it was mainly aimed at stuff like black-boxing pay channels, where the encryption is NOT actually broken, but - attention - circumvented. fact is that an encryption that has a practical, low effort attack discovered (i.e. not just a theoretical "if we had 1 mio years and quantum computers") *has had it*. it's bullshit to protect something that's broken with a law. you can't make a broken car drive again by passing a law that engine failures are illegal. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 16:30:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14002 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:30:46 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA13999 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:30:42 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:34:44 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:34:40 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 01:34:44 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes. One does not want to engage in the same sorts of tactics that the MPAA engaged in with Eric Corley. The issue here is not his conduct as a trial judge or his biases. The real issue to me is that I believe that he had an obligation to recluse himself because his firm did the work for the DVDCCA. He put himself in "Morton's Fork" . If he did the work himself, he needs to recluse since he can't rule on his own work. If he didnot do the work himself, then certainly he is put in the position where if he rules against the legal theories the MPAA bought from his former firm,then that's a slap in the face to his former partners, collegues, and friends (and he's not likely to want to do that and that influences his judgement). If he rules for them, it looks like he's accepting them without comment since they ARE his former partners. The fact that he did not leads me to believe that he lacks an understanding that a judge must not only consider himself impartial but he must also refrain from anything which gives the perception that he is not. In any case, prudence if not ethics requires him to recluse. John Galt To: dvd discussion list Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments 02/07/01 01:21 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss I REALLY don't like this approach. It amounts to terrorism. "If we don't get what we want, we'll trash your reputation": this is just WRONG if you want to wear the White Hat. If Kaplan was truly biased, we DO need to prove it, not as revenge for a bad decision, but because we cannot let another group's rights get ignored in this way again. On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Tom wrote: >On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 10:34:56AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote: >> But I'm also thinking of a comparison to the Microsoft case. Microsoft >> *couldn't* make any decent arguments, because they were, after all, wrong, and >> trying to argue for something wrong probably won't work no matter how good you >> are at arguing. The MPAA's strategy so far was to use a biased judge, where >> it didn't *matter* how good their arguments were--Kaplan was quite willing to >> reject the defendant's concerns without addressing them. The outcome may >> depend more on how many judges the MPAA bought, and how well it can claim it's >> fighting the "evil hackers". > >then we may have to show much, much more clearly just how biased kaplan >was. one thing a judge has to lose is his reputation for being honest >and fair. if we can make it clear that we will drag any bias out into >the spotlight, they might just step more carefully. > > > -- Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry. Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 16:33:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14157 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:33:18 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA14150 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:33:15 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA32633 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:37:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:37:30 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Statements by various witnesses in the MPPAv2600 trial follow [July 18 2000, Frank Stevenson] 5 Q. Did one of those studies include a study of the CSS 6 cipher? 7 A. Yes, as part of a program that Bruce Snyder has put on how 8 to teach yourself cryptographic skills, he suggested that a 9 student could look at various ciphers that are put out. New 10 ciphers are put out, some are strong and some not so strong, 11 and in an effort to hone my own cryptographic skills, I 12 decided to look at the CSS encryption system. 13 Q. Who is Bruce Snyder? 14 A. Bruce Snyder is a very well respected author and lecturer 15 in cryptography. 16 MR. HERNSTADT: Your Honor, just so you know, 17 Mr. Snyder is going to be our expert witness on cryptography. 18 We are presenting Mr. Stevenson as a fact witness about his 19 personal involvement in various matters that are associated 20 with this case. 21 THE COURT: Thank you. 22 Q. Could you please continue to tell us about your inspection 23 of the CSS cipher. 24 A. When I first found the CSS cipher on the web page, it 25 didn't take me long to determine that it had serious 208 1 weaknesses. I also saw that the weaknesses that I found would 2 be useful for the development of a Linux DVD player. At the 3 time they did have a problem in that they did not have enough 4 player keys so they could successfully decrypt all movies, and 5 also my research was useful to that respect. I don't recall where the Snyder material can be found. I suspect thay are referring to Bruce Schneier. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 16:34:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14222 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:34:43 -0500 Received: from inconnu.isu.edu (root@inconnu.isu.edu [134.50.8.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA14219 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:34:40 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17170 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:38:56 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:38:55 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >>4) Make it look as much as possible that evil internet hackers are trying >>to >> bleed America's honest labours dry. >> >>Should we not be considering these cases (and all the others that I've not >>thought of) and preparing defences against them? > > >I think its pretty clear that they're going to push the fourth prong you >have above. Judge Kaplan seemed to indicate that his perception of 2600 as >being a bunch of evil internet hackers was the main consideration he had. Then the appeal is won before it starts. Traditionally, higher courts have focused more on the utility of the message rather than the reputation of the messenger. Look at the people vs Larry Flynt for a perfect example. Flynt basically is one of the most flamboyant pornographers in the business (and that IS saying a lot), and the lower court found him guilty of obscenity just based on his reputation. The higher up the system it went, the less that Flynt's personality affected the court's judgement, and the more the facts of the case spoke. >How can we show who the true community is? Is there some sort of survey or >petition we can construct, to show what the demographics are of >pro-DeCSSers? I'm sure that, while there are plenty of stereotypical >"hackers" who want DeCSS, there are also plenty of wage-slaves, upper >management, lawyers, artists, and other people that can't be smeared as >effectively. I'm not sure what the first step is to compiling those >statistics, but we need some way to stand up and be counted. We can do this, but it's mostly wasted effort for reasons I've enumerated above. Effort against the messenger attack are just going to end up expending resources against a feint. >Richard Bowers > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > -- Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry. Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 16:40:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14455 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:40:46 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA14452 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:40:44 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:44:52 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:44:50 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 01:44:52 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes. Even Kaplan recognized that fact. Remember his analogy of the 39,000 kayakers. The application of DMCA, which clear was concerned with cable piracy, to the DVD is quite a perverse interpretation of it-probably facilitated by a little deliberabe vagueness in the language paid for the the DVDCCA. The bottomline with the DMCA is that no matter HOW something gets cracked it becomes illegal to write, speak, or talk about it. That violates the first amendment. The speed withwhich the communication can occur is irrelevant to the fact that the communication is allowed. Imagine 150years ago "golly gee... you mean that this new fangled printing press doesn't require somebody to spend days setting type from a type box and can print a giant newspaper that can tell everybody in the city what happened yesterday!. Faster communications is nothing new. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments 02/07/01 01:35 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:25:59PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > (BTW, this is one of the things I don't fault Congress for in the > drafting of the DMCA. New cracks are discovered in encryption > schemes all the time. If "effective" in the DMCA were taken to mean > "resistant to currently known forms of attack", then someone relying > on 1201(a) access control would lose that protection as soon as a > crack were discovered --- the only situation under which the law could > do them any good. Which is not to argue that they need the protection > in the first place, of course, or that Congress was wise to grant it, > but that's another kettle of eels...). I disagree. first, there are several other issues where the law would provide you with something useful. taken from the congress comments on DMCA it is clear that it was mainly aimed at stuff like black-boxing pay channels, where the encryption is NOT actually broken, but - attention - circumvented. fact is that an encryption that has a practical, low effort attack discovered (i.e. not just a theoretical "if we had 1 mio years and quantum computers") *has had it*. it's bullshit to protect something that's broken with a law. you can't make a broken car drive again by passing a law that engine failures are illegal. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 16:42:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14519 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:42:57 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA14511 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:42:51 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:46:57 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:46:53 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 01:46:57 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Maybe the appeal of the 2600 case may be won that way but winning it based upon that technicallity is not likely to set precedence for overturning DMCA. John Galt To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/07/01 01:41 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >>4) Make it look as much as possible that evil internet hackers are trying >>to >> bleed America's honest labours dry. >> >>Should we not be considering these cases (and all the others that I've not >>thought of) and preparing defences against them? > > >I think its pretty clear that they're going to push the fourth prong you >have above. Judge Kaplan seemed to indicate that his perception of 2600 as >being a bunch of evil internet hackers was the main consideration he had. Then the appeal is won before it starts. Traditionally, higher courts have focused more on the utility of the message rather than the reputation of the messenger. Look at the people vs Larry Flynt for a perfect example. Flynt basically is one of the most flamboyant pornographers in the business (and that IS saying a lot), and the lower court found him guilty of obscenity just based on his reputation. The higher up the system it went, the less that Flynt's personality affected the court's judgement, and the more the facts of the case spoke. >How can we show who the true community is? Is there some sort of survey or >petition we can construct, to show what the demographics are of >pro-DeCSSers? I'm sure that, while there are plenty of stereotypical >"hackers" who want DeCSS, there are also plenty of wage-slaves, upper >management, lawyers, artists, and other people that can't be smeared as >effectively. I'm not sure what the first step is to compiling those >statistics, but we need some way to stand up and be counted. We can do this, but it's mostly wasted effort for reasons I've enumerated above. Effort against the messenger attack are just going to end up expending resources against a feint. >Richard Bowers > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > -- Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry. Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 16:45:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14612 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:45:11 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA14599 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:45:04 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:49:17 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:49:13 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 01:49:17 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Frank Stevenson breaks the CSS as part of the "do it yourself home study course in cryptography" and probably in less time than it took "experts" to create it.... Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/07/01 01:41 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Statements by various witnesses in the MPPAv2600 trial follow [July 18 2000, Frank Stevenson] 5 Q. Did one of those studies include a study of the CSS 6 cipher? 7 A. Yes, as part of a program that Bruce Snyder has put on how 8 to teach yourself cryptographic skills, he suggested that a 9 student could look at various ciphers that are put out. New 10 ciphers are put out, some are strong and some not so strong, 11 and in an effort to hone my own cryptographic skills, I 12 decided to look at the CSS encryption system. 13 Q. Who is Bruce Snyder? 14 A. Bruce Snyder is a very well respected author and lecturer 15 in cryptography. 16 MR. HERNSTADT: Your Honor, just so you know, 17 Mr. Snyder is going to be our expert witness on cryptography. 18 We are presenting Mr. Stevenson as a fact witness about his 19 personal involvement in various matters that are associated 20 with this case. 21 THE COURT: Thank you. 22 Q. Could you please continue to tell us about your inspection 23 of the CSS cipher. 24 A. When I first found the CSS cipher on the web page, it 25 didn't take me long to determine that it had serious 208 1 weaknesses. I also saw that the weaknesses that I found would 2 be useful for the development of a Linux DVD player. At the 3 time they did have a problem in that they did not have enough 4 player keys so they could successfully decrypt all movies, and 5 also my research was useful to that respect. I don't recall where the Snyder material can be found. I suspect thay are referring to Bruce Schneier. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 16:46:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14650 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:46:23 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA14647 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:46:18 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA15359 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:50:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:50:33 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bruce Schnier's comments on DeCSS's inherent weaknesses are available at http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9911.html#DVDEncryptionBroken [15Nov1999] From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 17:04:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA14957 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:04:02 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA14954 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:04:00 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id RAA11848 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:08:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id RAA04433; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:08:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:08:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102072208.RAA04433@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: <20010207223055.B30694@lemuria.org> References: <20010207180346.E12617@lemuria.org> <4.2.2.20010207121742.02e6f540@pop.bellatlantic.net> <200102071925.OAA02873@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20010207223055.B30694@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu tom@lemuria.org writes: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:25:59PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > > (BTW, this is one of the things I don't fault Congress for in the > > drafting of the DMCA. New cracks are discovered in encryption > > schemes all the time. If "effective" in the DMCA were taken to mean > > "resistant to currently known forms of attack", then someone relying > > on 1201(a) access control would lose that protection as soon as a > > crack were discovered --- the only situation under which the law could > > do them any good. Which is not to argue that they need the protection > > in the first place, of course, or that Congress was wise to grant it, > > but that's another kettle of eels...). > > I disagree. > first, there are several other issues where the law would provide you > with something useful. taken from the congress comments on DMCA it is > clear that it was mainly aimed at stuff like black-boxing pay channels, > where the encryption is NOT actually broken, but - attention - > circumvented. A distinction without a difference. > fact is that an encryption that has a practical, low effort attack > discovered (i.e. not just a theoretical "if we had 1 mio years and > quantum computers") *has had it*. it's bullshit to protect something > that's broken with a law. you can't make a broken car drive again by > passing a law that engine failures are illegal. So the law should be written to protect only systems that don't need legal protection (since breaking them is technically infeasible). Okey-dokey... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 17:24:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA15291 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:24:25 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA15288 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:24:22 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id RAA14524 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:28:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id RAA04660; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:28:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:28:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102072228.RAA04660@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Michael A. Rolenz writes: > Yes. Even Kaplan recognized that fact. Umm... what fact? I'm not trying to be snarky here; the note you're replying to makes two distinct points, and I really can't tell which you mean. > Remember his analogy of the 39,000 > kayakers. The application of DMCA, which clear was concerned with cable > piracy, to the DVD is quite a perverse interpretation of it-probably > facilitated by a little deliberabe vagueness in the language paid for the > the DVDCCA. Viz. the indications in the Judiciary Committee report *cited by Kaplan as authoritative* that what Congress had in mind for the "effective" language was to protect systems which had the effect of checking whether the *viewer* was authorized to view the particular work by the copyright holder: Subsection (a) of new section 1201 applies when a *person who is not authorized* to have access to a work seeks to gain access by circumventing a technological measure put in place by the copyright owner that effectively controls access to the work. (and also the citations of other laws with parallel provisions, which attach authorities to persons in the text of the law, and don't leave it ambiguous). CSS, of course, does no such thing, as we've talked over endlessly. But that's a test that has to do with what CSS (or another putative TPM) does "in the ordinary course of its operation". Whether it's technically easy or difficult to make it do something else is a different question --- and one which is irrelevant to the application of the law. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 17:42:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA15513 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:42:32 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA15510 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:42:27 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id OAA27895 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:46:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma017474; Wed, 7 Feb 01 14:19:19 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:20:51 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA28841; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:19:18 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:28:14 -0700 Message-ID: <001c01c09155$427cd9a0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 169F15C9504810-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Galt said well on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 2:19 PM > I REALLY don't like this approach. It amounts to terrorism. "If we don't > get what we want, we'll trash your reputation": this is just WRONG if you > want to wear the White Hat. If Kaplan was truly biased, we DO need to > prove it, not as revenge for a bad decision, but because we cannot let > another group's rights get ignored in this way again. It's wrong and it's moot. The recusal was appealed. The appeal was denied. We may all surmise that Kaplan was wrongly biased and should have recused himself -- but we cannot know. Further, reading Kaplan's decisions from the beginning showed that he (wrongly in our opinion) held an extremely narrow view of the case. He committed the mental error of confusing "authority" with "consent" and with single error (and those that flow from it logically) came to the flawed conclusions of his decision. The authority vs. consent error fundamentally simplifies the case. "Clearly," one reasons, "a party suing another party to desist has not consented to their behavior." Failing to note that the party doesn't have the authority to impose that consent doesn't necessarily impute bias, simply faulty reasoning. The MPAA bluffed, guessing they could effectively sue for trespass, with no-one would checking that they held title to that property. One might easily forget to check that little detail, assuming the plaintiffs (as respected businesses) were acting in good faith. Futher, once having confused consent with authority, there is no need to explore the authority model. The mere presence of the suit implies the lack of consent on the part of the plaintiffs and thus (again wrongly) the lack of authority of the defendants. Add to that the proven ability to access copyright material without the consent/authority, and a trial judges tendency to want to lean on evil "internet hackers" with a (to the authoritarian eye of a sitting judge) checkered past, involved in marginal legal activities -- you don't **need** specific pro-plaintiff bias to get it wrong. It all flows from that first mental error of authority vs. consent. Finally it seems Judge Kaplan was unwilling in this case (and one could compare this against his track record) to go into the deep waters of the constitutional implications of the law. He clearly read it facially and applied it based on the authority/consent error. That he read it incompletely is a symptom of the poor quality of the DMCA. It is self-contradictory, any facial reading must be incomplete and any complete reading leads you directly into the deep water the lower Court seemed to desperately want to avoid. A question to the lawyers: do lower courts tend to attempt to skirt the constitutional import of first impression case knowing that the higher courts will ultimately review this and not wanting to do extra work that will just be reviewed/revised as a matter of course? John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 18:06:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15796 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:06:39 -0500 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15792 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:06:35 -0500 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21629 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:10:48 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A81D652.74B18ED8@uic.edu> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 17:12:18 -0600 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The actions of the RIAA/MPAA appear to be based on the premise that: Reducing the value of a product to the consumer increases the value retained by the seller. Hence, a "pay-per-view" system is "better" because the consumer receives less control/power/value, therefore the copyright holder retains more control/power/value. In other words, a shoddy product is "better", even if it costs exactly the same to manufacture as a high quality, flexible, useful product. How do you counter such a basically erroneous philosophy? The only true counter to this philosophy is the free market. If people simply refuse to purchase reduced-value, crippled products, then those products will fail in the marketplace. DVDs are a roaring success. Divx failed. So the RIAA/MPAA's strategy is to attempt to eliminate the free market -- to make reduced value goods the only choice. That's the actual nature and purpose of the DMCA. To use the legal system to enforce the elimination of a free market in favor of a restricted, closed market. Putting it in with the rest of copyright law is really an insult to those who believe in copyright. It is absolutely counter to everything that copyright is supposed to do. Media industries need first sale to survive. People know the value of a single-use product, and behave accordingly. The film industry was in enormous trouble until they embraced first sale -- by selling motion pictures on videotape. Now videotape sales and rentals account for nearly half of all movie industry revenue. Had they held the hard line and insisted that movies belong in theatres, and theatres only, the industry would have collapsed. Similarly, HDTV will never truly take off until someone develops a full-fledged, full-quality HDTV recorder. It'll probably come from some kid with a computer. And be answered with a lawsuit. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 18:10:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15916 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:10:16 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15913 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:10:14 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb07.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.7]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903F427A96 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 00:09:34 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B7CC5175195; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 00:11:53 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 00:11:53 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Message-ID: <20010208001153.C544@lemuria.org> References: <20010207180346.E12617@lemuria.org> <4.2.2.20010207121742.02e6f540@pop.bellatlantic.net> <200102071925.OAA02873@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20010207223055.B30694@lemuria.org> <200102072208.RAA04433@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200102072208.RAA04433@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 05:08:16PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 05:08:16PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > > fact is that an encryption that has a practical, low effort attack > > discovered (i.e. not just a theoretical "if we had 1 mio years and > > quantum computers") *has had it*. it's bullshit to protect something > > that's broken with a law. you can't make a broken car drive again by > > passing a law that engine failures are illegal. > > So the law should be written to protect only systems that don't need > legal protection (since breaking them is technically infeasible). not quite. the law should not protect against stupidity or inability. however, things like selling keys for pay-channels should stay illegal and is what I consider a "circumvention" in contrast to a breaking (yes, I do think it makes a difference). -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 18:19:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA17271 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:19:05 -0500 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA17268 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:19:03 -0500 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA23628 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:23:19 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A81D943.3AF38D05@uic.edu> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 17:24:51 -0600 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Mickey writes: > In the world of computers, almost any method could then be argued to meet the > requirement of 'has the effect of controlling access'. So does the cover of a book. > (3) As used in this subsection - > (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to > descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or > otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a > technological measure, without the authority of the copyright > owner; and The cover of the book is a "technological measure" that controls access to the contents of the book, and I, the copyright holder, grant authority ONLY to the original purchaser of the book to open the cover. Encryption is NOT a requirement, only the existance of a "technological measure". > (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a > work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, > requires the application of information, or a process or a > treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain > access to the work. The required "process or treatment" is the action of opening the book cover, and because authority is only given to the original purchaser, anyone who buys and reads a second-hand book is in violation of 17USC1201(a)(1)(A): > No person shall circumvent a technological measure that > effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 18:27:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA17494 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:27:59 -0500 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA17491 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:27:57 -0500 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA25029 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:32:13 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A81DB59.EEEEC1F5@uic.edu> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 17:33:45 -0600 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Kaplan's arguments are filled with a strong sense of working backwards. He *knows* that the movie industry is supposed to win this case, because the defendants are scumbags, so, unable to find a trail from the law to the verdict, he instead found a trail backwards from the verdict to the law. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 18:45:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA17674 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:45:46 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA17671 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:45:45 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id SAA23688 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:50:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id SAA05299; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:50:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:50:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102072350.SAA05299@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: <20010208001153.C544@lemuria.org> References: <20010207180346.E12617@lemuria.org> <4.2.2.20010207121742.02e6f540@pop.bellatlantic.net> <200102071925.OAA02873@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20010207223055.B30694@lemuria.org> <200102072208.RAA04433@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20010208001153.C544@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu tom@lemuria.org writes: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 05:08:16PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > > > fact is that an encryption that has a practical, low effort attack > > > discovered (i.e. not just a theoretical "if we had 1 mio years and > > > quantum computers") *has had it*. it's bullshit to protect something > > > that's broken with a law. you can't make a broken car drive again by > > > passing a law that engine failures are illegal. > > > > So the law should be written to protect only systems that don't need > > legal protection (since breaking them is technically infeasible). > > not quite. the law should not protect against stupidity or inability. > however, things like selling keys for pay-channels should stay illegal > and is what I consider a "circumvention" in contrast to a breaking > (yes, I do think it makes a difference). Hmmm... would you apply that standard even if the cable system "stupidly" made it easy to get a key out of the equipment? How about if the system was believed secure (no known attacks, which is the best we can ever say) at the time it was designed, but became vulnerable to a new form of attack (e.g., timing-based attack on a smart card) after two years in the field? For a contrasting perspective, see: http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9907.html and in particular --- Several years ago I was talking with an NSA employee about a particular exploit. He told the story about how a system was broken; it was a sneaky attack, one that I didn't think should even count. "That's cheating," I said. He looked at me as if I'd just arrived from Neptune. Cheating is one of the basic tenets of security engineering. ... Good attackers cheat. Note also that with the proliferation of packaged attack tools, this year's sophisticated attack is invariably next year's script kiddie nightmare. So, you can't draw distinctions based on technical sophistication of the attacker... (That smart-card thing isn't an entirely hypothetical case, BTW; DirecTV uses smart cards in the receivers as part of its security, and there has been a remarkable ECM war between them and receiver-crackers over the past few years, which recently made it into the tech press after DirecTV got off a nasty, and very clever, attack which disabled the smart cards in a lot of hacked receivers. It's been on Slashdot, etc.; for more details than you could possibly want, see www.hackhu.com --- named after the "HU" revision of the smart cards. So, this stuff happens). rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 18:48:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA17780 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:48:06 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA17777 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:48:05 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30MM8>; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:52:43 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:52:42 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Otoh, there is the concept of an "attrative nusiance" (iirc). That is, if you own a jewelry store but lock the door only with the kind of lock that normally goes on an 8-year old girl's diary then you bear some responsibility when someone breaks in to the store ... or am I just engaging in wishful thinking? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:04 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > At 06:03 PM 2/7/01 +0100, Tom wrote: > >On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:53:35AM -0800, > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > > #3 is the most dangerous. My professional opinion is > that the creators of > > > CSS are incompetent and could have benefited from reading > some of the IEEE > > > journals and Sol Golomb's book. It is fortunate that they > were. Triple DES > > > would have really complicated the matter especially if > the key were > > > embedded in an ASIC that took cipher text in and spit out > plaintext out. > > > >do we have an uncontested expert statement in evidence that > CSS is, in > >fact, pretty crappy? > > It doesn't matter. > > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access to a > work'' may > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace with 'has the > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. > The whole point > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and still import > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the > need to break 1201. > > Anything we say about how weak CSS is will most likely be > misinterpreted as > a flawed claim that it's "ineffective," so I'd stay away from > that line. > > --Wendy > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 19:00:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA17968 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:00:04 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA17965 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:59:59 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:04:12 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:04:09 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 04:04:12 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Exactly. Were the scheme unbreakable, or infeasible/ uneconomic to crack no law would be required. They have also attempted to legislate something that is counter to the fundamental tenet of crytology. The only protection a system has is knowledge of the key (even if the algorithm is protected). "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/07/01 02:10 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss tom@lemuria.org writes: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:25:59PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > > (BTW, this is one of the things I don't fault Congress for in the > > drafting of the DMCA. New cracks are discovered in encryption > > schemes all the time. If "effective" in the DMCA were taken to mean > > "resistant to currently known forms of attack", then someone relying > > on 1201(a) access control would lose that protection as soon as a > > crack were discovered --- the only situation under which the law could > > do them any good. Which is not to argue that they need the protection > > in the first place, of course, or that Congress was wise to grant it, > > but that's another kettle of eels...). > > I disagree. > first, there are several other issues where the law would provide you > with something useful. taken from the congress comments on DMCA it is > clear that it was mainly aimed at stuff like black-boxing pay channels, > where the encryption is NOT actually broken, but - attention - > circumvented. A distinction without a difference. > fact is that an encryption that has a practical, low effort attack > discovered (i.e. not just a theoretical "if we had 1 mio years and > quantum computers") *has had it*. it's bullshit to protect something > that's broken with a law. you can't make a broken car drive again by > passing a law that engine failures are illegal. So the law should be written to protect only systems that don't need legal protection (since breaking them is technically infeasible). Okey-dokey... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 19:12:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA18620 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:12:51 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA18617 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:12:49 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:17:03 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:16:59 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 04:17:03 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu My apologies. I've been out two days with some virus that's been going around out here and I've not totally recovered yet. So I may have slipped a few synapses between the brain and my fingers. My comment on the Kayakers was a reference to Tom's "you can't make a broken car drive again by passing a law that engine failures are illegal." Even Kaplan realized that he can't make the DeCSS go away by making a judgment The rest of comment was on the perverted argument by the MPAA that the viewer of a work is only authorized to view it on licensed machines and therefore the DMCA applies if they don't. I don't know the validity of a contract that says "you agree to buy this DVD and agree to henceforth forevermore onpain of DMCA prosecution agree to play it on players that we license..." IANAL but my guess is NADA. "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/07/01 02:31 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Michael A. Rolenz writes: > Yes. Even Kaplan recognized that fact. Umm... what fact? I'm not trying to be snarky here; the note you're replying to makes two distinct points, and I really can't tell which you mean. > Remember his analogy of the 39,000 > kayakers. The application of DMCA, which clear was concerned with cable > piracy, to the DVD is quite a perverse interpretation of it-probably > facilitated by a little deliberabe vagueness in the language paid for the > the DVDCCA. Viz. the indications in the Judiciary Committee report *cited by Kaplan as authoritative* that what Congress had in mind for the "effective" language was to protect systems which had the effect of checking whether the *viewer* was authorized to view the particular work by the copyright holder: Subsection (a) of new section 1201 applies when a *person who is not authorized* to have access to a work seeks to gain access by circumventing a technological measure put in place by the copyright owner that effectively controls access to the work. (and also the citations of other laws with parallel provisions, which attach authorities to persons in the text of the law, and don't leave it ambiguous). CSS, of course, does no such thing, as we've talked over endlessly. But that's a test that has to do with what CSS (or another putative TPM) does "in the ordinary course of its operation". Whether it's technically easy or difficult to make it do something else is a different question --- and one which is irrelevant to the application of the law. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 19:26:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA18783 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:26:23 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA18780 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:26:21 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:30:22 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:30:18 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 04:30:22 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Good Points. The only question is if the DoJ and its new head sees it that way...or if he's really an honest politician and stays bought (as R. Heinlein put it).. John Schulien Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C 02/07/01 03:13 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss The actions of the RIAA/MPAA appear to be based on the premise that: Reducing the value of a product to the consumer increases the value retained by the seller. Hence, a "pay-per-view" system is "better" because the consumer receives less control/power/value, therefore the copyright holder retains more control/power/value. In other words, a shoddy product is "better", even if it costs exactly the same to manufacture as a high quality, flexible, useful product. How do you counter such a basically erroneous philosophy? The only true counter to this philosophy is the free market. If people simply refuse to purchase reduced-value, crippled products, then those products will fail in the marketplace. DVDs are a roaring success. Divx failed. So the RIAA/MPAA's strategy is to attempt to eliminate the free market -- to make reduced value goods the only choice. That's the actual nature and purpose of the DMCA. To use the legal system to enforce the elimination of a free market in favor of a restricted, closed market. Putting it in with the rest of copyright law is really an insult to those who believe in copyright. It is absolutely counter to everything that copyright is supposed to do. Media industries need first sale to survive. People know the value of a single-use product, and behave accordingly. The film industry was in enormous trouble until they embraced first sale -- by selling motion pictures on videotape. Now videotape sales and rentals account for nearly half of all movie industry revenue. Had they held the hard line and insisted that movies belong in theatres, and theatres only, the industry would have collapsed. Similarly, HDTV will never truly take off until someone develops a full-fledged, full-quality HDTV recorder. It'll probably come from some kid with a computer. And be answered with a lawsuit. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 19:30:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA18892 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:30:38 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA18888 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:30:32 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:34:42 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:34:39 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/07/2001 04:34:42 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think it's withful thinking. Even if the door were unlocked, entering a building without permission is trespass. Locks do not keep out professional thieves only amateurs. Also, they demonstrate wilful intent which eliminates any "gee it looked odd and I got curious so I just had to see...." defenses. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments 02/07/01 03:54 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Otoh, there is the concept of an "attrative nusiance" (iirc). That is, if you own a jewelry store but lock the door only with the kind of lock that normally goes on an 8-year old girl's diary then you bear some responsibility when someone breaks in to the store ... or am I just engaging in wishful thinking? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:04 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > At 06:03 PM 2/7/01 +0100, Tom wrote: > >On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:53:35AM -0800, > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > > #3 is the most dangerous. My professional opinion is > that the creators of > > > CSS are incompetent and could have benefited from reading > some of the IEEE > > > journals and Sol Golomb's book. It is fortunate that they > were. Triple DES > > > would have really complicated the matter especially if > the key were > > > embedded in an ASIC that took cipher text in and spit out > plaintext out. > > > >do we have an uncontested expert statement in evidence that > CSS is, in > >fact, pretty crappy? > > It doesn't matter. > > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access to a > work'' may > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace with 'has the > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. > The whole point > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and still import > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the > need to break 1201. > > Anything we say about how weak CSS is will most likely be > misinterpreted as > a flawed claim that it's "ineffective," so I'd stay away from > that line. > > --Wendy > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 20:40:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA19958 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:40:22 -0500 Received: from hall.mail.mindspring.net (hall.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.60]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA19955 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:40:21 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38lc784.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.29.4]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA18149 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:44:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A81F91B.FB4BC8A@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 20:40:44 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That's what the DVDCCA was saying after it was pointed out that you could get around the clickwrap by not running setup.exe, as the setup program with license agreement is pretty much akin to the cheap lock. Bypassing even a cheap lock demonstrates willful intent. mickey Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > I think it's withful thinking. Even if the door were unlocked, entering a > building without permission is trespass. Locks do not keep out professional > thieves only amateurs. Also, they demonstrate wilful intent which > eliminates any "gee it looked odd and I got curious so I just had to > see...." defenses. > > > Richard Hartman > To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > arguments > > 02/07/01 03:54 PM > Please respond to > dvd-discuss > > > > Otoh, there is the concept of an "attrative nusiance" (iirc). That is, if > you own a jewelry store but lock the door only with the kind of lock that > normally goes on an 8-year old girl's diary then you bear some > responsibility when someone breaks in to the store ... or am I just > engaging > in wishful thinking? > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:04 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > > > At 06:03 PM 2/7/01 +0100, Tom wrote: > > >On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:53:35AM -0800, > > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > > > #3 is the most dangerous. My professional opinion is > > that the creators of > > > > CSS are incompetent and could have benefited from reading > > some of the IEEE > > > > journals and Sol Golomb's book. It is fortunate that they > > were. Triple DES > > > > would have really complicated the matter especially if > > the key were > > > > embedded in an ASIC that took cipher text in and spit out > > plaintext out. > > > > > >do we have an uncontested expert statement in evidence that > > CSS is, in > > >fact, pretty crappy? > > > > It doesn't matter. > > > > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access to a > > work'' may > > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace with 'has the > > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. > > The whole point > > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and still import > > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the > > need to break 1201. > > > > Anything we say about how weak CSS is will most likely be > > misinterpreted as > > a flawed claim that it's "ineffective," so I'd stay away from > > that line. > > > > --Wendy > > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com > > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 20:52:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA20143 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:52:07 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA20140 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:52:05 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA32183 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:55:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:55:47 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: <20010208001153.C544@lemuria.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu But the end result is exactly the same; the viewer saw the content that they wanted to see. If you told people to put an electric drill chuck key in the mail, and send it to Mars and it would magically result in the ability to view DVDs with any kind of player at all this too would have the _exact_ same effect. And the only people interested in DeCSS would have been the few people honestly interested in the challenge, who didn't care about the result, those who want to do it themselves, and those who are suspicious of the Martians and their strange chuck key fetish. I am honestly concerned about the outlawing of the development and discussion of whole realms of knowledge, the locking up of content and restrictions on who can even author works, and all the implications therof. But at the end of the day I just want to sit down, relax and watch movies from Mars or Jon, or wherever. Certainly the NSA is not above both trying to decrypt messages AND place bugs to see the plaintext w/o having successfully cracked the code. Success is the only metric. On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Tom wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 05:08:16PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > > > fact is that an encryption that has a practical, low effort attack > > > discovered (i.e. not just a theoretical "if we had 1 mio years and > > > quantum computers") *has had it*. it's bullshit to protect something > > > that's broken with a law. you can't make a broken car drive again by > > > passing a law that engine failures are illegal. > > > > So the law should be written to protect only systems that don't need > > legal protection (since breaking them is technically infeasible). > > not quite. the law should not protect against stupidity or inability. > however, things like selling keys for pay-channels should stay illegal > and is what I consider a "circumvention" in contrast to a breaking > (yes, I do think it makes a difference). > > > -- > -- http://www.lemuria.org > -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net > -- > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 21:06:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA20305 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:06:21 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA20302 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:06:19 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb77.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.119]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6690327AE3 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:05:42 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9B3C5175195; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:07:49 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:07:49 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Message-ID: <20010208030748.B608@lemuria.org> References: <20010207180346.E12617@lemuria.org> <4.2.2.20010207121742.02e6f540@pop.bellatlantic.net> <200102071925.OAA02873@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20010207223055.B30694@lemuria.org> <200102072208.RAA04433@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20010208001153.C544@lemuria.org> <200102072350.SAA05299@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200102072350.SAA05299@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 06:50:01PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 06:50:01PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > > not quite. the law should not protect against stupidity or inability. > > however, things like selling keys for pay-channels should stay illegal > > and is what I consider a "circumvention" in contrast to a breaking > > (yes, I do think it makes a difference). > > Hmmm... would you apply that standard even if the cable system > "stupidly" made it easy to get a key out of the equipment? that is a good question. let us start by saying that it is unlikely that a simple answer will do, because simple answers usually serve only extreme options. compromises are mostly a little more complicated. that said it is obvious that if you make a compromise between the movie mafia ripping off the general public and everyone and his dog pirating hollywood stuff, there's bound to be a grey zone that is not immediatly clear. so on the problem itself: 1.) I believe it is pretty clear that the intention of the law can NOT be that ANYTHING, no matter how primitive, serves as an "effectively controls access". if that were so, the whole thing becomes meaningless and the requirement for any TPM can be dropped altogether as cost reduction and simplification will let it disappear over time. if in the extreme case a single "authentication bit" counts - and kaplan's argument thought through to the end leads to that - then there is, for all practical purposes, no TPM. there is just something that pretends to be one in order to fullfill a semantic in the law. 2.) to repeat myself: you can't fix a broken car by making engine failures illegal. it's not the job of the law to cover up the stupidity of the movie mafia. the law should protect you if, and only if, you make an effort of protecting yourself first. that effort should stand in relation to that which you want to protect. this is common sense for absolutely everyone who's ever had to do with computer security in any form: know your threat model and plan according to it. if your enemy is hackers, i.e. computer savy people, and your danger is several billion dollars or whatever they claim, then XOR just isn't worthy of any legal protection. while I see the problem of courts making decisions about the quality of encryption, let's not forget that similiar decisions ARE made by courts on other areas. for example, there's been a famous case where a rape victim was very upset about the verdict, which was extremely low with the argument that she made ZERO effort of resisting the attack, in fact so little that the attacker just might have believed she consents. I don't know the precise circumstances, so I can't argue on whether or not that judge was insane or it made sense in the context. the point is that courts DO already pass judgements of very similiar kinds. the question is not even about the actual quality of the system. it is whether it can be said in good faith that all effort was made to create an effective access control. in CSS, it is quite easy to see that this was not so. they violated pretty much every basic rule of cryptography, starting with #1: don't come up with your home-brewn encryption system and think it's any good. > How about if the system was believed secure (no known attacks, which > is the best we can ever say) at the time it was designed, but became > vulnerable to a new form of attack (e.g., timing-based attack on a > smart card) after two years in the field? in that case, according to my argument above, it deserves protection, because an honest effort was made. what I want to outrule is abuse of the law by slapping on something that has the sole purpose of forcing your work under the DMCA. the law should PROTECT, not REPLACE an effective access control. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 21:23:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA20575 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:23:40 -0500 Received: from mars.dname.net (root@mars.dname.net [216.161.236.97]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA20572 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:23:35 -0500 Received: from hobbiton.org (sage_b@thorin.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.98]) by mars.dname.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f182Vll05582 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:31:47 -0600 (CST) Received: (from sage_b@localhost) by hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f182PZ616744; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:25:35 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:25:35 -0600 (CST) From: Stephen Kawamoto Message-Id: <200102080225.f182PZ616744@hobbiton.org> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Instead of using the DMCA to oppress the Open Source community and consequently threaten democracy, why doesn't the MPAA just get the DVD cryptological licensers to redo the weak encryption so it's almost unbreakable instead of wasting money? Okay, sure, most strong encryption is slow, but didn't the US relax its ban on larger key sizes for crypto? The DeCSS vs MPAA battle is over copyright not crypto. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 21:33:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA20698 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:33:54 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA20695 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:33:52 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3EE2D5E8.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.232]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2655427AE4 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:33:16 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A5C27175195; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:35:32 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:35:32 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Message-ID: <20010208033532.A654@lemuria.org> References: <3A81F91B.FB4BC8A@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A81F91B.FB4BC8A@mindspring.com>; from mickeym@mindspring.com on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:40:44PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > > I think it's withful thinking. Even if the door were unlocked, entering a > > building without permission is trespass. Locks do not keep out professional > > thieves only amateurs. Also, they demonstrate wilful intent which > > eliminates any "gee it looked odd and I got curious so I just had to > > see...." defenses. there's an important difference here: with DVDs, I'm not some stranger breaking into your shop. I bought the thing, I'm the shop owner. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 21:46:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA20851 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:46:43 -0500 Received: from bur-jud-175-135 (bur-jud-175-135.rh.uchicago.edu [128.135.175.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA20848 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:46:42 -0500 Received: by bur-jud-175-135 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B32CE1C1; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:52:00 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:52:00 -0600 From: Sam TH To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS Message-ID: <20010207205200.B1236@uchicago.edu> References: <200102080225.f182PZ616744@hobbiton.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Fba/0zbH8Xs+Fj9o" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <200102080225.f182PZ616744@hobbiton.org>; from sage_b@hobbiton.org on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:25:35PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --Fba/0zbH8Xs+Fj9o Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:25:35PM -0600, Stephen Kawamoto wrote: > Instead of using the DMCA to oppress the Open Source community and=20 > consequently threaten democracy, why doesn't the MPAA just get the DVD=20 > cryptological licensers to redo the weak encryption so it's almost=20 > unbreakable instead of wasting money? >=20 One of the MPAA requirements for DVDs is having software players. Software, as we all know, comes in a human-readable language called object code. Even more usefully, it can be machine read into even more human readable languages. =20 Then, you know exactly what the software does. And can break the encryption. Then the MPAA loses. They basically have 2 choices: 1) Give up software players (which means giving up people playing DVDs on their computers, which means fewer sales). 2) Outlaw the process described above. We all know which option they chose. =20 sam th =20 sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ GnuPG Key: =20 http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key --Fba/0zbH8Xs+Fj9o Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6ggnQt+kM0Mq9M/wRAk+mAJ9TL6gIulAsA2/RBIKjndpV6i2CEACfXHwB yZjqocRvMmMubdVtU2dxqYM= =NSad -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Fba/0zbH8Xs+Fj9o-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 22:05:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA21072 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:05:31 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (adsl-63-192-8-227.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.192.8.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA21069 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:05:25 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id LAA10020 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:49:03 -0800 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:49:03 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS Message-ID: <20010207114903.O7449@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200102080225.f182PZ616744@hobbiton.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <200102080225.f182PZ616744@hobbiton.org>; from sage_b@hobbiton.org on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:25:35PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Stephen Kawamoto writes: > Instead of using the DMCA to oppress the Open Source community and > consequently threaten democracy, why doesn't the MPAA just get the DVD > cryptological licensers to redo the weak encryption so it's almost > unbreakable instead of wasting money? (1) Expense for CE vendors. (2) Expense for CE vendors. (3) It's impossible to do this and have software players for general-purpose PCs, so having "unbreakable" encryption here is an impossible goal. > Okay, sure, most strong encryption is slow, but didn't the US relax its > ban on larger key sizes for crypto? There were already exceptions available for CP systems back then, but the DVD folks didn't seem to believe these were good enough or useful. (Or maybe they had a principled objection to government restrictions on technology. Heh.) We've been a little schizophrenic on this point here. If the MPAA had a genuinely "unbreakable" CP/DRM scheme, it would still present problems for copyright traditionalists, because traditional "fair use" of material thus protected would still be impossible. On the other hand, it would then no longer be necessary in their eyes to create laws restricting publication of software like DeCSS. So, if you're in this from the "preserve fair use" side of things, unbreakable encryption would be as bad or worse, because it's being used by someone presumed to be a villain (copyright holders, who want to deny us the ability to parody or time-shift or criticize their work without paying a license fee). If you're in this from the "free speech in software" side of things, unbreakable encryption would be just fine, because it would make the presumed villains (copyright holders, who want to censor our media playing software) go away into a corner somewhere. ("May God bless and keep the Czar... far away from us!", as a copyrighted work once opined.) There are other sides of things than those two, as you can see by looking at the diversity of folks who have submitted briefs as amici curiae. Some of those people don't actually care about issues that seem crucial for other people. But there cuold be a hint in whether people focus more on the legal right to _use_ DeCSS, or the legal right to _write_ or _publish_ DeCSS. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 22:10:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA21180 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:10:39 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (adsl-63-192-8-227.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.192.8.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA21177 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:10:37 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id LAA10025 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:54:20 -0800 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:54:19 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Message-ID: <20010207115419.P7449@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <3A81F91B.FB4BC8A@mindspring.com> <20010208033532.A654@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010208033532.A654@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 03:35:32AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom writes: > > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > > > > I think it's withful thinking. Even if the door were unlocked, entering a > > > building without permission is trespass. Locks do not keep out professional > > > thieves only amateurs. Also, they demonstrate wilful intent which > > > eliminates any "gee it looked odd and I got curious so I just had to > > > see...." defenses. > > there's an important difference here: with DVDs, I'm not some stranger > breaking into your shop. I bought the thing, I'm the shop owner. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/109.html and especially http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/202.html Analogies to real life don't work with copyrights: the entirety of copyright is already an artificial layer of control over physical things you already own. 1201 is not all that unusual or freakish in that context; it's just that it reaches deeply into areas of life and activity outside of illegal copying. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 7 22:13:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA21273 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:13:43 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA21267 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:13:25 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA08280 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:16:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:16:39 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici Message-ID: <20010207221639.A7210@eldritchpress.org> References: <000101c09131$8bcd81a0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from rongus@tiac.net on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:48:10PM -0500 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:48:10PM -0500, Ron Gustavson wrote: > On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:12:35 -0700, "John Zulauf" wrote: > > >The poor quality of modern media creations is in direct relation to the > >poverty of the public domain given 40 years of continual term extensions, > >and the lack of incentive to create novel works absent the Damaclesian > >threat real, timely, copyright term limitations pose. > > Well one question is who gets permission. We just saw Ken Burns' > Jazz on PBS. It's interesting to note that Burns built his national > reputation on still photographs and letters from the Civil War. > While he had to get permission for access to photograph these > materials, their use was unquestioned. Now, based on his reputation, > he is able to obtain permission to use film and TV footage from > non-PD sources. What hoops does the next Ken Burns have to jump > through to produce a Jazz? i am an ignorant person who doesn't watch tv including ken burns. but i believe the civil war letters and photographs were not really in the public domain since they were unpublished until burns got hold of them. for works created before 1978, but never published to the public, copyright extends 70 years after the death of the author. but if the work is subsequently published between 1978 and 2004, copyright will not expire before 2048, no matter when author died. if we want these works to enter the public domain we should encourage everyone not to publish them before 2004. otherwise it is quite possible they never will. jazz is an interesting subject for a newly copyrighted television series. jazz in its live form lacks the fixation required to copyright it. jazz also is intensely original but always builds on a common domain of public ideas and creations of others, in a form of public communication. copyrighting jazz and preventing others from using one's ideas and creations would only tend to kill jazz and turn it into an alienated form designed only to make money. as i say, i haven't viewed his jazz series, but i wonder if these tv pieces are less compilations and republishing of the original material than they are attempts to exercise control by so-called authorities of the present day on this popular culture and history. it seems to me they start from some preconceived impression of the 'truth' about a subject (which turns out to be awfully similar to the latest academic theories of their paid consultants) and dose the presentations with heavy editing and commentary to make sure viewers don't start to think for themselves. but i could be wrong. should i turn off the computer and start watching public television? or should we encourage our kids to listen to and perform real live jazz rather than collect recordings of it or watch metacommentaries about it? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 01:30:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA22530 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 01:30:55 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA22527 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 01:30:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA00561 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 01:34:35 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 01:34:34 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: <3A81F91B.FB4BC8A@mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu But the accused purchased a copy of the material protected by the lock. They now own that copy; property rights dictate that they use it as they please. Copyright only restricts a few certain uses - the creation of copies to be sold, for instance. The ability to lend or sell to those that the author refused to do business with is protected; as a noble example, look at libraries. The ability to modify the works for private consumption has never been found to be harmnful to the artist who's works were legally obtained and paid for. Works may even be destroyed, though that is regretable. But in this case, the client is free to make use of the work, so long as no copyright laws are broken. If they wish to agree to the contract (and there is still no clear consensus in the courts as to wheter or not it is a legally binding contract) that's their business. There is no compulsion to do so. While it has been argued that contravening the EULA is willful intent to bypass a lock, it must be remembered that the lock is on a door the accused owns, that the party that placed the lock there has already been compensated, even if the door is never used or opened, and that there is no harm being done by picking or removing it. Copyright is a red herring. The accusors want to sell works, receive compensation for them, and then lay claim to individual copies of works which they no longer have any mandate over with contracts of dubious legality. On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, mickeym wrote: > That's what the DVDCCA was saying after it was pointed out that > you could get around the clickwrap by not running setup.exe, as the > setup program with license agreement is pretty much akin to the cheap > lock. Bypassing even a cheap lock demonstrates willful intent. > > mickey > > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > > I think it's withful thinking. Even if the door were unlocked, entering a > > building without permission is trespass. Locks do not keep out professional > > thieves only amateurs. Also, they demonstrate wilful intent which > > eliminates any "gee it looked odd and I got curious so I just had to > > see...." defenses. > > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > > arguments > > > > 02/07/01 03:54 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > Otoh, there is the concept of an "attrative nusiance" (iirc). That is, if > > you own a jewelry store but lock the door only with the kind of lock that > > normally goes on an 8-year old girl's diary then you bear some > > responsibility when someone breaks in to the store ... or am I just > > engaging > > in wishful thinking? > > > > -- > > -Richard M. Hartman > > hartman@onetouch.com > > > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:04 AM > > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > > > > > > At 06:03 PM 2/7/01 +0100, Tom wrote: > > > >On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:53:35AM -0800, > > > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > > > > #3 is the most dangerous. My professional opinion is > > > that the creators of > > > > > CSS are incompetent and could have benefited from reading > > > some of the IEEE > > > > > journals and Sol Golomb's book. It is fortunate that they > > > were. Triple DES > > > > > would have really complicated the matter especially if > > > the key were > > > > > embedded in an ASIC that took cipher text in and spit out > > > plaintext out. > > > > > > > >do we have an uncontested expert statement in evidence that > > > CSS is, in > > > >fact, pretty crappy? > > > > > > It doesn't matter. > > > > > > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access to a > > > work'' may > > > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace with 'has the > > > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. > > > The whole point > > > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > > > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and still import > > > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the > > > need to break 1201. > > > > > > Anything we say about how weak CSS is will most likely be > > > misinterpreted as > > > a flawed claim that it's "ineffective," so I'd stay away from > > > that line. > > > > > > --Wendy > > > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com > > > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School > > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 02:59:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA23021 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 02:59:08 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (adsl-63-192-8-227.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.192.8.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA23018 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 02:59:00 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id QAA10313 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:42:43 -0800 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:42:43 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Message-ID: <20010207164243.W7449@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <3A81F91B.FB4BC8A@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from cpt@gryphon.auspice.net on Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 01:34:34AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Joshua Stratton writes: > > But the accused purchased a copy of the material protected by the lock. > They now own that copy; property rights dictate that they use it as they > please. Copyright only restricts a few certain uses - the creation of > copies to be sold, for instance. The ability to lend or sell to those that > the author refused to do business with is protected; as a noble example, > look at libraries. The ability to modify the works for private consumption > has never been found to be harmnful to the artist who's works were legally > obtained and paid for. Works may even be destroyed, though that is > regretable. > > But in this case, the client is free to make use of the work, so long as > no copyright laws are broken. Why does the DMCA not count as a copyright law? Why does breaking the DMCA not count as breaking a copyright law? Yeah, I know it's unprecented and overturns precedent and all, and has no continuity with historical copyright and actually regulates something other than copying and something which may often be orthogonal to copying. But, it got itself into Title 17, so it's doing a pretty nice job of masquerading as a copyright law. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 03:03:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA23170 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:03:26 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA23167 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:03:24 -0500 Received: from ip146.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.10.146]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 14Qm7A-0004Cq-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 08 Feb 2001 03:07:40 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 03:07:59 -0500 Message-ID: References: <000101c09131$8bcd81a0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> <20010207221639.A7210@eldritchpress.org> In-Reply-To: <20010207221639.A7210@eldritchpress.org> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id DAA23168 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:16:39 -0500, Eric Eldred wrote: >On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:48:10PM -0500, Ron Gustavson wrote: >i am an ignorant person who doesn't watch tv including >ken burns. but i believe the civil war letters and >photographs were not really in the public domain since >they were unpublished until burns got hold of them. >for works created before 1978, but never published >to the public, copyright extends 70 years after the >death of the author. but if the work is subsequently Good point. That certainly complicates the research. I'm sure Burns did his homework. >jazz is an interesting subject for a newly copyrighted >television series. jazz in its live form lacks the >fixation required to copyright it. jazz also is >intensely original but always builds on a common >domain of public ideas and creations of others, in >a form of public communication. copyrighting jazz >and preventing others from using one's ideas and >creations would only tend to kill jazz and turn it >into an alienated form designed only to make money. While jazz itself resists becoming a commodity, records, films, and videotapes exist of specific performances. And these are the bricks and mortar of Jazz the film. The other relevant aspect to Burns' Jazz is that many of its seminal recordings and clips are from the decade that has been frozen by CTEA. Of course, if unpublished, then then it's as you state above. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 08:11:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA24811 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:11:40 -0500 Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA24808 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:11:36 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld7ct.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.157.157]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA18184 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:15:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A829B3F.8387D1F6@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 08:12:32 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss Subject: [dvd-discuss] LOC Survey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On the LOC website, there is a request to take a short survey. It has a very tiny box for comments about how to improve their site. I told them it would be nice for them to show a list of works of which the copyright has lapsed. http://www.loc.gov/copyright/survey.html mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 08:24:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA24924 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:24:16 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA24921 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:24:14 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id IAA17294 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:28:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id IAA10035; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:28:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:28:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102081328.IAA10035@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: <20010208030748.B608@lemuria.org> References: <20010207180346.E12617@lemuria.org> <4.2.2.20010207121742.02e6f540@pop.bellatlantic.net> <200102071925.OAA02873@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20010207223055.B30694@lemuria.org> <200102072208.RAA04433@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20010208001153.C544@lemuria.org> <200102072350.SAA05299@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20010208030748.B608@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu tom@lemuria.org writes: > 2.) to repeat myself: you can't fix a broken car by making engine > failures illegal. Badly flawed analogy. Cars are legitimate articles of commerce, with up front, legal purposes. The designed purpose of CSS is to take away viewers' fair use rights, which is not a legitimate thing for the movie studios to do. > it's not the job of the law to cover up the stupidity > of the movie mafia. the law should protect you if, and only if, you > make an effort of protecting yourself first. Expressing the situation this way tacitly concedes the that the movie studios are entitled to the form of "protection" offered by CSS (i.e., protection against their movies being played by equipment that they haven't vetted directly). > while I see the problem of courts making decisions about the quality of > encryption, let's not forget that similiar decisions ARE made by courts > on other areas. for example, there's been a famous case where a rape > victim was very upset about the verdict, which was extremely low with > the argument that she made ZERO effort of resisting the attack, in fact > so little that the attacker just might have believed she consents. > I don't know the precise circumstances, so I can't argue on whether or > not that judge was insane or it made sense in the context. the point is > that courts DO already pass judgements of very similiar kinds. I hate to repeat myself, but remember Schneier's story about the NSA guy: Several years ago I was talking with an NSA employee about a particular exploit. He told the story about how a system was broken; it was a sneaky attack, one that I didn't think should even count. "That's cheating," I said. He looked at me as if I'd just arrived from Neptune. Cheating is one of the basic tenets of security engineering. ... Good attackers cheat. He wasn't saying that your distinction between legitimate attacks and "circumvention" is hard to draw --- he was saying that the NSA guy was right; it *doesn't make sense*. Courts may, from time to time, do things that don't make sene, but we shouldn't encourage them. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 10:22:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA25713 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:22:33 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA25710 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:22:30 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00980; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:26:47 GMT Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:26:47 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Galt wrote: > On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > >>Should we not be considering these cases (and all the others that I've not > >>thought of) and preparing defences against them? > > > > > >I think its pretty clear that they're going to push the fourth prong you > >have above. Judge Kaplan seemed to indicate that his perception of 2600 as > >being a bunch of evil internet hackers was the main consideration he had. > > Then the appeal is won before it starts. > Don't assume *anything*! > Traditionally, higher courts > have focused more on the utility of the message rather than the reputation of > the messenger. > We can't rely on that. We'd better be ready with the best proof we can come up with that the internet community is home to productive honest people doing good works for America's benefit. True, there are some villains out there too, we can't deny that, but then there are villains who use the 'phone, but that doesn't mean that the "phone community" are inherently evil. The judges will themselves almost certainly be users of phones, yet they'd resent being labelled as bad people just because mafia bosses have phones too, and likewise terrorists and child-molesters. > Look at the people vs Larry Flynt for a perfect example. > Flynt basically is one of the most flamboyant pornographers in the > business (and that IS saying a lot), and the lower court found him guilty > of obscenity just based on his reputation. The higher up the system it went, > the less that Flynt's personality affected the court's judgement, and the > more the facts of the case spoke. > Er - hang on a minute! "The People vs. Larry Flynt" was a *movie* dammit! The reason the higher courts sided with him as the story unfolded was because that's what it said in the script! We can't assume we'll be treated in anything like the same way. > >How can we show who the true community is? Is there some sort of survey or > >petition we can construct, to show what the demographics are of > >pro-DeCSSers? I'm sure that, while there are plenty of stereotypical > >"hackers" who want DeCSS, there are also plenty of wage-slaves, upper > >management, lawyers, artists, and other people that can't be smeared as > >effectively. I'm not sure what the first step is to compiling those > >statistics, but we need some way to stand up and be counted. > > We can do this, but it's mostly wasted effort for reasons I've enumerated > above. Effort against the messenger attack are just going to end up > expending resources against a feint. > But do it anyway! Some of the posters to this list came up with a list of what systems the movie companies themselves entrust with running *their* web-sites. I forget the numbers, but it was at least half running un*x type systems, and something like 75% running Apache. When it comes to defending internet against claims of being a pirate hell, I thing a three-prong defence is possible: 1) As above, compile statistics showing the open-source community working for the good of (in this case) the movie companies, or (next time maybe) corporate America. Trouble is, that statistics are volatile, and the enemy might be able to manipulate similar studies to show the opposite. If so we need to at least be able to stalemate such claims and move onto point 2.... 2) As with the example of the 'telephone community' above, try and make it pretty obvious that though any community may contain villains, that is no excuse to villify all the members of that community, nor to assume that that community will suddenly engage in destroying the multi-billion dollar movie industry (or anyone else). 3) (This will be more fun) Demonstrate to a court that the spectre of internet villains copying DVDs at full quality is a red herring. It is probably sensible to accept that internet copying and exchange of MPEG-1 or DiVX movies does happen and will continue to happen. But here it in necessary to make sure that it is obvious to a court that MPEG-1 or DiVX movies are in no way the "bit for bit perfect copies" feared by Hollywood. As a side issue of that, can we arrange to create some short MPEG-1 clips mastered digitally direct from the DVD and from analong-capturing the VHS tape versions of a movie? The aim would be to show that the resulting MPEG-1 files look pretty much the same, and thus 'prove' that the existence of deCSS has no effect on the production or otherwise of MPEG-1 copies of movies. The game here is to try and "wall off" the internet movie pirate community from affecting the outcome of this case. We can't deny that they exist - even if we can show that they are a tiny minority, but we should be able to show that their game was going on before deCSS emerged and will continue unaffected by its existence. Maybe we don't need this defence, but can we at least have one in place? Preferably complete with all the hardware pre-built ready in case the defence team need to run the demo in court to prove the point. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 10:42:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA25975 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:42:06 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA25970 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:42:03 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 07:43:43 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 07:43:39 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/08/2001 07:43:43 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That whole lock analogy is faulty. REAL locks protect PERSONAL property. Their claimed "locks" are for "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY" (I really really hate that term. It connotes property when it ISN"T it's a limited monopoly). They are NOT the same thing and to treat them so is where the trouble is (and the refutation of Valenti's press). The whole problem with the shrinkwrap license is that they want to sell you software, DVDs, etc AS if it were personal property, but then claim that it is a license by putting a stupid "click me" button. If it's personal property i can do ANYTHING i want with it as long as I do not violate copyright laws (and terms in the shrinkwrap license which do are invalid and unenforcable). That includes doing ANYTHING they say I can't do in their fine print. They can't have it both ways (but they are really trying to do so). mickeym To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/07/01 05:46 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss That's what the DVDCCA was saying after it was pointed out that you could get around the clickwrap by not running setup.exe, as the setup program with license agreement is pretty much akin to the cheap lock. Bypassing even a cheap lock demonstrates willful intent. mickey Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > I think it's withful thinking. Even if the door were unlocked, entering a > building without permission is trespass. Locks do not keep out professional > thieves only amateurs. Also, they demonstrate wilful intent which > eliminates any "gee it looked odd and I got curious so I just had to > see...." defenses. > > > Richard Hartman > To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > arguments > > 02/07/01 03:54 PM > Please respond to > dvd-discuss > > > > Otoh, there is the concept of an "attrative nusiance" (iirc). That is, if > you own a jewelry store but lock the door only with the kind of lock that > normally goes on an 8-year old girl's diary then you bear some > responsibility when someone breaks in to the store ... or am I just > engaging > in wishful thinking? > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:04 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > > > At 06:03 PM 2/7/01 +0100, Tom wrote: > > >On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:53:35AM -0800, > > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > > > #3 is the most dangerous. My professional opinion is > > that the creators of > > > > CSS are incompetent and could have benefited from reading > > some of the IEEE > > > > journals and Sol Golomb's book. It is fortunate that they > > were. Triple DES > > > > would have really complicated the matter especially if > > the key were > > > > embedded in an ASIC that took cipher text in and spit out > > plaintext out. > > > > > >do we have an uncontested expert statement in evidence that > > CSS is, in > > >fact, pretty crappy? > > > > It doesn't matter. > > > > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access to a > > work'' may > > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace with 'has the > > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. > > The whole point > > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and still import > > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the > > need to break 1201. > > > > Anything we say about how weak CSS is will most likely be > > misinterpreted as > > a flawed claim that it's "ineffective," so I'd stay away from > > that line. > > > > --Wendy > > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com > > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 10:50:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA26123 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:50:09 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA26117 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:50:03 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 07:50:32 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 07:50:28 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/08/2001 07:50:32 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The battle is not just about strong encryption. It is also, not just about the first amendment. The recent changes to the copyright laws (recent as in 25yrs) and the DMCA have created a fundamental imbalance in the copyright laws. Together they ensure that there will be no increases in the public domain. They create admistrative burdens on US-as in "We The People..." with nothing in return except having to purchase, repurchase the same things over and over again. As has been pointed out (Tom), their strategy is multi-pronged. All prongs must be removed or dulled sufficiently. Stephen Kawamoto To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA arvard.edu re: DeCSS 02/07/01 06:30 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Instead of using the DMCA to oppress the Open Source community and consequently threaten democracy, why doesn't the MPAA just get the DVD cryptological licensers to redo the weak encryption so it's almost unbreakable instead of wasting money? Okay, sure, most strong encryption is slow, but didn't the US relax its ban on larger key sizes for crypto? The DeCSS vs MPAA battle is over copyright not crypto. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 10:49:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA26110 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:49:22 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA26107 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:49:14 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pD9500666.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.102]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C545A27A96 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:48:18 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C5A7E175195; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:50:34 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:50:34 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Message-ID: <20010208165033.A1165@lemuria.org> References: <20010207180346.E12617@lemuria.org> <4.2.2.20010207121742.02e6f540@pop.bellatlantic.net> <200102071925.OAA02873@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20010207223055.B30694@lemuria.org> <200102072208.RAA04433@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20010208001153.C544@lemuria.org> <200102072350.SAA05299@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20010208030748.B608@lemuria.org> <200102081328.IAA10035@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200102081328.IAA10035@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 08:28:32AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 08:28:32AM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > Badly flawed analogy. Cars are legitimate articles of commerce, with > up front, legal purposes. The designed purpose of CSS is to take away > viewers' fair use rights, which is not a legitimate thing for the > movie studios to do. I agree that the analogy is bad. the point remains: patching something that's broken up by passing a law is the worst possible way to do it. > > it's not the job of the law to cover up the stupidity > > of the movie mafia. the law should protect you if, and only if, you > > make an effort of protecting yourself first. > > Expressing the situation this way tacitly concedes the that the movie > studios are entitled to the form of "protection" offered by CSS (i.e., > protection against their movies being played by equipment that they > haven't vetted directly). that is a second problem and independent, but I do agree that it is rhetorically stupid to argue this way, yes. > I hate to repeat myself, but remember Schneier's story about the NSA > guy: I know the story, and it does nothing to invalidate my point. the requirement that you acted in "good faith" is present in many other areas of the law. > He wasn't saying that your distinction between legitimate attacks and > "circumvention" is hard to draw --- he was saying that the NSA guy was > right; it *doesn't make sense*. > > Courts may, from time to time, do things that don't make sene, but we > shouldn't encourage them. I'm not distinguishing between a legitimate attack and cheating. I'm trying to make a point that the MPAA has seen too many of it's comic movies - painting a door at the wall doesn't create a door. and slapping a ridiculous TPM on DVDs doesn't create a protection. or, to repeat myself, why should DMCA handle DVD #1 different from DVD #2 only because DVD #2 has an "authentication bit"? where is the line? what is a TPM? kaplan's says that anything, no matter how small, unimportant or crappy is a TPM. great. I'll file patent for the "authentication bit". -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 10:58:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA26311 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:58:34 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA26304 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:58:28 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:00:23 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:00:20 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/08/2001 08:00:23 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Good Point. Copyright is different than the material media. Jacky Boot's Lock analogy is rhetoric designed to blur the distinction for the public so as to accept his position without question. Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/07/01 07:16 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Tom writes: > > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > > > > I think it's withful thinking. Even if the door were unlocked, entering a > > > building without permission is trespass. Locks do not keep out professional > > > thieves only amateurs. Also, they demonstrate wilful intent which > > > eliminates any "gee it looked odd and I got curious so I just had to > > > see...." defenses. > > there's an important difference here: with DVDs, I'm not some stranger > breaking into your shop. I bought the thing, I'm the shop owner. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/109.html and especially http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/202.html Analogies to real life don't work with copyrights: the entirety of copyright is already an artificial layer of control over physical things you already own. 1201 is not all that unusual or freakish in that context; it's just that it reaches deeply into areas of life and activity outside of illegal copying. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 10:57:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA26285 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:57:29 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA26279 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:57:16 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 07:56:51 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 07:56:47 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/08/2001 07:56:51 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Your argument that unbreakable encryption would kill fair use is Well Put. It eliminates a fundamental tenet of copyright: entry into the public domain at the end of the term. Therefore, IMHO (ok not so H), it is not copyrighted if sold in the manner of personal property. I Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to arvard.edu MPAA re: DeCSS 02/07/01 07:11 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Stephen Kawamoto writes: > Instead of using the DMCA to oppress the Open Source community and > consequently threaten democracy, why doesn't the MPAA just get the DVD > cryptological licensers to redo the weak encryption so it's almost > unbreakable instead of wasting money? (1) Expense for CE vendors. (2) Expense for CE vendors. (3) It's impossible to do this and have software players for general-purpose PCs, so having "unbreakable" encryption here is an impossible goal. > Okay, sure, most strong encryption is slow, but didn't the US relax its > ban on larger key sizes for crypto? There were already exceptions available for CP systems back then, but the DVD folks didn't seem to believe these were good enough or useful. (Or maybe they had a principled objection to government restrictions on technology. Heh.) We've been a little schizophrenic on this point here. If the MPAA had a genuinely "unbreakable" CP/DRM scheme, it would still present problems for copyright traditionalists, because traditional "fair use" of material thus protected would still be impossible. On the other hand, it would then no longer be necessary in their eyes to create laws restricting publication of software like DeCSS. So, if you're in this from the "preserve fair use" side of things, unbreakable encryption would be as bad or worse, because it's being used by someone presumed to be a villain (copyright holders, who want to deny us the ability to parody or time-shift or criticize their work without paying a license fee). If you're in this from the "free speech in software" side of things, unbreakable encryption would be just fine, because it would make the presumed villains (copyright holders, who want to censor our media playing software) go away into a corner somewhere. ("May God bless and keep the Czar... far away from us!", as a copyrighted work once opined.) There are other sides of things than those two, as you can see by looking at the diversity of folks who have submitted briefs as amici curiae. Some of those people don't actually care about issues that seem crucial for other people. But there cuold be a hint in whether people focus more on the legal right to _use_ DeCSS, or the legal right to _write_ or _publish_ DeCSS. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 11:01:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26479 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:01:44 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26474 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:01:40 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:05:51 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the Amici To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:05:47 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/08/2001 08:05:51 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 2048? I'll take your word for it...incredible. Locking up history for 200yrs after an event! Of course, I doubt that the people who have been busily rewriting copyright law considered that... No I don't recommend PBS anymore. The stations here took off Dr. Who over 10yrs ago since it was deigned not to be intellectual enough for Los Angeles. Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Reflections on the arvard.edu Amici 02/07/01 07:33 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:48:10PM -0500, Ron Gustavson wrote: > On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:12:35 -0700, "John Zulauf" wrote: > > >The poor quality of modern media creations is in direct relation to the > >poverty of the public domain given 40 years of continual term extensions, > >and the lack of incentive to create novel works absent the Damaclesian > >threat real, timely, copyright term limitations pose. > > Well one question is who gets permission. We just saw Ken Burns' > Jazz on PBS. It's interesting to note that Burns built his national > reputation on still photographs and letters from the Civil War. > While he had to get permission for access to photograph these > materials, their use was unquestioned. Now, based on his reputation, > he is able to obtain permission to use film and TV footage from > non-PD sources. What hoops does the next Ken Burns have to jump > through to produce a Jazz? i am an ignorant person who doesn't watch tv including ken burns. but i believe the civil war letters and photographs were not really in the public domain since they were unpublished until burns got hold of them. for works created before 1978, but never published to the public, copyright extends 70 years after the death of the author. but if the work is subsequently published between 1978 and 2004, copyright will not expire before 2048, no matter when author died. if we want these works to enter the public domain we should encourage everyone not to publish them before 2004. otherwise it is quite possible they never will. jazz is an interesting subject for a newly copyrighted television series. jazz in its live form lacks the fixation required to copyright it. jazz also is intensely original but always builds on a common domain of public ideas and creations of others, in a form of public communication. copyrighting jazz and preventing others from using one's ideas and creations would only tend to kill jazz and turn it into an alienated form designed only to make money. as i say, i haven't viewed his jazz series, but i wonder if these tv pieces are less compilations and republishing of the original material than they are attempts to exercise control by so-called authorities of the present day on this popular culture and history. it seems to me they start from some preconceived impression of the 'truth' about a subject (which turns out to be awfully similar to the latest academic theories of their paid consultants) and dose the presentations with heavy editing and commentary to make sure viewers don't start to think for themselves. but i could be wrong. should i turn off the computer and start watching public television? or should we encourage our kids to listen to and perform real live jazz rather than collect recordings of it or watch metacommentaries about it? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 11:10:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26598 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:10:15 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26595 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:10:03 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:14:12 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:14:09 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/08/2001 08:14:12 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The reason it doesn't count as a copyright violation is that it ISN"T. Nothing in the DMCA states anything that a copyright violation must occur - only that one has circumvented something and that a violation MAY occur. The burden of proof has shifted. Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/08/01 12:05 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Joshua Stratton writes: > > But the accused purchased a copy of the material protected by the lock. > They now own that copy; property rights dictate that they use it as they > please. Copyright only restricts a few certain uses - the creation of > copies to be sold, for instance. The ability to lend or sell to those that > the author refused to do business with is protected; as a noble example, > look at libraries. The ability to modify the works for private consumption > has never been found to be harmnful to the artist who's works were legally > obtained and paid for. Works may even be destroyed, though that is > regretable. > > But in this case, the client is free to make use of the work, so long as > no copyright laws are broken. Why does the DMCA not count as a copyright law? Why does breaking the DMCA not count as breaking a copyright law? Yeah, I know it's unprecented and overturns precedent and all, and has no continuity with historical copyright and actually regulates something other than copying and something which may often be orthogonal to copying. But, it got itself into Title 17, so it's doing a pretty nice job of masquerading as a copyright law. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 11:08:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26575 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:08:49 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26571 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:08:32 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:12:21 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:12:16 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/08/2001 08:12:21 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Of course, another questiiion on this "lock" analogy is that the lock I put on my personal property is MY lock. I own that too. Another fault with the JackyBoots lock analogy is that he claims that he may sell me goods as if they were personal property yet still owns the lock. A better analogy would be a chest that he sells me. I measure it and discover that either the bottom was made of 4x4s made of balsa OR there is a secret compartment. BUT JackyBoots now tells me...NO...I didn't sell you the secret compartment too. Just the compartment above it. Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/07/01 10:37 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss But the accused purchased a copy of the material protected by the lock. They now own that copy; property rights dictate that they use it as they please. Copyright only restricts a few certain uses - the creation of copies to be sold, for instance. The ability to lend or sell to those that the author refused to do business with is protected; as a noble example, look at libraries. The ability to modify the works for private consumption has never been found to be harmnful to the artist who's works were legally obtained and paid for. Works may even be destroyed, though that is regretable. But in this case, the client is free to make use of the work, so long as no copyright laws are broken. If they wish to agree to the contract (and there is still no clear consensus in the courts as to wheter or not it is a legally binding contract) that's their business. There is no compulsion to do so. While it has been argued that contravening the EULA is willful intent to bypass a lock, it must be remembered that the lock is on a door the accused owns, that the party that placed the lock there has already been compensated, even if the door is never used or opened, and that there is no harm being done by picking or removing it. Copyright is a red herring. The accusors want to sell works, receive compensation for them, and then lay claim to individual copies of works which they no longer have any mandate over with contracts of dubious legality. On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, mickeym wrote: > That's what the DVDCCA was saying after it was pointed out that > you could get around the clickwrap by not running setup.exe, as the > setup program with license agreement is pretty much akin to the cheap > lock. Bypassing even a cheap lock demonstrates willful intent. > > mickey > > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > > I think it's withful thinking. Even if the door were unlocked, entering a > > building without permission is trespass. Locks do not keep out professional > > thieves only amateurs. Also, they demonstrate wilful intent which > > eliminates any "gee it looked odd and I got curious so I just had to > > see...." defenses. > > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > > arguments > > > > 02/07/01 03:54 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > Otoh, there is the concept of an "attrative nusiance" (iirc). That is, if > > you own a jewelry store but lock the door only with the kind of lock that > > normally goes on an 8-year old girl's diary then you bear some > > responsibility when someone breaks in to the store ... or am I just > > engaging > > in wishful thinking? > > > > -- > > -Richard M. Hartman > > hartman@onetouch.com > > > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:04 AM > > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > > > > > > At 06:03 PM 2/7/01 +0100, Tom wrote: > > > >On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:53:35AM -0800, > > > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > > > > #3 is the most dangerous. My professional opinion is > > > that the creators of > > > > > CSS are incompetent and could have benefited from reading > > > some of the IEEE > > > > > journals and Sol Golomb's book. It is fortunate that they > > > were. Triple DES > > > > > would have really complicated the matter especially if > > > the key were > > > > > embedded in an ASIC that took cipher text in and spit out > > > plaintext out. > > > > > > > >do we have an uncontested expert statement in evidence that > > > CSS is, in > > > >fact, pretty crappy? > > > > > > It doesn't matter. > > > > > > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access to a > > > work'' may > > > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace with 'has the > > > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. > > > The whole point > > > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > > > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and still import > > > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the > > > need to break 1201. > > > > > > Anything we say about how weak CSS is will most likely be > > > misinterpreted as > > > a flawed claim that it's "ineffective," so I'd stay away from > > > that line. > > > > > > --Wendy > > > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com > > > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School > > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 11:11:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26706 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:11:59 -0500 Received: from web10002.mail.yahoo.com (web10002.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.130.38]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA26703 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:11:56 -0500 Message-ID: <20010208161614.58458.qmail@web10002.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [166.90.246.162] by web10002.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 08 Feb 2001 08:16:14 PST Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:16:14 -0800 (PST) From: Larry Blunk Subject: [dvd-discuss] Symposium on the Internet and Intellectual Property Crime To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The US Patent and Trademark Office is hosting a Symposium on the Internet and Intellectual Property Crime in London next month. Details of the symposium can be found at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/iipclondon2001/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 11:16:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26795 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:16:42 -0500 Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26792 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:16:39 -0500 Received: from 66-44-68-45.s45.tnt8.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([66.44.68.45]) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #5) id 14QtoX-0002Mh-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 08 Feb 2001 11:20:57 -0500 Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 11:19:25 EST From: Jeremy Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments X-Mailer: Spruce 0.6.5 for X11 w/smtpio 0.7.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > Look at the people vs Larry Flynt for a perfect example. > > Flynt basically is one of the most flamboyant pornographers in the > > business (and that IS saying a lot), and the lower court found him > guilty > > of obscenity just based on his reputation. The higher up the system it > went, > > the less that Flynt's personality affected the court's judgement, and > the > > more the facts of the case spoke. > > > > Er - hang on a minute! "The People vs. Larry Flynt" was a *movie* dammit! > The > reason the higher courts sided with him as the story unfolded was because > that's what it said in the script! > > We can't assume we'll be treated in anything like the same way. See (among others) Hustler v. Falwell 485 US 46 (1988) Flynt v. Ohio 451 US 619 (1981) I have not seen the film, so I am unaware of what liberties Forman took. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 11:18:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26834 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:18:50 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26831 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:18:47 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:22:53 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:22:51 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/08/2001 08:22:53 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes. The first arguement is that they are NOT entitled to the the protection of the law should they choose to use access controls, encryption, etc, The Second argument is that if they choose this form of "self help" in advance of any infringment, they are also NOT entitled to now claim that they ARE protected. The are estopped from claiming it. "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/08/01 05:30 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss tom@lemuria.org writes: > 2.) to repeat myself: you can't fix a broken car by making engine > failures illegal. Badly flawed analogy. Cars are legitimate articles of commerce, with up front, legal purposes. The designed purpose of CSS is to take away viewers' fair use rights, which is not a legitimate thing for the movie studios to do. > it's not the job of the law to cover up the stupidity > of the movie mafia. the law should protect you if, and only if, you > make an effort of protecting yourself first. Expressing the situation this way tacitly concedes the that the movie studios are entitled to the form of "protection" offered by CSS (i.e., protection against their movies being played by equipment that they haven't vetted directly). > while I see the problem of courts making decisions about the quality of > encryption, let's not forget that similiar decisions ARE made by courts > on other areas. for example, there's been a famous case where a rape > victim was very upset about the verdict, which was extremely low with > the argument that she made ZERO effort of resisting the attack, in fact > so little that the attacker just might have believed she consents. > I don't know the precise circumstances, so I can't argue on whether or > not that judge was insane or it made sense in the context. the point is > that courts DO already pass judgements of very similiar kinds. I hate to repeat myself, but remember Schneier's story about the NSA guy: Several years ago I was talking with an NSA employee about a particular exploit. He told the story about how a system was broken; it was a sneaky attack, one that I didn't think should even count. "That's cheating," I said. He looked at me as if I'd just arrived from Neptune. Cheating is one of the basic tenets of security engineering. ... Good attackers cheat. He wasn't saying that your distinction between legitimate attacks and "circumvention" is hard to draw --- he was saying that the NSA guy was right; it *doesn't make sense*. Courts may, from time to time, do things that don't make sene, but we shouldn't encourage them. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 11:21:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26898 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:21:49 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26894 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:21:46 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:25:58 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:25:55 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/08/2001 08:25:57 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Read the USSC decision on the case. I have. It's clear that several Justices thought that Larry Flynt's ad was very distasteful but upheld it as political comment. "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/08/01 07:29 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss John Galt wrote: > On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > >>Should we not be considering these cases (and all the others that I've not > >>thought of) and preparing defences against them? > > > > > >I think its pretty clear that they're going to push the fourth prong you > >have above. Judge Kaplan seemed to indicate that his perception of 2600 as > >being a bunch of evil internet hackers was the main consideration he had. > > Then the appeal is won before it starts. > Don't assume *anything*! > Traditionally, higher courts > have focused more on the utility of the message rather than the reputation of > the messenger. > We can't rely on that. We'd better be ready with the best proof we can come up with that the internet community is home to productive honest people doing good works for America's benefit. True, there are some villains out there too, we can't deny that, but then there are villains who use the 'phone, but that doesn't mean that the "phone community" are inherently evil. The judges will themselves almost certainly be users of phones, yet they'd resent being labelled as bad people just because mafia bosses have phones too, and likewise terrorists and child-molesters. > Look at the people vs Larry Flynt for a perfect example. > Flynt basically is one of the most flamboyant pornographers in the > business (and that IS saying a lot), and the lower court found him guilty > of obscenity just based on his reputation. The higher up the system it went, > the less that Flynt's personality affected the court's judgement, and the > more the facts of the case spoke. > Er - hang on a minute! "The People vs. Larry Flynt" was a *movie* dammit! The reason the higher courts sided with him as the story unfolded was because that's what it said in the script! We can't assume we'll be treated in anything like the same way. > >How can we show who the true community is? Is there some sort of survey or > >petition we can construct, to show what the demographics are of > >pro-DeCSSers? I'm sure that, while there are plenty of stereotypical > >"hackers" who want DeCSS, there are also plenty of wage-slaves, upper > >management, lawyers, artists, and other people that can't be smeared as > >effectively. I'm not sure what the first step is to compiling those > >statistics, but we need some way to stand up and be counted. > > We can do this, but it's mostly wasted effort for reasons I've enumerated > above. Effort against the messenger attack are just going to end up > expending resources against a feint. > But do it anyway! Some of the posters to this list came up with a list of what systems the movie companies themselves entrust with running *their* web-sites. I forget the numbers, but it was at least half running un*x type systems, and something like 75% running Apache. When it comes to defending internet against claims of being a pirate hell, I thing a three-prong defence is possible: 1) As above, compile statistics showing the open-source community working for the good of (in this case) the movie companies, or (next time maybe) corporate America. Trouble is, that statistics are volatile, and the enemy might be able to manipulate similar studies to show the opposite. If so we need to at least be able to stalemate such claims and move onto point 2.... 2) As with the example of the 'telephone community' above, try and make it pretty obvious that though any community may contain villains, that is no excuse to villify all the members of that community, nor to assume that that community will suddenly engage in destroying the multi-billion dollar movie industry (or anyone else). 3) (This will be more fun) Demonstrate to a court that the spectre of internet villains copying DVDs at full quality is a red herring. It is probably sensible to accept that internet copying and exchange of MPEG-1 or DiVX movies does happen and will continue to happen. But here it in necessary to make sure that it is obvious to a court that MPEG-1 or DiVX movies are in no way the "bit for bit perfect copies" feared by Hollywood. As a side issue of that, can we arrange to create some short MPEG-1 clips mastered digitally direct from the DVD and from analong-capturing the VHS tape versions of a movie? The aim would be to show that the resulting MPEG-1 files look pretty much the same, and thus 'prove' that the existence of deCSS has no effect on the production or otherwise of MPEG-1 copies of movies. The game here is to try and "wall off" the internet movie pirate community from affecting the outcome of this case. We can't deny that they exist - even if we can show that they are a tiny minority, but we should be able to show that their game was going on before deCSS emerged and will continue unaffected by its existence. Maybe we don't need this defence, but can we at least have one in place? Preferably complete with all the hardware pre-built ready in case the defence team need to run the demo in court to prove the point. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 11:26:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27044 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:26:19 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27040 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:26:14 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:30:13 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Symposium on the Internet and Intellectual Property Crime To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:30:09 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/08/2001 08:30:12 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The US of A is hosting it in London......Why does that not surprise me yet offends me greatly? Larry Blunk To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Symposium on the Internet arvard.edu and Intellectual Property Crime 02/08/01 08:25 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss The US Patent and Trademark Office is hosting a Symposium on the Internet and Intellectual Property Crime in London next month. Details of the symposium can be found at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/iipclondon2001/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 13:03:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28058 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:03:40 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28055 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:03:27 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA08987 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:07:02 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:06:57 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS Message-ID: <20010208130656.A8900@eldritchpress.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 07:56:47AM -0800 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 07:56:47AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > Your argument that unbreakable encryption would kill fair use is Well Put. > It eliminates a fundamental tenet of copyright: entry into the public > domain at the end of the term. Therefore, IMHO (ok not so H), it is not > copyrighted if sold in the manner of personal property. quite so, it violates the fundamental bargain of copyright NOT to allow the work to enter the public domain at end of term. (the u.s. copyright office does not agree with us.) consider the situation of 'smart encryption' that automatically permanently decrypts the work once the copyright term (agreed upon at time of publication) is reached. what would be wrong with that concept? let's do a thought experiment. first, there is a problem using the same encryption method to protect works still under copyright, as those that enter the public domain. presumably the publisher would have to release some instructions on how to decrypt the work, since the 'automatic' method would not work in all cases. there is no platform support for such a procedure currently. without that, it would be a violation of the dmca to distribute any information on how to decrypt the work, if doing so allows users to decrypt other works still under copyright. (it makes no difference if the distributor is a hacker or the holder of the copyright in the underlying work or the dvd-cca itself.) second, public domain is not entirely by definition composed of works in which term is exceeded. one can argue that fair use is always implied by copyright; the public has a right to use the work in the way intended and copyright is not supposed to be a legal protection to lock up works and prevent fair use or even any use at all. thus encryption that is tied only to copyright term, but that also prevents any fair use, would again be a violation of the implied contract of statutory copyright. third, works that have entered the public domain have been encrypted by publishers and sold; the dmca allows them to be locked up and technologically protected in violation of the spirit of copyright. example: 'alice in wonderland,' taken from the project gutenberg text and locked up in adobe glassbok e-book format--not even available to be read to blind readers. why should this encryption method be protected from 'hackers' when the underlying work is not under copyright? the dmca is cleverly written to use government criminal power to enforce publisher interests and prevent anyone from sharing methods to decrypt, even in this case. consequently, there is a good argument that encryption and copyright are fundamentally opposed concepts. copyright is intended to be a legal protection to encourage open publication of ideas and expressions, not to preserve 'property' rights. encryption is intended to protect trade secrets, to allow unpublished works to be protected by a technological mechanism, not by the legal protection of copyright. the dmca tries, unfortunately, to marry these disparate concepts, and in doing so has created a bastard child that fits in neither family. in opposing the dmca, both encryption technologists and public domain advocates have a strong case if we join forces. the problem is in explaining this to the general public. many people have a hard time accepting that napster or gnutella users can 'share' music online without paying the authors or copyright holders. but when the debate is in more familiar terms, that of public librares or used bookstores being killed off to increase publisher corporate profits, then we might have a better chance of persuading the american voters of the freedoms they are losing. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 13:09:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28202 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:09:57 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28199 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:09:56 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id KAA25227 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:14:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma008137; Thu, 8 Feb 01 09:37:00 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Thu, 08 Feb 2001 09:38:32 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id KAA19626; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:36:58 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:45:59 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c091f6$ff5de5e0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 169C0612673841-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Michael A. Rolenz > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 5:04 PM > Exactly. Were the scheme unbreakable, or infeasible/ uneconomic > to crack no > law would be required. Well depending on the copyright holders intended usage, we might need a law to stop them from doing this. "No access, no publication. No publication, no copright protection." >They have also attempted to legislate > something that > is counter to the fundamental tenet of crytology. The only protection a > system has is knowledge of the key (even if the algorithm is protected). The problem isn't legislating protection to "access" -- but not limiting the definition of "access" to "first access" (cable boxes, PPV, first sale). After "first access" is authorized -- anything I choose to do with the signal must be regarded as legal, fair use, barring a showing in a copyright infringement suit that it is not. Further the law should be clear that any access control subsequent to "first access" is copyright abuse and voids the copyright. The definition of "circumvention" is also problematic. Let's say a "first access" system is not available for a particular software platform**. Circumvention should be defined not as violating the sanctity of the "first access" control system -- but doing so in a way that defrauds the copyright holder. Thus a Linux Divex (Circuit City) player that interoperated with the online payment system in full accord with the license agreement would not be circumvention even if the player were unauthorized. Likewise a software PPV cable access subsystem would not be circumvention if it respect the terms and conditions for access to the PPV channel. However an open source cable box emulator that cracked the pay channels without the appropriate compensation to the cable company would be circumvention. Once you refine "access" control to only "first access" (where access authorization is implied by first sale for unlimited view content -- explicitly), and "circumvention" and decrpyting or descrambling in such a way as to defraud then I think the horribles in terms of loss of fair use are avoided, and a valid, reasonable mechanism to reward "authors" for their "writings" is preserved. John Zulauf private netizen ** actually, once you take away the restraints on post "first access" use, then the compatibility to a given platform is less troublesome. Would you a critically a PPV access system for your Linux PC if your cable box, VCR, TiVO, etc had open standard, clear text interface that could be attached to the home-area network? Expanding control past first access requires the access control system to be hacked in order to achieve the "fair use" space and time shifting, et. al. Limiting access control to first access localizes the problem, making it far less intrusive, and less necessary to crack. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 13:50:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28555 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:50:10 -0500 Received: from rasputin.trustix.com (rasputin.trustix.com [195.139.104.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28552 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:50:08 -0500 Received: from trustix.com (singsing.trustix.com [195.139.105.100]) by rasputin.trustix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D4E61E80 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 19:56:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A82EB94.5EE66E1D@trustix.com> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 19:55:16 +0100 From: Lars Gaarden Organization: Trustix AS X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1-ac4-rrvmfix i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C References: <000701c0913d$4a709a60$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Zulauf wrote: > > If you really want to understand where the media industry wants to go to the > 4C website http://www.dvdcca.org/4centity/ and explore, understand, and > weep, grieve, or rage. > > As I cited in my LOC comments > http://www.loc.gov/copyright/reports/studies/dmca/comments/Init011.pdf the > CPSA is the death of fair use and first sale as viable users rights. For those who have not read it yet, this WIPO report is also recommended reading to get the whole picture: http://www.wipo.org/eng/meetings/1999/wct_wppt/pdf/imp99_3.pdf WORKSHOP ON IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES OF THE WIPO COPYRIGHT TREATY (WCT) AND THE WIPO PERFORMANCES AND PHONOGRAMS TREATY (WPPT) Geneva, December 6 and 7, 1999 TECHNICAL PROTECTION MEASURES: THE INTERSECTION OF TECHNOLOGY, LAW AND COMMERCIAL LICENSES by Dean S. Marks * and Bruce H. Turnbull ** * Senior Counsel Intellectual Property, Time Warner Inc., Burbank, California ** Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Washington, D.C. It clearly shows that the three-prong attack using TPM, anti- circumvention laws and licensing regimes was no accident, but was a deliberate plan from the beginning. -- "I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one of these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw out reverse engineering; he threw out linking." - Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 14:25:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA28854 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:25:53 -0500 Received: from charon.cargill.com (charon.cargill.com [167.136.225.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA28851 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:25:43 -0500 Received: from hermes.cargill.com (hermes.cargill.com [167.136.226.140]) by charon.cargill.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA01021 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:29:57 -0600 (CST) Received: from cdmpls02m.cdpoly.cargill.com (cdmpls02m.cdpoly.cargill.com [10.25.1.21]) by hermes.cargill.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA26891 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:29:56 -0600 (CST) Received: by cdmpls02m.cdpoly.cargill.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1P378QYG>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:27:41 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Kroll, Dave" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:27:41 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The whole problem with the shrinkwrap license is that they want to sell you software, DVDs, etc AS if it were personal property, but then claim that it is a license by putting a stupid "click me" button. All logical, common-law arguments aside, I noticed the other day that the Disney ads for the movie _Dinosaur_ proclaim, "Own it on DVD". (Just like many others, I'm sure.) It's a little bait-and-switchy of them to tender a licensing offer once you've gotten the disc home. David Kroll From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 14:31:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29006 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:31:37 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29003 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:31:36 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30NF8>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:50:12 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:50:11 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom [mailto:tom@lemuria.org] ... > > > > 1.) I believe it is pretty clear that the intention of the law can NOT > be that ANYTHING, no matter how primitive, serves as an "effectively > controls access". I believe that the key to understanding the legal interpetation of that sentance lies in the ambiguity of the word "effectively". Most of us engineer-type people are reading this as a measure of effeciency. I believe that -not- to be the legal meaning. I believe the legal use of the term "effectively" is more along the lines of "has the effect of". This is perhaps unusual usage as far as commonly understood usage of the term, it is nonetheless legitimate usage. I do not believe that we will get anywhere arguing on the ... efficiency ? ... of the TPM chosen (CSS) based upon the use of the word "effectively" in the text of the law. >if that were so, the whole thing becomes meaningless > and the requirement for any TPM can be dropped altogether as cost > reduction and simplification will let it disappear over time. > if in the > extreme case a single "authentication bit" counts - and kaplan's > argument thought through to the end leads to that - then there is, for > all practical purposes, no TPM. there is just something that > pretends to > be one in order to fullfill a semantic in the law. > > 2.) to repeat myself: you can't fix a broken car by making engine > failures illegal. No, but as someone pointed out in response to one of my msgs, trespass is still illegal even if you didn't lock the door. Likewise, copyright violation is still copyright violation even if -no- TPM is used. And to me, that is the crux of the matter: prosecution should be based upon the actual violation of the copyright -- i.e. improper usage of the material -- and not whether you bypassed some protection mechanism. It is already acknowledged that there are legitimate uses to be made of the material, and that the only way to gain access to that material is being blocked by the aforementioned TPM. Therefore to excercise your rights to legitimate uses you are -forced- to bypass the mechanism. The law is in contradiction with itself if it focusses upon the mechanism and not the use to which the material is put after access is gained. >it's not the job of the law to cover up the > stupidity > of the movie mafia. the law should protect you if, and only if, you > make an effort of protecting yourself first. Nope. Sorry, that is not what copyright is about. Copyright law is there actually so you shouldn't feel the need to take elaborate protective measures because you are protected by the law itself. The DMCA is effectively sanctioning prior restraint as a legitimate tactic in enforcing copyright law. (Hey, has it been put that way in any of the briefs yet? The more different ways we can say it, the better chance of it getting through ...) >what I want to outrule is abuse of the law by slapping on something >that has the sole purpose of forcing your work under the DMCA. the law >should PROTECT, not REPLACE an effective access control. Yes and no. Yes, you shouldn't be able to gain additional protections by slapping on a tin lock. But this is because the existing protections in copyright law should be sufficient. The law should (and does) protect even -without- an effective access control. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 14:39:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29138 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:39:14 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29133 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:39:11 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id LAA12814; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:43:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma021287; Thu, 8 Feb 01 10:59:29 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Thu, 08 Feb 2001 11:01:01 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id LAA23629; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:59:27 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: lmlivingston@facstaff.wisc.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Intellectual Property Conference Announcement Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:08:29 -0700 Message-ID: <001901c09202$855676c0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 169C3367689701-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Lisa, per your comments I did review the materials on the conference website http://ipconference.education.wisc.edu/index.html. While still concerned about the equal representation issue, I wanted to follow up to ensure you did not feel unfair flamed by the reaction your announcement drew from the group. After reviewing the full speaker list I am still quite concern that the user community, "fair use" community, first amendment/traditional balance of copyright community, and open source community (think of a cross section of this mailing list), are not as well represented as the IP / "forever minus one day" / natural law copyright community. Reviewing the program, there is far to much space for the IP industry to espouse their view on digital v. copyright, but little coverage for the concept that the traditional balance of the copyright is in danger from the aggressive political and legal tactics of Sorkin, et. al. However I wanted to commend you on the excellent information available on your site especially the "Related links" page http://ipconference.education.wisc.edu/link.html . Oddly the links seem as overbalanced toward the dangers of the death of the intellectual commons as the program is to the other extreme. Best Regards, John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 14:38:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29122 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:38:33 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29119 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:38:32 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA09743 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:42:51 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:42:51 -0500 (EST) From: Ole Craig To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 02/08/01 at 13:27, 'twas brillig and Kroll, Dave scrobe: > The whole problem with > the shrinkwrap license is that they want to sell you software, DVDs, > etc AS > if it were personal property, but then claim that it is a license by > putting a stupid "click me" button. > > All logical, common-law arguments aside, I noticed the other day that the > Disney > ads for the movie _Dinosaur_ proclaim, "Own it on DVD". (Just like many > others, > I'm sure.) It's a little bait-and-switchy of them to tender a licensing > offer once > you've gotten the disc home. Too bad that -- absent a remand -- the evidentiary phase of the trial is over. "Your honor, the plaintiffs seem to have a convenient problem differentiating between licensing and ownership. The law should not be taken in by their contrived ingenuousness." Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 14:40:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29208 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:40:25 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29205 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:40:23 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f18JhZf00823 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:43:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A82F700.4BF10228@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 14:44:00 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd Subject: [dvd-discuss] Valenti wants more laws Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010207/re/movies_valenti_dc_1.html "``Why on earth would you need more than one copy? Everything you want to copy you'll be able to copy one time,'' he said." "``The minute you give one professor the keys to the kingdom you're going to be ransacked,'' he said. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 15:09:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA29464 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:09:29 -0500 Received: from mail3.doit.wisc.edu (mail3.doit.wisc.edu [144.92.9.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA29461 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:09:28 -0500 Received: from [128.104.41.187] by mail3.doit.wisc.edu id OAA16982 (8.9.1/50); Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:13:46 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001901c09202$855676c0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> References: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:21:43 -0600 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Lisa Livingston Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Intellectual Property Conference Announcement Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John, Thanks for your comments. I am less concerned about the imbalance than you. I know how genuinely committed to the "fair use" community a number of our speakers are. And as I mentioned before, we are waiting for confirmation from a few invited speakers. I will keep you - and the list - up to date regarding additional speakers. We confirmed Manus Cooney, Vice President for Corporate and Policy Development at Napster yesterday. John, you should consider attending the conference. There will be several "private netizens" there. Regards, Lisa >Lisa, > >per your comments I did review the materials on the conference website >http://ipconference.education.wisc.edu/index.html. While still concerned >about the equal representation issue, I wanted to follow up to ensure you >did not feel unfair flamed by the reaction your announcement drew from the >group. > >After reviewing the full speaker list I am still quite concern that the user >community, "fair use" community, first amendment/traditional balance of >copyright community, and open source community (think of a cross section of >this mailing list), are not as well represented as the IP / "forever minus >one day" / natural law copyright community. Reviewing the program, there is >far to much space for the IP industry to espouse their view on digital v. >copyright, but little coverage for the concept that the traditional balance >of the copyright is in danger from the aggressive political and legal >tactics of Sorkin, et. al. > >However I wanted to commend you on the excellent information available on >your site especially the "Related links" page >http://ipconference.education.wisc.edu/link.html . Oddly the links seem as >overbalanced toward the dangers of the death of the intellectual commons as >the program is to the other extreme. > > >Best Regards, > >John Zulauf >private netizen Lisa Livingston Director, Instructional Media Development Center University of Wisconsin/School of Education 142 Education Science Building 1025 W. Johnson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53706 V: 608.262.3431 F:608.262.6447 livingston@education.wisc.edu or lmlivingston@facstaff.wisc.edu http://imdc.education.wisc.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 15:13:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA29576 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:13:18 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA29571 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:13:06 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA09179 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:16:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:16:37 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz Message-ID: <20010208151636.C8900@eldritchpress.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu as a followup to the earlier discussion on copyrighting jazz, see the new scientist 7 feb 2001 article at http://www.newscientist.com/dailynews/news.jsp?id=ns9999400 soon anyone who creates a jazz riff will be able to play the creation into a pc and have a search engine find out who actually 'owns' that sequence of notes so the person can pay the copyright owner. no doubt this will be applied by law to live music so that copyright owners will be able to use computer power to collect automatically royalties on public performances of 'their' music. or it could prevent or censor the expression in realtime if compulsory licensing is not allowed. surely this will allow computers and the internet to make possible new 'freedoms' in creating music such as jazz. a like technology for automatic payment for quoting copyrighted or trademarked words and like expressions awaits entrepreneurship. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 15:15:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA29633 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:15:08 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA29628 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:15:05 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id MAA27760 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:19:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma005165; Thu, 8 Feb 01 11:27:41 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Thu, 08 Feb 2001 11:29:13 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA24746; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:27:39 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:36:40 -0700 Message-ID: <002201c09206$75b48dc0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <20010208130656.A8900@eldritchpress.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 169C2C03695325-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Eric, going through the CTEA challenge, can you give any practical advice as to how to bring a legal challenge to this issue of the incompatibility of post-first-access / post-first-sale encryption of copyrighted material. Suggestion for ground to challenge (1) Facial challenge to DMCA for allow unconstitutional post-first-access TPM's (2) Copyright abuse challenge for eBooks, DVD's, et. al. (any in particular) And then who would "have standing" to challenge, and finally what orgainzations would be up for this sort of fight? EFF, ACLU, ALA, CETUS, who? If the appeals court overturns 2600 too narrowly, we will need yet another case to challenge the rest of what you so well argue below. Practical information to prime the process for the next step would be handy IMHO. John Zulauf private netizen Eric Eldred Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 11:07 AM > first, there is a problem using the same encryption method > to protect works still under copyright, as those that enter > the public domain. ... > second, public domain is not entirely by definition composed > of works in which term is exceeded. one can argue that fair > use is always implied by copyright; ... > third, works that have entered the public domain have been > encrypted by publishers and sold; the dmca allows them to > be locked up and technologically protected in violation of > the spirit of copyright. ... > consequently, there is a good argument that encryption and > copyright are fundamentally opposed concepts. copyright is > intended to be a legal protection to encourage open > publication of ideas and expressions, not to preserve > 'property' rights. ... From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 15:27:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA29770 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:27:23 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f59.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.59]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA29765 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:27:21 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:31:09 -0800 Received: from 208.41.124.41 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2001 20:31:09 GMT X-Originating-IP: [208.41.124.41] From: "Richard Ramos" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 20:31:09 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Feb 2001 20:31:09.0959 (UTC) FILETIME=[123D7970:01C0920E] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu You should use this in a case. When they say that to view a DVD, you agree to a license. Just play back the commercial and ask them what "Own" means? Might be funny to see the looks on thier faces. Richard Ramos ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Kroll, Dave" Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:27:41 -0600 The whole problem with the shrinkwrap license is that they want to sell you software, DVDs, etc AS if it were personal property, but then claim that it is a license by putting a stupid "click me" button. All logical, common-law arguments aside, I noticed the other day that the Disney ads for the movie _Dinosaur_ proclaim, "Own it on DVD". (Just like many others, I'm sure.) It's a little bait-and-switchy of them to tender a licensing offer once you've gotten the disc home. David Kroll _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 15:30:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA29898 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:30:42 -0500 Received: from attila.stevens-tech.edu (khockenb@attila.stevens-tech.edu [155.246.14.11]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA29894 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:30:39 -0500 Received: from localhost (khockenb@localhost) by attila.stevens-tech.edu (SGI-8.9.3/8.9.3/7) with ESMTP id PAA59434 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:34:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:34:57 -0500 From: Kurt Hockenbury To: dvd Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti wants more laws In-Reply-To: <3A82F700.4BF10228@mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, mickeym wrote: > From: > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010207/re/movies_valenti_dc_1.html > Jack Velenti wanting more laws brings to mind something I was thinking about recently: Congress (and other politicians) seem to love passing laws. Personally, I think the number of laws a congressman helps pass is a very poor metric of how good a job he or she is doing, but it seems to be one people use, and thus one the congress-critters strive for. Therefore (as much as it pains the libertarian within me to say it), we too should be lobbying for more laws -- But laws of _our_ choosing, rather than the MPAA/RIAA/etc. Things like "The Fair Use Act of 2002", "The Patent System Reform Bill", and so forth. -Kurt BTW, Interesting quote from the article: "According to a study by research firm Economists Inc., copyright industries accounted for 4.94 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, more than any other manufacturing sector." ...so copyright industries account for about 5% of the U.S. GDP. What if the US were to *totally* eliminate copyright? Anyone care to speculate on how much the U.S. GDP would be affected? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 15:43:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30109 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:43:37 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA30106 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:43:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02876 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:47:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:47:21 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Richard Hartman wrote: > And to me, that is the crux of the matter: prosecution should be > based upon the actual violation of the copyright -- i.e. improper > usage of the material -- and not whether you bypassed some protection > mechanism. It is already acknowledged that there are legitimate uses Yes, but let's not accidently go down the path that the MPAA wants us to. Copyright violations aren't improper uses of the material (barring public performances) but are more centered around improperly made copies of the material. Usage is irrelevant; it's all good. Playing a legal copy of a DVD in any player at all, licensed or not is not a copyright infringement, though it is a use that they aren't happy about. This is what the circumvention provisions are for, and while they might seem to be a giant barring our way from being able to use, enjoy and create materials we mustn't let ourselves be fooled that the giant is standing on anything but thin air. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 15:43:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30095 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:43:14 -0500 Received: from mail01-oak.pilot.net (mail-oak-1.pilot.net [198.232.147.16]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA30090 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:43:11 -0500 Received: from msd-gw.hitachi.com (msd.hitachi.com [206.189.5.161]) by mail01-oak.pilot.net with ESMTP id MAA07818 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from hicam-msd.hitachi.com (thunder [137.168.16.3]) by msd-gw.hitachi.com with ESMTP id MAA10029 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:41:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from karsten.hicam-msd.hitachi.com (karsten [137.168.48.210]) by hicam-msd.hitachi.com with ESMTP id MAA06999 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:41:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by karsten.hicam-msd.hitachi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <13L4Y254>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:42:57 -0800 Message-ID: From: Steve Benedict To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] RE: [DVD-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:42:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu As long as we are analyzing arguments from the other side, take a look at the Macrovision white paper on the "digital threat" of CD-ROM pirating in the SOHO market. http://www.macrovision.com/images/CD-ROM_Copying_Trends.pdf This seems to get quoted to scare publishers and is analogized to the potential for DVD pirating. Any comments or rebuttals? stevebb -----Original Message----- From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:37 AM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C If you really want to understand where the media industry wants to go to the 4C website http://www.dvdcca.org/4centity/ and explore, understand, and weep, grieve, or rage. As I cited in my LOC comments http://www.loc.gov/copyright/reports/studies/dmca/comments/Init011.pdf the CPSA is the death of fair use and first sale as viable users rights. Note that the CPSA spec is now downloadable (which is was not when I wrote my comment AFAIK) -- but the ironic reality remains. If the CPSA spec where protected by the schemes proposed in the CPSA, no critique or disclosure (aside from manual transcription to paper) would be possible. Somehow the courts need to see that the logical conclusion of a comprehensive "lockbox" for copyright works has no logical bounds to simply audio, visual works. It can be applied to the schemes that would bind us themselves, and to the broad discourse that constitutes our culture. Under CPSA protections, first source citation or quotation would be impossible by any but the established media. Without the ability for individuals to quote, disclaim, dennounce, exposed and critique, the whole of first amendment protections are worthless. With the special status of the media cartels under the CPSA, "some pigs are more equal than others." > -----Original Message----- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 15:44:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30177 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:44:25 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA30133 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:44:07 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA09248 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:47:39 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:47:34 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti wants more laws Message-ID: <20010208154734.D8900@eldritchpress.org> References: <3A82F700.4BF10228@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <3A82F700.4BF10228@mindspring.com>; from mickeym@mindspring.com on Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:44:00PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:44:00PM -0500, mickeym wrote: > > From: > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010207/re/movies_valenti_dc_1.html > > "``Why on earth would you need more than one copy? Everything you want > to copy you'll be able to copy one time,'' he said." > > "``The minute you give one professor the keys to the kingdom you're > going to be ransacked,'' he said. > > mickeym ``More and more, as you're talking to congressmen, they're understanding (the importance of the issue),'' said Valenti, who spoke at a lunch by the Free Speech Foundation. The Free Speech Foundation???? Is that different from the Free Software Foundation? Who is talking to congressmen about the other side and why don't they get free lunches and Reuters stories too? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 15:52:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA30421 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:52:31 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA30416 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:52:30 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id MAA13316 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:56:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma022068; Thu, 8 Feb 01 12:05:57 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Thu, 08 Feb 2001 12:07:29 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA27338; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:05:54 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:14:55 -0700 Message-ID: <002301c0920b$cd789060$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <3A82EB94.5EE66E1D@trustix.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 169C230B707475-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Lars Gaarden > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 11:55 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C > > > John Zulauf wrote: > > > > If you really want to understand where the media industry wants > to go to the > > 4C website http://www.dvdcca.org/4centity/ and explore, understand, and > > weep, grieve, or rage. > > > > As I cited in my LOC comments > > > http://www.loc.gov/copyright/reports/studies/dmca/comments/Init011.pdf the > > CPSA is the death of fair use and first sale as viable users rights. > > For those who have not read it yet, this WIPO report is also > recommended reading to get the whole picture: > http://www.wipo.org/eng/meetings/1999/wct_wppt/pdf/imp99_3.pdf > the development and implementation of copy protection technologies and structures requires co-operation and compromise among the content, consumer electronics, computer and other relevant industries Note that the consumer rights aren't even a concern here. Note also the appeal for collusion -- we each not going to get ALL we want -- but if we work together... Current efforts at building copy protection structures have demonstrated the need for a three-pronged approach. The first prong involves the development of technical protection measures and the making available of such measures on reasonable terms. The second prong consists of laws that support protection technologies and prohibit the circumvention of such technologies. The third prong involves cross-industry negotiations and licenses of technical protection measures. These licenses impose obligations to ensure that when access is granted to works protected by the technical measures, appropriate copy control and usage rules are followed. This paper will examine all three prongs and describe why all of these elements are necessary. Isn't this sort of collusion illegal under the anti-trust laws? It is a broad, obvious, intentional, and international conspiracy to control the means and formats of distribution, to influence laws to support these means and then enter into a cross-industry (not just industry wide) collusion to standardize on these means and finally to strong-arm 2nd tier players with licenses that impose the cartel's agenda. This seems as bold face as Microsoft's alleged suggestion to "divide the browser market" with Netscape -- do we having a smoking gun here? Note the chilling footnote: Similar concerns, however, exist for text and literary works (including computer software) and some of the general principles discussed in this paper may apply in those contexts. They're not just after video works... they want to revert all the way back to the pre-"Statute of Anne" -- "Charter of the Stationers' Company." The frighten aspect of that charter of course was the capacity for censorship, when all means of distribution are controlled. John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 16:00:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA30520 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:00:48 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA30516 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:00:45 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:05:00 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:04:59 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/08/2001 01:05:00 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I agree. Encryption, by its very nature, attempts to keep information secret. This is diametrically opposed to a free and open exchange and availability. It creates a fundamental contradiction. If encryption is to be allowed, then copyright protection must not be extended to those works at any time or manner. Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to arvard.edu MPAA re: DeCSS 02/08/01 10:10 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 07:56:47AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > Your argument that unbreakable encryption would kill fair use is Well Put. > It eliminates a fundamental tenet of copyright: entry into the public > domain at the end of the term. Therefore, IMHO (ok not so H), it is not > copyrighted if sold in the manner of personal property. quite so, it violates the fundamental bargain of copyright NOT to allow the work to enter the public domain at end of term. (the u.s. copyright office does not agree with us.) consider the situation of 'smart encryption' that automatically permanently decrypts the work once the copyright term (agreed upon at time of publication) is reached. what would be wrong with that concept? let's do a thought experiment. first, there is a problem using the same encryption method to protect works still under copyright, as those that enter the public domain. presumably the publisher would have to release some instructions on how to decrypt the work, since the 'automatic' method would not work in all cases. there is no platform support for such a procedure currently. without that, it would be a violation of the dmca to distribute any information on how to decrypt the work, if doing so allows users to decrypt other works still under copyright. (it makes no difference if the distributor is a hacker or the holder of the copyright in the underlying work or the dvd-cca itself.) second, public domain is not entirely by definition composed of works in which term is exceeded. one can argue that fair use is always implied by copyright; the public has a right to use the work in the way intended and copyright is not supposed to be a legal protection to lock up works and prevent fair use or even any use at all. thus encryption that is tied only to copyright term, but that also prevents any fair use, would again be a violation of the implied contract of statutory copyright. third, works that have entered the public domain have been encrypted by publishers and sold; the dmca allows them to be locked up and technologically protected in violation of the spirit of copyright. example: 'alice in wonderland,' taken from the project gutenberg text and locked up in adobe glassbok e-book format--not even available to be read to blind readers. why should this encryption method be protected from 'hackers' when the underlying work is not under copyright? the dmca is cleverly written to use government criminal power to enforce publisher interests and prevent anyone from sharing methods to decrypt, even in this case. consequently, there is a good argument that encryption and copyright are fundamentally opposed concepts. copyright is intended to be a legal protection to encourage open publication of ideas and expressions, not to preserve 'property' rights. encryption is intended to protect trade secrets, to allow unpublished works to be protected by a technological mechanism, not by the legal protection of copyright. the dmca tries, unfortunately, to marry these disparate concepts, and in doing so has created a bastard child that fits in neither family. in opposing the dmca, both encryption technologists and public domain advocates have a strong case if we join forces. the problem is in explaining this to the general public. many people have a hard time accepting that napster or gnutella users can 'share' music online without paying the authors or copyright holders. but when the debate is in more familiar terms, that of public librares or used bookstores being killed off to increase publisher corporate profits, then we might have a better chance of persuading the american voters of the freedoms they are losing. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 16:04:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA30687 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:04:13 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA30684 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:04:11 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:08:22 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:08:20 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/08/2001 01:08:22 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu False advertising too...but then they didn't say what owning it means did they? "Kroll, Dave" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments 02/08/01 11:32 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss The whole problem with the shrinkwrap license is that they want to sell you software, DVDs, etc AS if it were personal property, but then claim that it is a license by putting a stupid "click me" button. All logical, common-law arguments aside, I noticed the other day that the Disney ads for the movie _Dinosaur_ proclaim, "Own it on DVD". (Just like many others, I'm sure.) It's a little bait-and-switchy of them to tender a licensing offer once you've gotten the disc home. David Kroll From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 16:07:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA30818 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:07:18 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA30814 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:07:10 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:11:18 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti wants more laws To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:11:16 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/08/2001 01:11:18 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "let him rave, so all shall know him mad." mickeym To: dvd Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Valenti wants more laws arvard.edu 02/08/01 11:47 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss From: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010207/re/movies_valenti_dc_1.html "``Why on earth would you need more than one copy? Everything you want to copy you'll be able to copy one time,'' he said." "``The minute you give one professor the keys to the kingdom you're going to be ransacked,'' he said. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 16:08:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA30860 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:08:53 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA30854 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:08:51 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:12:46 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:12:44 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/08/2001 01:12:46 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu OK. I want to copyright all possible sequence of notes.... Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz arvard.edu 02/08/01 12:19 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss as a followup to the earlier discussion on copyrighting jazz, see the new scientist 7 feb 2001 article at http://www.newscientist.com/dailynews/news.jsp?id=ns9999400 soon anyone who creates a jazz riff will be able to play the creation into a pc and have a search engine find out who actually 'owns' that sequence of notes so the person can pay the copyright owner. no doubt this will be applied by law to live music so that copyright owners will be able to use computer power to collect automatically royalties on public performances of 'their' music. or it could prevent or censor the expression in realtime if compulsory licensing is not allowed. surely this will allow computers and the internet to make possible new 'freedoms' in creating music such as jazz. a like technology for automatic payment for quoting copyrighted or trademarked words and like expressions awaits entrepreneurship. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 16:18:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA31036 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:18:43 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (mail-out1.apple.com [17.254.0.52]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA31031 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:18:32 -0500 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA04120 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:22:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.2) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:22:30 -0800 Received: from [17.255.27.210] (vpn-gh-643.apple.com [17.254.138.130]) by scv2.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14413; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:22:29 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: awells@mail.apple.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:20:30 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Adam Wells Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Cc: "Kroll, Dave" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 1:27 PM -0600 2/8/01, Kroll, Dave wrote: >All logical, common-law arguments aside, I noticed the other day that the >Disney >ads for the movie _Dinosaur_ proclaim, "Own it on DVD". (Just like many >others, >I'm sure.) It's a little bait-and-switchy of them to tender a licensing >offer once >you've gotten the disc home. I guess "Own it on DVD!" is more catchy than "Own a license to view it on a DVD being played on an approved player!" adam From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 16:46:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA09884 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:46:54 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA09881 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:46:53 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA13904; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:51:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:51:12 -0500 (EST) From: Ole Craig To: cc: "Kroll, Dave" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 02/08/01 at 13:20, 'twas brillig and Adam Wells scrobe: > At 1:27 PM -0600 2/8/01, Kroll, Dave wrote: > >All logical, common-law arguments aside, I noticed the other day that the > >Disney > >ads for the movie _Dinosaur_ proclaim, "Own it on DVD". (Just like many > >others, > >I'm sure.) It's a little bait-and-switchy of them to tender a licensing > >offer once > >you've gotten the disc home. > > I guess "Own it on DVD!" is more catchy than "Own a license to view > it on a DVD being played on an approved player!" Coincidentally, I browsed the following page today: http://www.ubersoft.net/features/darklord/chapter1.html While it's meant (umm, I *think*) as a parody, it comes eerily close to our conversations of late. Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 16:49:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11509 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:49:00 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11483 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:48:58 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pD950064A.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.74]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF33C27AE2 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:48:20 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1EC1B175195; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:50:41 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:50:41 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Message-ID: <20010208225040.B2467@lemuria.org> References: <3A82EB94.5EE66E1D@trustix.com> <002301c0920b$cd789060$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <002301c0920b$cd789060$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com>; from johnzu@ia.nsc.com on Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 01:14:55PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 01:14:55PM -0700, John Zulauf wrote: > > For those who have not read it yet, this WIPO report is also > > recommended reading to get the whole picture: > > http://www.wipo.org/eng/meetings/1999/wct_wppt/pdf/imp99_3.pdf I've pointed to that document several times already. anyone here who hasn't read it yet should really do. on my website, I call it a "smoking gun". take specific notice of who the authors were. they're the exact same people we're fighting in court. > Isn't this sort of collusion illegal under the anti-trust laws? It is a > broad, obvious, intentional, and international conspiracy to control the > means and formats of distribution, to influence laws to support these means > and then enter into a cross-industry (not just industry wide) collusion to > standardize on these means and finally to strong-arm 2nd tier players with > licenses that impose the cartel's agenda. > > This seems as bold face as Microsoft's alleged suggestion to "divide the > browser market" with Netscape -- do we having a smoking gun here? yes, we do. I'm more than willing to file criminal charges against the MPAA and their friends over here in germany, as this most definitely violates not only anti-trust law but also european union free trade agreements. alas, I haven't yet found a legal councel to help me get that done in a way that won't simply "vanish" in an appropriate way. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 16:56:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA19161 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:56:37 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA19004 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:56:36 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03197; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:00:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:00:24 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: "Kroll, Dave" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It's part of a comic strip called "Help Desk." The latest event is a crossover between it and a similar computer-company comic strip called "GPF" in which the former's software source was illegally sent to an employee of the latter. Said employee found a flag: set_bugs: 1; changed it to 0 and then widely disseminated it. :) anyway, it's okay but the artwork is crude imho. On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Ole Craig wrote: > On 02/08/01 at 13:20, 'twas brillig and Adam Wells scrobe: > > At 1:27 PM -0600 2/8/01, Kroll, Dave wrote: > > >All logical, common-law arguments aside, I noticed the other day that the > > >Disney > > >ads for the movie _Dinosaur_ proclaim, "Own it on DVD". (Just like many > > >others, > > >I'm sure.) It's a little bait-and-switchy of them to tender a licensing > > >offer once > > >you've gotten the disc home. > > > > I guess "Own it on DVD!" is more catchy than "Own a license to view > > it on a DVD being played on an approved player!" > > Coincidentally, I browsed the following page today: > http://www.ubersoft.net/features/darklord/chapter1.html > > While it's meant (umm, I *think*) as a parody, it comes eerily > close to our conversations of late. > > Ole > -- > Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * > CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key > > perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 17:41:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA20209 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:41:30 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA20203 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:41:28 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f18Migf08189 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:45:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A832172.F3C534A3@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:45:06 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Valenti wants more laws References: <3A82F700.4BF10228@mindspring.com> <20010208154734.D8900@eldritchpress.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here is the website of the group he was having lunch with: http://www.mediainst.org/ The Media Institute 1000 Potomac Street, NW, Suite 301 Washington, D.C. 20007 also, per NetCraft: "The site www.mediainst.org runs Apache/1.3.12 OpenSSL/0.9.5a (Unix) on FreeBSD " mickeym Eric Eldred wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:44:00PM -0500, mickeym wrote: > > > > From: > > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010207/re/movies_valenti_dc_1.html > > > > "``Why on earth would you need more than one copy? Everything you want > > to copy you'll be able to copy one time,'' he said." > > > > "``The minute you give one professor the keys to the kingdom you're > > going to be ransacked,'' he said. > > > > mickeym > > ``More and more, as you're talking to congressmen, they're understanding (the > importance of the issue),'' said Valenti, who spoke at a lunch by the Free > Speech Foundation. > > The Free Speech Foundation???? Is that different from the > Free Software Foundation? Who is talking to congressmen > about the other side and why don't they get free lunches > and Reuters stories too? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 18:24:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA20586 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:24:37 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA20583 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:24:35 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id PAA15934 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:28:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma029375; Thu, 8 Feb 01 14:48:04 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Thu, 08 Feb 2001 14:49:37 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA00856; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:48:01 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] RE: [DVD-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:57:03 -0700 Message-ID: <002e01c09222$7398a1e0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 169DFD0A1582-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Benedict Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 1:43 PM > As long as we are analyzing arguments from the other side, take a look at > the Macrovision white paper on the "digital threat" of CD-ROM pirating in > the SOHO market. > > http://www.macrovision.com/images/CD-ROM_Copying_Trends.pdf > > This seems to get quoted to scare publishers and is analogized to the > potential for DVD pirating. Look at the opening paragraph. It starts with a conclusion (a statistic external to the study) and then is really orient around defending and explaining that statistic. Also note that they carefully picked the SOHO market. Fortune 500 companies have extensive policy in place to prevent casual piracy -- and comprise a far larger market share than the SOHO. Further, (and having gone through this) one of the first "corportizations" that happens as a SOHO startup outgrows the garage and becomes profitable is to get the software licenses all legit. As a practical matter nobody gets sued by the BSA if they don't have the money... Once you do has money -- or are looking for VC funding, getting legit is requirement brought up not so subtly in the due diligence process. "What sort of other potential liabilities...?" What software does a growing so-to-be-not-SOHO go legit on as they trasition out of being a SOHO? The self same stuff they pirated before. It's a very narrow, simplistic, and biased view. > > Any comments or rebuttals? Just the usual suspects ======================== (1) Just because a personal copy software doesn't mean they would be willing to buy it. (1a) A some willing to spend $1 to pirate a game is not necessarily willing to spend $30 to buy it. I've been able to shop at a large software company's "employee store" in the past. The number of games I'm willing to buy at $10 each is much higher than the number I would buy at $30-60. (1b) Most copying is casual, meaning that the pirate may only be browsing or evaluating a product (or product class) and thus would have no interest in spending real money for the product. (2) Copy protection may in fact lower profitabliltiy of software applications (2a)Copy protection decreases the percieved value of a product and would tend to decrease the number of copies sold. (2a1)The user can only use it copy protected software once, and thus it is less valuable than a non-copy protected competitor (2a2)Copy protection interferes with legitimate archival activities (2a3)Copy protection tends to increase the "hassle factor" (2a4)Copy protection typically is reviewed negatively in the press and in person-to-person referrals (2a5)Ask an F500 MIS manager whether he or she would buy or install copy protected software (then step back) (2b)Pirated software can aid in market development for a new product or product class. (2b1)For each person that pirates, they will need to interchange those documents with some number of other persons, who will only fractionally pirate. (2b2)Causal evaulation piracy allows potential customers to evaluate and choose a broader ranges of products or explore new product classes. (2b3)A meaningful fraction of the "evaulation" pirates would purchase or reccomend the product. (2b4)SOHO's buy legit software "when they grow up." They buy what they've been using. Copy protected software is at a competitive disadvantage for this "customer acquisition." (3)The SOHO market is not representative of the software market (3a)It is smaller than the F500 market (3b)These statistics cannot be extended to the F500 market (3c)Copy protection is a nightmare for large (F500) companies. Now, having said all that, I am a stickler personally about legitimate copies. As a software engineer for over 20 years I know the hard work it takes to produce software. I don't download "warez" games or applications. However, the simple linear analysis of the cited paper is too facile to be given much credence. They ask for a report to scare potential customers into signing up. Historically copy protection/licensing scheme have done more to harm the software market than develop it. The only exceptions (probably) are high cost >$5-10K per seat, niche market applications where the TAM (total available market) is measured in the 1,000's of seats. In that tight of niche even a few copies can make or break the development/business model. Even here though, the media isn't actually copy protected and frequently is freely available from a common server on the network -- the licensing is at runtime. "Copy protection" per se has been a competitive disadvantage (it's cumbersome) and care must be taken that the licensing scheme is flexible enough and easy enough to maintain to not hack off the clients. These however tend to be in professional (CAD, animation, cystallography, etc.) markets where there are typically enough lawyers to keep the sys admins in line Typically the "piracy" issue is moot and the licensing schemes are really just a mechanism to keep track of what the company has paid for. Typically in the corporate environment, the company wants to comply and has policy in place to do so) . Not anywhere in the same neighborhood of the SOHO causal pirate. John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 19:53:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA21087 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 19:53:56 -0500 Received: from inconnu.isu.edu (root@inconnu.isu.edu [134.50.8.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA21084 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 19:53:54 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19529 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:58:13 -0700 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:58:13 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: dvd discussion list Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Copies-to: galt@inconnu.isu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Steve Hosgood wrote: >John Galt wrote: >> On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >> >> >>Should we not be considering these cases (and all the others that I've not >> >>thought of) and preparing defences against them? >> > >> > >> >I think its pretty clear that they're going to push the fourth prong you >> >have above. Judge Kaplan seemed to indicate that his perception of 2600 as >> >being a bunch of evil internet hackers was the main consideration he had. >> >> Then the appeal is won before it starts. >> > >Don't assume *anything*! No, but don't let the MPAA lead us off in a character battle. A character battle is lost before it begins, because they've gotten us off the issue that they're weak on. Remember: the old USENET saw is true--when an opponent resorts to personal attacks, it's usually because they'll lose on the merits of the facts. >> Traditionally, higher courts >> have focused more on the utility of the message rather than the reputation of >> the messenger. >> > >We can't rely on that. We'd better be ready with the best proof we can come >up with that the internet community is home to productive honest people doing NO! We need to ignore it completely! They win if they can cast the case into anything other than facts. If it becomes a personality contest, they have the best personality spinners in the business. >good works for America's benefit. True, there are some villains out there too, >we can't deny that, but then there are villains who use the 'phone, but that >doesn't mean that the "phone community" are inherently evil. The judges will >themselves almost certainly be users of phones, yet they'd resent being >labelled as bad people just because mafia bosses have phones too, and likewise >terrorists and child-molesters. > >> Look at the people vs Larry Flynt for a perfect example. >> Flynt basically is one of the most flamboyant pornographers in the >> business (and that IS saying a lot), and the lower court found him guilty >> of obscenity just based on his reputation. The higher up the system it went, >> the less that Flynt's personality affected the court's judgement, and the >> more the facts of the case spoke. >> > >Er - hang on a minute! "The People vs. Larry Flynt" was a *movie* dammit! The Okay, Ohio v Larry Flynt. The movie was reasonably close to the actual events. I'd provide the SC cite, but I can't remember much about it. >reason the higher courts sided with him as the story unfolded was because >that's what it said in the script! > >We can't assume we'll be treated in anything like the same way. > >> >How can we show who the true community is? Is there some sort of survey or >> >petition we can construct, to show what the demographics are of >> >pro-DeCSSers? I'm sure that, while there are plenty of stereotypical >> >"hackers" who want DeCSS, there are also plenty of wage-slaves, upper >> >management, lawyers, artists, and other people that can't be smeared as >> >effectively. I'm not sure what the first step is to compiling those >> >statistics, but we need some way to stand up and be counted. >> >> We can do this, but it's mostly wasted effort for reasons I've enumerated >> above. Effort against the messenger attack are just going to end up >> expending resources against a feint. >> > >But do it anyway! > >Some of the posters to this list came up with a list of what systems the >movie companies themselves entrust with running *their* web-sites. I forget >the numbers, but it was at least half running un*x type systems, and something >like 75% running Apache. And this helps us how? Did I miss something in the transcript mentioning that Apache users are equivalent to DeCSS pirates? The rhetoric of the MPAA aside (it wasn't offered into evidence), this method is NOT going to be productive in ANY way. BTW, according to netcraft, 2600 isn't even running Apache... >When it comes to defending internet against claims of being a pirate hell, I >thing a three-prong defence is possible: > >1) As above, compile statistics showing the open-source community working for >the good of (in this case) the movie companies, or (next time maybe) corporate >America. Trouble is, that statistics are volatile, and the enemy might be >able to manipulate similar studies to show the opposite. If so we need to at >least be able to stalemate such claims and move onto point 2.... There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. >2) As with the example of the 'telephone community' above, try and make it >pretty obvious that though any community may contain villains, that is no >excuse to villify all the members of that community, nor to assume that that >community will suddenly engage in destroying the multi-billion dollar movie >industry (or anyone else). So find something objectionable that they've said in a non-protected environment and sue the hell out of them for libel. Craft all of this defense into a good offense and slam it to them hard where it hurts. They'll live if DeCSS is found to be protected speech. They won't live if they're bleeding from numerous libel judgements. >3) (This will be more fun) Demonstrate to a court that the spectre of internet >villains copying DVDs at full quality is a red herring. It is probably sensible >to accept that internet copying and exchange of MPEG-1 or DiVX movies does >happen and will continue to happen. But here it in necessary to make sure that >it is obvious to a court that MPEG-1 or DiVX movies are in no way the "bit for >bit perfect copies" feared by Hollywood. Pretty much already been done, and ignored almost completely. >As a side issue of that, can we arrange to create some short MPEG-1 clips >mastered digitally direct from the DVD and from analong-capturing the VHS tape >versions of a movie? The aim would be to show that the resulting MPEG-1 files >look pretty much the same, and thus 'prove' that the existence of deCSS has >no effect on the production or otherwise of MPEG-1 copies of movies. > >The game here is to try and "wall off" the internet movie pirate community from >affecting the outcome of this case. We can't deny that they exist - even if >we can show that they are a tiny minority, but we should be able to show that >their game was going on before deCSS emerged and will continue unaffected by >its existence. > >Maybe we don't need this defence, but can we at least have one in place? >Preferably complete with all the hardware pre-built ready in case the defence >team need to run the demo in court to prove the point. I question the wisdom of it: if the defense is needed, the case is already lost. Under NO circumstances should the spin-doctors have the chance to get involved. >-- > >Steve | >S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better >Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" >Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean >--------------------------------------------+ > http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) > > -- FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you! Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 20:10:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA21292 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 20:10:29 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA21289 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 20:10:27 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id RAA21958 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:14:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma006507; Thu, 8 Feb 01 16:25:42 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Thu, 08 Feb 2001 16:27:15 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id RAA05922; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:25:37 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Valenti wants more laws Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:34:39 -0700 Message-ID: <003201c09230$166558c0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <3A832172.F3C534A3@mindspring.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 169DE6E919425-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > http://www.mediainst.org/ > > The Media Institute > 1000 Potomac Street, NW, Suite 301 > Washington, D.C. 20007 > Though they've got a bit much media money sponsoring them to make me comfortable, they have filed a large number of amici supporting first amendment rights (of the media). The good news/bad news is that they are very inside the beltway -- good news if the see the first ammendment issues, bad if the choose to ignore it because of their media sponsors. Media is bigger than the MPAA -- and the 2600 decision could be seen as a blow against the traditional news media. Perhaps Robin Gross, Lawrence Lessing or ??? could get themselves on the luncheon list. Make sure they hear that while the DMCA stuff might be good for the MPAA et. al. it's a threat to the rest of the media. A common partner in the TMI amici is the far more interesting: The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression http://www.tjcenter.org/ and also http://www.freeexpression.org/ If the WIPO cartel is organized -- then we'll need to as well. These latter two could be interesting allies with the EFF if 2600 is reversed on narrow grounds. John Zulauf private netizen "I'm not a member of an organized religion -- I'm a Lutheran" -- any Lutheran From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 8 22:08:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA22350 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:08:00 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA22347 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:07:58 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30N7J>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:27:17 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:27:16 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua Stratton [mailto:cpt@gryphon.auspice.net] > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 12:47 PM > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Richard Hartman wrote: > > > And to me, that is the crux of the matter: prosecution should be > > based upon the actual violation of the copyright -- i.e. improper > > usage of the material -- and not whether you bypassed some > protection > > mechanism. It is already acknowledged that there are > legitimate uses > > Yes, but let's not accidently go down the path that the MPAA > wants us to. > Copyright violations aren't improper uses of the material > (barring public > performances) but are more centered around improperly made > copies of the > material. Usage is irrelevant; it's all good. Usage is the only thing that differentiates between legal and not. > > Playing a legal copy of a DVD in any player at all, licensed > or not is not > a copyright infringement, though it is a use that they aren't > happy about. Perhaps I spoke a bit too informally. It doesn't matter whether they are -happy- about it. What matters is whether it is a legitimate use under the law. Private viewing is such a use. Whether I use a player they are "happy" about is immaterial. > This is what the circumvention provisions are for, and while > they might > seem to be a giant barring our way from being able to use, enjoy and > create materials we mustn't let ourselves be fooled that the giant is > standing on anything but thin air. > -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 02:08:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA25209 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:08:14 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA25194 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:08:13 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30NG6>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:02:24 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:02:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] ... > > > Yes. The first arguement is that they are NOT entitled to the the > protection of the law should they choose to use access controls, > encryption, etc, Back to the distinction between patent and trade secret and attempting to apply it to "works". If you provide open access, the law protects. If you attempt to provide your own protection then you are SOL if that protection is insufficient. IOW: only works distributed WITHOUT a TPM are entitled to protection under copyright law. TPM-protected works stand or fall on the strength of their TPM. Given the proper TPM this might give you sole control of the work for much longer than the standard copyright term, much as Coca-Cola and Col. Sanders have had sole control of their secret recipies for longer than they would have if they had been patented. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 02:08:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA25197 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:08:14 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA25189 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:08:10 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30MN1>; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:56:52 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:56:51 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: mickeym [mailto:mickeym@mindspring.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:36 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > > Tom wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:03:42PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > > > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access > to a work'' may > > > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace > with 'has the > > > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. > The whole point > > > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > > > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and > still import > > > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the > need to break 1201. > > > > I see. that was it's whole purpose, wasn't it? the WIPO > document on my > > website says so quite clearly. so according to kaplan, a simple XOR > > would've been sufficient. > > In the world of computers, almost any method could then be > argued to meet the > requirement of 'has the effect of controlling access', to the > extreme of saying > that any file format or filesystem type is complicated enough > to prevent access. > This would potentially mean that *all* data files can be > claimed as being in this > new category of works, and that hex editors will get you into > trouble since they > easily reveal what is inside. > Or, to bring back earlier examples: the laser has the effect of controlling access to the audio content encoded on your CD; also, a phonograph needle has the effect of controlling access to the audio content encoded on your LP. So ... is the phonograph needle a TPM under the DCMA? Ok, so it's analog audio content and possibly does not come under the aegis of the DMCA ... let's move the discussion to the laser in your CD player ... TPM? So now nobody can manufacture CD players w/o the consent of the music publishers ?? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 02:08:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA25240 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:08:18 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA25220 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:08:16 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30N7T>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:37:31 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:37:30 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: John Galt [mailto:galt@inconnu.isu.edu] ... > >Some of the posters to this list came up with a list of what > systems the > >movie companies themselves entrust with running *their* > web-sites. I forget > >the numbers, but it was at least half running un*x type > systems, and something > >like 75% running Apache. > > And this helps us how? Did I miss something in the > transcript mentioning > that Apache users are equivalent to DeCSS pirates? Actually I believe they did try to portray the open software community as pirates ... that they are themselves using software developed by those same "pirates" is a mark of how seriously they believe what they say. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 02:08:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA25215 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:08:15 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA25198 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:08:14 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30NH1>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:06:26 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:06:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Hosgood [mailto:steve@i2it.co.uk] ... > > Look at the people vs Larry Flynt for a perfect example. > > Flynt basically is one of the most flamboyant pornographers in the > > business (and that IS saying a lot), and the lower court > found him guilty > > of obscenity just based on his reputation. The higher up > the system it went, > > the less that Flynt's personality affected the court's > judgement, and the > > more the facts of the case spoke. > > > > Er - hang on a minute! "The People vs. Larry Flynt" was a > *movie* dammit! The > reason the higher courts sided with him as the story unfolded > was because > that's what it said in the script! Er, no. That movie was based upon an actual case. Even in Hollywood I think they don't tend to change the verdicts in docudramas. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 02:08:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA25225 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:08:17 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA25213 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:08:15 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30N7Q>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:32:26 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Valenti wants more laws Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:32:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: mickeym [mailto:mickeym@mindspring.com] ... > > "``Why on earth would you need more than one copy? Everything you want > to copy you'll be able to copy one time,'' he said." (he=Jack Valenti) ``640k should be enough for anybody.'' -Bill Gates I think the lesson to be learned is that when you try to determine a limit on what other people might want, you will always be wrong. (Of course, I don't believe that Jack believes what he said ...) -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 02:08:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA25245 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:08:19 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA25227 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:08:17 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30N7X>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:42:59 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:42:59 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Eldred [mailto:eldred@eldritchpress.org] ... > > consequently, there is a good argument that encryption and > copyright are fundamentally opposed concepts. copyright is > intended to be a legal protection to encourage open > publication of ideas and expressions, not to preserve > 'property' rights. encryption is intended to protect trade > secrets, to allow unpublished works to be protected by > a technological mechanism, not by the legal protection > of copyright. ... > the problem is in explaining this to the general public. > many people have a hard time accepting that napster or > gnutella users can 'share' music online without paying > the authors or copyright holders. but when the debate > is in more familiar terms, that of public librares or used > bookstores being killed off to increase publisher corporate > profits, then we might have a better chance of persuading > the american voters of the freedoms they are losing. > I think one set of familiar terms to use is to draw a parallel to the distinction between a patented process or mechanism and a trade secret. One is disclosed, but protected by law; the other's only protection rests in how well you can keep the secret hidden. Copyright is the equivilant of patent protection. You publish openly, access is unfettered -- abuse is treated as a legal matter. Encrypted works are essentially similar to trade secrets. Access is controlled by the owner, but if somebody lets the cat out of the bag the owner is left with nothing. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 02:08:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA25200 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:08:14 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA25192 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:08:13 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30MNV>; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:10:07 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:10:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu There are still two ways that a scheme could be "weak". One is that the encryption itself is weak and susceptible to one sort of analysis or another. That may not be anticipatible and the law -- if it even meant what you guys apparently think it means -- should still cover. The other possibility though is that the -mechanism- built around the encryption scheme is flawed. For example, putting the keys right on the disk is like buying the best deadbolt for your front door and then putting the key under the mat. It's not the deadbolt that's at fault when your house is broken into. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 4:04 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > Exactly. Were the scheme unbreakable, or infeasible/ > uneconomic to crack no > law would be required. They have also attempted to legislate > something that > is counter to the fundamental tenet of crytology. The only > protection a > system has is knowledge of the key (even if the algorithm is > protected). > > > > > > > "Robert S. Thau" > > To: > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > arvard.edu > arguments > > > > > 02/07/01 02:10 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > tom@lemuria.org writes: > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:25:59PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > > > (BTW, this is one of the things I don't fault Congress for in the > > > drafting of the DMCA. New cracks are discovered in encryption > > > schemes all the time. If "effective" in the DMCA were > taken to mean > > > "resistant to currently known forms of attack", then > someone relying > > > on 1201(a) access control would lose that protection as soon as a > > > crack were discovered --- the only situation under which > the law could > > > do them any good. Which is not to argue that they need > the protection > > > in the first place, of course, or that Congress was wise > to grant it, > > > but that's another kettle of eels...). > > > > I disagree. > > first, there are several other issues where the law would > provide you > > with something useful. taken from the congress comments on > DMCA it is > > clear that it was mainly aimed at stuff like black-boxing > pay channels, > > where the encryption is NOT actually broken, but - attention - > > circumvented. > > A distinction without a difference. > > > fact is that an encryption that has a practical, low effort attack > > discovered (i.e. not just a theoretical "if we had 1 mio years and > > quantum computers") *has had it*. it's bullshit to protect > something > > that's broken with a law. you can't make a broken car > drive again by > > passing a law that engine failures are illegal. > > So the law should be written to protect only systems that don't need > legal protection (since breaking them is technically infeasible). > > Okey-dokey... > > rst > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 03:39:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA25890 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 03:39:36 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA25887 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 03:39:32 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pD9500626.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.38]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D9127A96 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:38:49 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5EC9F175195; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:41:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:41:06 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: [DVD-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Message-ID: <20010209094105.B2925@lemuria.org> References: <002e01c09222$7398a1e0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <002e01c09222$7398a1e0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com>; from johnzu@ia.nsc.com on Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 03:57:03PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 03:57:03PM -0700, John Zulauf wrote: > Just the usual suspects > ======================== > (1) Just because a personal copy software doesn't mean they would be willing [...] > (3)The SOHO market is not representative of the software market > (3a)It is smaller than the F500 market > (3b)These statistics cannot be extended to the F500 market > (3c)Copy protection is a nightmare for large (F500) companies. (4)the money not spent on software is spent somewhere else, therefore while piracy may damage the copyright industry, it does NOT damage the economy as a whole. > Now, having said all that, I am a stickler personally about legitimate > copies. As a software engineer for over 20 years I know the hard work it > takes to produce software. I don't download "warez" games or applications. > However, the simple linear analysis of the cited paper is too facile to be > given much credence. They ask for a report to scare potential customers > into signing up. correct. I own quite a lot of games (and not only computer games), since games of all kinds are a hobby of mine. many of them are played once or twice, I'm more interested in the rules, the concepts, etc. that said, one thing that is constantly putting me off in computer games is copy protection. I just happen to own several machines in various locations, and requirements such as having the CD in the machine actually ARE a major inconvenience for me. that means that I sometimes download warez copies to /games that I own/, because the warez version has the copy protection removed. isn't that crazy? > Historically copy protection/licensing scheme have done more to harm the > software market than develop it. The only exceptions (probably) are high > cost >$5-10K per seat, niche market applications where the TAM (total > available market) is measured in the 1,000's of seats. In that tight of > niche even a few copies can make or break the development/business model. I disagree. especially in this market, the statement that the people who spend $1 on a pirate copy are not necessarily willing to buy the full version is more than true. 3D Studio (Max) is possibly the most well-known 3D rendering and animation software on the market BECAUSE it was and still is being so extensively pirated. when you hire a new, young someone for a job that requires 3D software, chances are he knows 3D Studio because he has a pirate copy at home to play around with. no chance a private person shells out $3000 for a regular copy. I'm fairly sure the even-more-expensive softwares work the same way. the people who run a business on pirated software wouldn't have had the money to buy the full version anyways. $10k is nothing for a large company. > line Typically the "piracy" issue is moot and the licensing schemes are > really just a mechanism to keep track of what the company has paid for. > Typically in the corporate environment, the company wants to comply and has > policy in place to do so) . Not anywhere in the same neighborhood of the > SOHO causal pirate. correct. a simple way to reliably count the number of installations within the company(*) would do much more for the problem than the most extensive copy protection. most companies are either "pirating" without wanting to or even knowing about it, or are vastly over-licensed just to be sure. (*) that's not as easy as it sounds. think about machines turned off, machines broken down, etc. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 09:34:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA28100 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:34:50 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA28097 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:34:48 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03756; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:39:04 GMT Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:39:04 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Galt wrote: > >> On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > >> >Judge Kaplan seemed to indicate that his perception of 2600 as > >> >being a bunch of evil internet hackers was the main consideration he had. > >> > >> Then the appeal is won before it starts. > > > >Don't assume *anything*! > > No, but don't let the MPAA lead us off in a character battle. A character > battle is lost before it begins, because they've gotten us off the issue > that they're weak on. Remember: the old USENET saw is true--when an > opponent resorts to personal attacks, it's usually because they'll lose on > the merits of the facts. > This isn't USENET, but you're right that we mustn't let them drag us into a character battle. Trouble is, I think that's exactly what they will try and do because: 1) It worked under Kaplan 2) They'll think they'll be able to distract the court from the issues on which they're weak. 3) The whole DMCA is a character issue in some ways. If everyone was law-abiding and squeeky clean, no-one would need TPMs to protect works because no-one would ever pirate one! > They win if they can cast the case > into anything other than facts. If it becomes a personality contest, they > have the best personality spinners in the business. > Which is exactly why they're likely to try it. We have two obvious defences: 1) Trust that the judges of a higher court will not let themselves get side- tracked that way. 2) Be ready with at least some evidence that plenty of internetters are good people doing good things, and that there's no collossal evil lurking out there. I don't like to rely on 1) above because it's putting your trust in someone else, and that's not predictable. Our best chance against the 'personality war' offence by the MPAA is that IIRC they *didn't* try and claim that CSS was an anti-piracy measure in the lower court. If that was the case, then maybe they can't now turn around and say that it is. If it isn't an anti-piracy case, then the character of internetters is obviously not in question. So we wouldn't need 2) above. Which would be good for us! Any attempt by them to launch a character attack could thus be countered, and thus the case is forced back to the real issues quickly. This is assuming that I'm right that they stated in lower court that CSS is not an anti-piracy effort, and that there isn't some other, more cunning way for them to try and twist the case into a personality war without introducing a fear of piracy. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 09:45:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA28249 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:45:50 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA28246 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:45:48 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA07884 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:50:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:50:09 -0500 (EST) From: Ole Craig To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] HDTV/ieee1394(firewire) recorder Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Fresh off the /. press: http://www.oro.net/~hdtv/index.html Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 10:16:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA28682 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:16:43 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA28677 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:16:41 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f19FJpf18493 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:20:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A840AA7.FE0BA548@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 10:20:07 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] HDTV/ieee1394(firewire) recorder References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That's pretty cool. From the description, it sounds like it records the actual HD transmission, not the decoded images. When A-to-D gets fast enough, I can see someone making a satellite recorder, too. Not any particular channel will get recorded, but the primary signal with all of the channels. I wonder what the issues will be then, when we can timeshift the whole band? mickeym Ole Craig wrote: > Fresh off the /. press: > > http://www.oro.net/~hdtv/index.html > > Ole > -- > Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * > CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key > > perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 10:31:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA28852 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:31:50 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA28849 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:31:48 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:36:00 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Valenti wants more laws To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:35:59 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/09/2001 07:36:00 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Maybe they invited Jack Valenti for lunch to see just what they had to deal with..... "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Valenti wants more arvard.edu laws 02/08/01 05:16 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > > http://www.mediainst.org/ > > The Media Institute > 1000 Potomac Street, NW, Suite 301 > Washington, D.C. 20007 > Though they've got a bit much media money sponsoring them to make me comfortable, they have filed a large number of amici supporting first amendment rights (of the media). The good news/bad news is that they are very inside the beltway -- good news if the see the first ammendment issues, bad if the choose to ignore it because of their media sponsors. Media is bigger than the MPAA -- and the 2600 decision could be seen as a blow against the traditional news media. Perhaps Robin Gross, Lawrence Lessing or ??? could get themselves on the luncheon list. Make sure they hear that while the DMCA stuff might be good for the MPAA et. al. it's a threat to the rest of the media. A common partner in the TMI amici is the far more interesting: The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression http://www.tjcenter.org/ and also http://www.freeexpression.org/ If the WIPO cartel is organized -- then we'll need to as well. These latter two could be interesting allies with the EFF if 2600 is reversed on narrow grounds. John Zulauf private netizen "I'm not a member of an organized religion -- I'm a Lutheran" -- any Lutheran From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 10:39:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA29018 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:39:25 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA29015 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:39:21 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:43:33 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:43:31 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/09/2001 07:43:33 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Informally or not, your observation is succinct and to the point. The MPAA is unhappy that the rest of the world didn't do as they wanted. Time for them to GROW UP. Being an adult isn't about being happy all the time. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments 02/08/01 07:14 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua Stratton [mailto:cpt@gryphon.auspice.net] > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 12:47 PM > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Richard Hartman wrote: > > > And to me, that is the crux of the matter: prosecution should be > > based upon the actual violation of the copyright -- i.e. improper > > usage of the material -- and not whether you bypassed some > protection > > mechanism. It is already acknowledged that there are > legitimate uses > > Yes, but let's not accidently go down the path that the MPAA > wants us to. > Copyright violations aren't improper uses of the material > (barring public > performances) but are more centered around improperly made > copies of the > material. Usage is irrelevant; it's all good. Usage is the only thing that differentiates between legal and not. > > Playing a legal copy of a DVD in any player at all, licensed > or not is not > a copyright infringement, though it is a use that they aren't > happy about. Perhaps I spoke a bit too informally. It doesn't matter whether they are -happy- about it. What matters is whether it is a legitimate use under the law. Private viewing is such a use. Whether I use a player they are "happy" about is immaterial. > This is what the circumvention provisions are for, and while > they might > seem to be a giant barring our way from being able to use, enjoy and > create materials we mustn't let ourselves be fooled that the giant is > standing on anything but thin air. > -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 10:46:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA29101 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:46:32 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA29098 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:46:30 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:50:41 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:50:41 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/09/2001 07:50:41 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think that pretty much sums up the argument. As Eric, and other have noted, Allowing TPM AND copyright create a fundamental contradiction. While the LOC can babble on about circumvention maybe necessary for special circumstances, WE know that the use of strong encryption (and practices) precludes that entirely-making the whole issue moot. Something the LOC and most other do not understand. The question is how to get these arguments OUT there, preferably over the INTERNET. Interesting question, how do you put out the equivalent of an electronic version of a pamplet without running afoul of the Anti-spam laws and enforcers.....at least snail mail has the advantage of an anonymous mail box. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments 02/08/01 11:14 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] ... > > > Yes. The first arguement is that they are NOT entitled to the the > protection of the law should they choose to use access controls, > encryption, etc, Back to the distinction between patent and trade secret and attempting to apply it to "works". If you provide open access, the law protects. If you attempt to provide your own protection then you are SOL if that protection is insufficient. IOW: only works distributed WITHOUT a TPM are entitled to protection under copyright law. TPM-protected works stand or fall on the strength of their TPM. Given the proper TPM this might give you sole control of the work for much longer than the standard copyright term, much as Coca-Cola and Col. Sanders have had sole control of their secret recipies for longer than they would have if they had been patented. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 10:50:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA29291 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:50:28 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA29288 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:50:26 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:54:30 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:54:28 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/09/2001 07:54:30 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The analogy breaks down when one considers that the laser or phonograph needle are necessary for access but not sufficient. One must have the means of accessing the media first....Now one analogy might be old dbx noise reduction system. As I recall if you tried to play a dbx recording through a non dbx player it sounded pretty odd at times. Probably why Dolby B became the standard. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments 02/08/01 11:14 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: mickeym [mailto:mickeym@mindspring.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:36 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > > Tom wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:03:42PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > > > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access > to a work'' may > > > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace > with 'has the > > > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. > The whole point > > > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > > > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and > still import > > > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the > need to break 1201. > > > > I see. that was it's whole purpose, wasn't it? the WIPO > document on my > > website says so quite clearly. so according to kaplan, a simple XOR > > would've been sufficient. > > In the world of computers, almost any method could then be > argued to meet the > requirement of 'has the effect of controlling access', to the > extreme of saying > that any file format or filesystem type is complicated enough > to prevent access. > This would potentially mean that *all* data files can be > claimed as being in this > new category of works, and that hex editors will get you into > trouble since they > easily reveal what is inside. > Or, to bring back earlier examples: the laser has the effect of controlling access to the audio content encoded on your CD; also, a phonograph needle has the effect of controlling access to the audio content encoded on your LP. So ... is the phonograph needle a TPM under the DCMA? Ok, so it's analog audio content and possibly does not come under the aegis of the DMCA ... let's move the discussion to the laser in your CD player ... TPM? So now nobody can manufacture CD players w/o the consent of the music publishers ?? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 11:02:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30235 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:02:47 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA30232 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:02:45 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:06:59 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:06:58 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/09/2001 08:06:59 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Excellent!....you're right. It IS a trade secret. Perhaps the argument needs to shift to the means by which one can protect a trade secret. There is physical protection (e.g., the formula is locked in a Swiss bank vault that can only be opened at noon each day. The three honest men named Larry, Curly, and Moe must all appear, present identification, provide mutual recognition and the secret handshakes....) but another way has always been encryption (e.g., Beale Cipher). For a strong encryption with a sufficiently long key (e.g., triple DES), the only protection is the secrecy of the key. You can broadcast the message to the world but without the key. Interestingly enough, it's well known that key management is also the achilles heal in most practical cryptosystem. (and the DVDCCA really screwed that one up!) In fact the prevailing attitude towards encrypted messages has historically been closer to treating them as trade or state secrets. I don't think anybody has seriously considered the encryption of copyrighted material before. As Bruce Schneier has pointed out, the use of encryption for DVDs is doomed to failure without draconian laws such as DMCA. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS 02/08/01 11:14 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Eldred [mailto:eldred@eldritchpress.org] ... > > consequently, there is a good argument that encryption and > copyright are fundamentally opposed concepts. copyright is > intended to be a legal protection to encourage open > publication of ideas and expressions, not to preserve > 'property' rights. encryption is intended to protect trade > secrets, to allow unpublished works to be protected by > a technological mechanism, not by the legal protection > of copyright. ... > the problem is in explaining this to the general public. > many people have a hard time accepting that napster or > gnutella users can 'share' music online without paying > the authors or copyright holders. but when the debate > is in more familiar terms, that of public librares or used > bookstores being killed off to increase publisher corporate > profits, then we might have a better chance of persuading > the american voters of the freedoms they are losing. > I think one set of familiar terms to use is to draw a parallel to the distinction between a patented process or mechanism and a trade secret. One is disclosed, but protected by law; the other's only protection rests in how well you can keep the secret hidden. Copyright is the equivilant of patent protection. You publish openly, access is unfettered -- abuse is treated as a legal matter. Encrypted works are essentially similar to trade secrets. Access is controlled by the owner, but if somebody lets the cat out of the bag the owner is left with nothing. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 11:03:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30247 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:03:51 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA30244 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:03:49 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:07:37 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Valenti wants more laws To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:07:35 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/09/2001 08:07:37 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'm not certain Jack even knows what he says anymore. He really is beginning to remind me of a wind up doll. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Valenti wants more laws 02/08/01 11:14 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: mickeym [mailto:mickeym@mindspring.com] ... > > "``Why on earth would you need more than one copy? Everything you want > to copy you'll be able to copy one time,'' he said." (he=Jack Valenti) ``640k should be enough for anybody.'' -Bill Gates I think the lesson to be learned is that when you try to determine a limit on what other people might want, you will always be wrong. (Of course, I don't believe that Jack believes what he said ...) -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 11:05:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30365 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:05:11 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA30362 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:05:09 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:09:26 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:09:26 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/09/2001 08:09:26 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Traditionally, the key management has been the weakness of ciphers. Early in WWII, HYPO in Hawaii had to break the codes. Later on as they began to capture code books their task became easier. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments 02/08/01 11:15 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss There are still two ways that a scheme could be "weak". One is that the encryption itself is weak and susceptible to one sort of analysis or another. That may not be anticipatible and the law -- if it even meant what you guys apparently think it means -- should still cover. The other possibility though is that the -mechanism- built around the encryption scheme is flawed. For example, putting the keys right on the disk is like buying the best deadbolt for your front door and then putting the key under the mat. It's not the deadbolt that's at fault when your house is broken into. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 4:04 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > Exactly. Were the scheme unbreakable, or infeasible/ > uneconomic to crack no > law would be required. They have also attempted to legislate > something that > is counter to the fundamental tenet of crytology. The only > protection a > system has is knowledge of the key (even if the algorithm is > protected). > > > > > > > "Robert S. Thau" > > To: > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > arvard.edu > arguments > > > > > 02/07/01 02:10 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > tom@lemuria.org writes: > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:25:59PM -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: > > > (BTW, this is one of the things I don't fault Congress for in the > > > drafting of the DMCA. New cracks are discovered in encryption > > > schemes all the time. If "effective" in the DMCA were > taken to mean > > > "resistant to currently known forms of attack", then > someone relying > > > on 1201(a) access control would lose that protection as soon as a > > > crack were discovered --- the only situation under which > the law could > > > do them any good. Which is not to argue that they need > the protection > > > in the first place, of course, or that Congress was wise > to grant it, > > > but that's another kettle of eels...). > > > > I disagree. > > first, there are several other issues where the law would > provide you > > with something useful. taken from the congress comments on > DMCA it is > > clear that it was mainly aimed at stuff like black-boxing > pay channels, > > where the encryption is NOT actually broken, but - attention - > > circumvented. > > A distinction without a difference. > > > fact is that an encryption that has a practical, low effort attack > > discovered (i.e. not just a theoretical "if we had 1 mio years and > > quantum computers") *has had it*. it's bullshit to protect > something > > that's broken with a law. you can't make a broken car > drive again by > > passing a law that engine failures are illegal. > > So the law should be written to protect only systems that don't need > legal protection (since breaking them is technically infeasible). > > Okey-dokey... > > rst > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 11:10:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30609 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:10:54 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA30606 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:10:53 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:15:11 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: [DVD-discuss] HDCP vs 5C To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:15:10 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/09/2001 08:15:11 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I've always like Borland's original license on Turbo Pascal. As long as the software isn't running on two machines at the same time, they don't care. That's simple and made sense. And at $49.99 for version 1.0, who would bother-especially a company.....BTW, your argument also brings up the fact that the company is likely to buy a copy of the software that the "kid" already knows how to use. A sale as a direct result of p i r a cy...shutter the thought. Actually, I've got several CDs I have purchased over the years because a friend made cassette tapes for me. In one instance, we went to practially EVERY record store in town to find a copy. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: [DVD-discuss] HDCP vs 5C 02/09/01 12:46 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 03:57:03PM -0700, John Zulauf wrote: > Just the usual suspects > ======================== > (1) Just because a personal copy software doesn't mean they would be willing [...] > (3)The SOHO market is not representative of the software market > (3a)It is smaller than the F500 market > (3b)These statistics cannot be extended to the F500 market > (3c)Copy protection is a nightmare for large (F500) companies. (4)the money not spent on software is spent somewhere else, therefore while piracy may damage the copyright industry, it does NOT damage the economy as a whole. > Now, having said all that, I am a stickler personally about legitimate > copies. As a software engineer for over 20 years I know the hard work it > takes to produce software. I don't download "warez" games or applications. > However, the simple linear analysis of the cited paper is too facile to be > given much credence. They ask for a report to scare potential customers > into signing up. correct. I own quite a lot of games (and not only computer games), since games of all kinds are a hobby of mine. many of them are played once or twice, I'm more interested in the rules, the concepts, etc. that said, one thing that is constantly putting me off in computer games is copy protection. I just happen to own several machines in various locations, and requirements such as having the CD in the machine actually ARE a major inconvenience for me. that means that I sometimes download warez copies to /games that I own/, because the warez version has the copy protection removed. isn't that crazy? > Historically copy protection/licensing scheme have done more to harm the > software market than develop it. The only exceptions (probably) are high > cost >$5-10K per seat, niche market applications where the TAM (total > available market) is measured in the 1,000's of seats. In that tight of > niche even a few copies can make or break the development/business model. I disagree. especially in this market, the statement that the people who spend $1 on a pirate copy are not necessarily willing to buy the full version is more than true. 3D Studio (Max) is possibly the most well-known 3D rendering and animation software on the market BECAUSE it was and still is being so extensively pirated. when you hire a new, young someone for a job that requires 3D software, chances are he knows 3D Studio because he has a pirate copy at home to play around with. no chance a private person shells out $3000 for a regular copy. I'm fairly sure the even-more-expensive softwares work the same way. the people who run a business on pirated software wouldn't have had the money to buy the full version anyways. $10k is nothing for a large company. > line Typically the "piracy" issue is moot and the licensing schemes are > really just a mechanism to keep track of what the company has paid for. > Typically in the corporate environment, the company wants to comply and has > policy in place to do so) . Not anywhere in the same neighborhood of the > SOHO causal pirate. correct. a simple way to reliably count the number of installations within the company(*) would do much more for the problem than the most extensive copy protection. most companies are either "pirating" without wanting to or even knowing about it, or are vastly over-licensed just to be sure. (*) that's not as easy as it sounds. think about machines turned off, machines broken down, etc. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 11:59:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA31187 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:59:31 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA31184 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:59:25 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id JAA09768 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:03:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma005126; Fri, 9 Feb 01 08:54:09 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Fri, 09 Feb 2001 08:55:43 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id JAA09843; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:54:08 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] RE: [DVD-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:03:11 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c092ba$2eaf8100$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <20010209094105.B2925@lemuria.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 169AFE85112136-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom replied Friday, February 09, 2001 1:41 AM > (4)the money not spent on software is spent somewhere else, therefore > while piracy may damage the copyright industry, it does NOT damage the > economy as a whole. Here's a theory: money not spent on pirated software is spent predominantly on **other software** or wouldn't be spent **at all**. I'd love to see a study on that. It's logical. The typical SOHO has a certain bugdet for software. For software one needs to run a business on, a manual, tech-support, upgrades etc. are of value. Having been involve in startups and SOHO's -- the core software for the business is almost always legit. This means that of the lower priority tools for the SOHO some are legit, while other may be pirated. Essentially the claim is the the probability of piracy in a SOHO is inverse proportion to the value of the software to the SOHO. In short, they're spending all they're going to spend (on software) and the software that would be precluded from piracy is of such lower value that it wouldn't be purchased. > > Historically copy protection/licensing scheme have done more to harm the > > software market than develop it. The only exceptions > (probably) are high > > cost >$5-10K per seat, niche market applications where the TAM (total > > available market) is measured in the 1,000's of seats. In that tight of > > niche even a few copies can make or break the > development/business model. > > I disagree. especially in this market, the statement that the people > who spend $1 on a pirate copy are not necessarily willing to buy the > full version is more than true. 3D Studio (Max) is possibly the most > well-known 3D rendering and animation software on the market BECAUSE it > was and still is being so extensively pirated. when you hire a new, > young someone for a job that requires 3D software, chances are he knows > 3D Studio because he has a pirate copy at home to play around with. no > chance a private person shells out $3000 for a regular copy. > I'm fairly sure the even-more-expensive softwares work the same way. > the people who run a business on pirated software wouldn't have had the > money to buy the full version anyways. $10k is nothing for a large > company. I kind of agree -- I was on the Maya** developent team at Alias|wavefront (list $5K-$16K) and we took licensing quite seriously. While our larger customers (like Disney, and Lucas) companies were quite good (as were most in the US) the overseas market was a bit of a nightmare. The licenses were there as a needed "reminder" to our customers for who paying for software was a bit of a novelty. The overseas market was import to us as a growth market, and while we knew we were getting cracked, the license helped us sort out who could get support legitimately -- and who needed to bring their license count up to match their seat count. Since we did a lot of promotion and support (our expert user team kept getting hired away as lead animators over time), the secondary benefits of being licensed encouraged with gentle persuasion, and licensing help us keep track of how bad it was (meaning that "knowing" the level of cracking actually increased our comfort level, as we **knew** how bad it was -- not just **fearing** how bad it might be. Having said that, as soon as our first beta of the NT version was release a crack was posted on a warez site and my neighbor (a middle school teenager) a computer enthusiast and all his friend had downloaded it to "play around" having heard it had been used by games companies to develop some "kick-ass" games. When I walked in wearing my Maya logo'd jacket, you'd have thought I was a rock-star "whoa, dude" (this happened in Calif) "you worked on MAYA?! It's really cool." Which is how I learned of their exposure at the warez site. Did I turn them in? No. Did A|w lose revenue? No. In fact the implication was (and these teens are quite sophisicate games consumers) they would be looking out for games developed using Maya preferentially. Indirectly this could gain sales for A|w. John Zulauf private netizen ** Maya -- IHMO (ok not H) -- is THE premier computer graphics and animation package for film, animation, and special effects. If you've seen a movie, you've seen Maya in action. (Not that I'm proud of being involved in the product or anything...) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 12:39:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA31796 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:39:11 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA31793 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:39:10 -0500 Received: from ip22.bedford9.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.79.22]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 14RHZy-0006cG-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 09 Feb 2001 12:43:31 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: [DVD-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 12:43:53 -0500 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id MAA31794 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:15:10 -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > >I've always like Borland's original license on Turbo Pascal. As long as the >software isn't running on two machines at the same time, they don't care. >That's simple and made sense. And at $49.99 for version 1.0, who would >bother-especially a company.....BTW, your argument also brings up the fact >that the company is likely to buy a copy of the software that the "kid" >already knows how to use. A sale as a direct result of p i r a cy...shutter >the thought. As a consequence, the 'kid' is now more likely to use gcc or java than MSVC and VJ++. I bought VJ++ v.1 when it came out, after having demoed Asymmetrix' java app. This was more like a public beta--definitely a work in progress. When v. 1.1 came out 6 months later, there was no upgrade deal--just a higher full price. That was when I swore off Redmond for good. >Actually, I've got several CDs I have purchased over the years because a >friend made cassette tapes for me. In one instance, we went to practially >EVERY record store in town to find a copy. Of course they know this is how it really works. But their hubris is total control for the sake of it. At this point they can't change or adapt. SIIA and BSA and RIAA and MPAA now steer the ship. (Stockholders beware--these captains don't have to show a profit, and icebergs are a valid destination.) __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 14:03:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01891 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:03:34 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA01888 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:03:32 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30349>; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:08:18 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:08:16 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Well ... you can set up a soapbox website and try to make the URL highly visible on all the search sites. Make sure your site comes up whenever somebody puts "DVD" "MPAA", "DMCA" or even "The Matrix" and "Titanic" in for search. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 7:51 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > I think that pretty much sums up the argument. As Eric, and other have > noted, Allowing TPM AND copyright create a fundamental > contradiction. While > the LOC can babble on about circumvention maybe necessary for special > circumstances, WE know that the use of strong encryption (and > practices) > precludes that entirely-making the whole issue moot. > Something the LOC and > most other do not understand. The question is how to get > these arguments > OUT there, preferably over the INTERNET. Interesting > question, how do you > put out the equivalent of an electronic version of a pamplet without > running afoul of the Anti-spam laws and enforcers.....at > least snail mail > has the advantage of an anonymous mail box. > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > > arguments > > > 02/08/01 11:14 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > ... > > > > > > Yes. The first arguement is that they are NOT entitled to the the > > protection of the law should they choose to use access controls, > > encryption, etc, > > Back to the distinction between patent and trade secret and attempting > to apply it to "works". > > If you provide open access, the law protects. If you attempt > to provide your own protection then you are SOL if that protection > is insufficient. > > IOW: only works distributed WITHOUT a TPM are entitled to protection > under copyright law. TPM-protected works stand or fall on > the strength > of their TPM. Given the proper TPM this might give you sole > control of > the work for much longer than the standard copyright term, much as > Coca-Cola and Col. Sanders have had sole control of their > secret recipies > for longer than they would have if they had been patented. > > > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 15:19:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA03800 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:19:50 -0500 Received: from myrealbox.com (mail.myrealbox.com [192.108.102.201]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA03797 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:19:49 -0500 Received: from pigpen [63.230.4.54] by myrealbox.com with Novonyx SMTP Server $Revision: 2.76 $; Fri, 09 Feb 2001 13:23:01 -0700 (MDT) Message-ID: <000701c092d6$cb492900$6401a8c0@pigpen> From: "Phill K" To: References: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Cop Mail Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:27:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Don't take this personally!! This is an honest service that I signed up for; http//:www.spamcop.net I got tired of getting spam because I happened to post to DVD discuss (and other list serves). This service makes it easy to decode forged headers (why isn't there a law against forged email headers yet??) so a complaint can be filed with their respective ISP for sending Unsolicited Bulk Email (spam). Spammers have used DVD discuss by "harvesting emails" by using a spider bot. Spamcop should be transparent to the sender. However, I checked my preferences for spam cop and I missed a check-off box for DVD discuss. Their seems to be a bug in certain instances that gives this message to subscribers on the list. This should be fixed now. My sincerest apologies for troubling the list. If it's any consolation, spammers who spam the list get reported to their respective ISPs. yours, Phill ----- Original Message ----- From: Lew Wolfgang Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Cop Mail > Wow, what a crock! They want to cut down on "Junk Mail" by > adding to the problem. They could also be trolling for valid > addresses to sell to spammers. There are other, non-intrusive > ways to minimize spam without giving up personal information. > > Regards, > Lew Wolfgang > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, John Young wrote: > > > If I am the exclusive recipient of this message, by any means trash > > my mail to lurking cops: > > > > From: nobody@spamcop.net > > Subject: SpamCop detained your email > > Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:10 -0500 > > To: jya@pipeline.com > > > > > > You have attempted to send a message to dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu. > > The subject of your message was "[dvd-discuss] Coders v. e-Comms". > > The recipient (or one of the recipients) of this message subscribes to > > SpamCop, a system that filters unwanted email, to cut down on electronic > > "junk mail." We apologize for the inconvenience, but SpamCop needs to see > > if you are sending from a valid address before it can allow your message > > to go through. This only happens the first time you try to send an email, > > so you won't see this message again. > > < snip > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 19:52:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA05656 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 19:52:00 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA05653 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 19:51:59 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA303VC>; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:10:28 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:10:27 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu No ... that's precisely why the analogy works. CSS is necessary but not suffient when viewing a DVD movie. If it is -necessary- for access then the argument can be made that it is a TPM under the DMCA. Sufficiency is not required. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 7:54 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > The analogy breaks down when one considers that the laser or > phonograph > needle are necessary for access but not sufficient. One must > have the means > of accessing the media first....Now one analogy might be old dbx noise > reduction system. As I recall if you tried to play a dbx > recording through > a non dbx player it sounded pretty odd at times. Probably why Dolby B > became the standard. > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > > arguments > > > 02/08/01 11:14 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mickeym [mailto:mickeym@mindspring.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:36 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > > > > > > > Tom wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:03:42PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > > > > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access > > to a work'' may > > > > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace > > with 'has the > > > > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. > > The whole point > > > > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > > > > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and > > still import > > > > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the > > need to break 1201. > > > > > > I see. that was it's whole purpose, wasn't it? the WIPO > > document on my > > > website says so quite clearly. so according to kaplan, a > simple XOR > > > would've been sufficient. > > > > In the world of computers, almost any method could then be > > argued to meet the > > requirement of 'has the effect of controlling access', to the > > extreme of saying > > that any file format or filesystem type is complicated enough > > to prevent access. > > This would potentially mean that *all* data files can be > > claimed as being in this > > new category of works, and that hex editors will get you into > > trouble since they > > easily reveal what is inside. > > > > Or, to bring back earlier examples: the laser has the effect > of controlling access to the audio content encoded on your CD; > also, a phonograph needle has the effect of controlling access > to the audio content encoded on your LP. > > So ... is the phonograph needle a TPM under the DCMA? Ok, > so it's analog audio content and possibly does not come under > the aegis of the DMCA ... let's move the discussion to the > laser in your CD player ... TPM? So now nobody can manufacture > CD players w/o the consent of the music publishers ?? > > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 21:44:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA06808 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 21:44:41 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f78.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.78]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA06805 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 21:44:40 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:49:01 -0800 Received: from 24.180.238.193 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:49:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [24.180.238.193] From: "Harold Eaton" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 21:49:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Feb 2001 02:49:01.0665 (UTC) FILETIME=[060B0510:01C0930C] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >The analogy breaks down when one considers that the laser or phonograph >needle are necessary for access but not sufficient. One must have the means >of accessing the media first.... Uh, *no single thing* is "sufficient" for accessing a DVD or CD. Consider this in particular: A CSS decoder is necessary for "access" to an encrypted DVD, but it is not sufficient. By your logic, it is not a TPM, and nothing could ever be. The reality is if you accept the "authorized device" interpretation of 1201, then anything can be a TPM - even a book cover. If you instead accept the "authorized person" interpretation, then many fewer things qualify. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 22:02:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA07195 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 22:02:27 -0500 Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA07192 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 22:02:26 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-37kba9l.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.169.53]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA06661 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 22:06:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A84AF62.FA520901@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 22:02:58 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss Subject: [dvd-discuss] Napster decision due Monday Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/09/tech.napster.reut/index.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 10 00:15:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA09610 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:15:31 -0500 Received: from mail5.speakeasy.net (mail5.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.205]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA09607 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:15:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 22875 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2001 05:20:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mit.edu) ([64.24.53.49]) (envelope-sender ) by mail5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 10 Feb 2001 05:20:07 -0000 Message-ID: <3A84C2E4.66EE805B@mit.edu> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:26:12 -0500 From: Ravi Nanavati X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Nightline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Take a look at tonight's (2/9) Nightline which is about downloading entertainment from the Internet. DVDs and DeCSS figure prominently (and may have formed the bulk of the story, but I didn' catch all of it). One of the things I did like was the focus on new business models for Hollywood. There is also plenty not to like, but that's to be expected. - Ravi Nanavati From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 10 02:34:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA10580 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:34:49 -0500 Received: from outgoing.themail.com (outgoing.themail.com [216.38.174.30]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA10577 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:34:48 -0500 From: mw@themail.com Received: from mail.TheMail.com [216.38.174.249] by outgoing.themail.com (SMTPD32-6.05) id A00D968700E0; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:38:53 -0500 Received-From: mail.TheMail.com To: ravi_n@mit.edu Cc: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Nightline X-Priority: 3 Authorized-User: mw@TheMail.com IP-Address: 12.72.34.39 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Message-Id: <200102100238427.SM00275@mail.TheMail.com> Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:39:09 -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I was watching it! I couldn't believe it. There was copyleft and the code, they played some of the song... at least it was some exposure. I was surprised. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/index.html ****** Original Message ****** From: Ravi Nanavati Sent: Sat 01/01/2000 12:00 AM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Nightline Take a look at tonight's (2/9) Nightline which is > >about downloading entertainment from the Internet. > >DVDs and DeCSS figure prominently (and may have > >formed the bulk of the story, but I didn' catch all > >of it). One of the things I did like was the focus on > >new business models for Hollywood. There is also > >plenty not to like, but that's to be expected. > > > > - Ravi Nanavati > > > > __________________________________________________________________ Make A Buck Or Two @ TheMail.com - Free Internet Email Sign-up today at http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref=44883 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 10 04:13:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA11389 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:13:54 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA11386 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:13:52 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3E9BBB51.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.81]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D4227AE2 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:13:10 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 76F9B175195; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:15:33 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:15:33 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Nightline Message-ID: <20010210101532.B3664@lemuria.org> References: <200102100238427.SM00275@mail.TheMail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200102100238427.SM00275@mail.TheMail.com>; from mw@themail.com on Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 02:39:09AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 02:39:09AM -0500, mw@themail.com wrote: > I was watching it! I couldn't believe it. > There was copyleft and the code, they played some of the song... > at least it was some exposure. > I was surprised. they must have mentioned my website somewhere - I was drowning in spam and "hey, I saw you on nightline, can you tell me how to pirate DVDs?" mails today. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 10 05:00:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA11638 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:00:22 -0500 Received: from mars.dname.net (root@mars.dname.net [216.161.236.97]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA11635 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:00:20 -0500 Received: from hobbiton.org (sage_b@thorin.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.98]) by mars.dname.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1AA94C32176 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:09:05 -0600 (CST) Received: (from sage_b@localhost) by hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f1AA2vs14785; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:02:58 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:02:58 -0600 (CST) From: Stephen Kawamoto Message-Id: <200102101002.f1AA2vs14785@hobbiton.org> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I thought crypto is used for privacy reasons, though originally for keeping secrets. Copyrighted material is sometimes encrypted for commercial reasons. Obviously then, what is in the public domain should not be copyrighted or made copyrighted (as in databases). > ------------ Begin Original ------------ > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:04:59 -0800 > > > I agree. Encryption, by its very nature, attempts to keep information > secret. This is diametrically opposed to a free and open exchange and > availability. It creates a fundamental contradiction. If encryption is to > be allowed, then copyright protection must not be extended to those works > at any time or manner. > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 10 14:31:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA14729 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:31:17 -0500 Received: from mars.dname.net (root@mars.dname.net [216.161.236.97]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA14726 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:31:11 -0500 Received: from hobbiton.org (sage_b@thorin.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.98]) by mars.dname.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1AJdsC03521 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:39:54 -0600 (CST) Received: (from sage_b@localhost) by hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f1AJXdB23344; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:33:39 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:33:39 -0600 (CST) From: Stephen Kawamoto Message-Id: <200102101933.f1AJXdB23344@hobbiton.org> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Interpreting the DVD fiasco Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >From what I can tell, basically the MPAA vs DecSS legal battle appears to be over copyright of a weakly encrypted copy protection that was cracked due to a licensee not properly implementing the license to protect the encryption company's copyright. Correct me here if I am wrong. However, the legal fight seems to be protecting that encryption company's intellectual property rather than preventing illegal copying of DVDs which do not need the encryption software to be copied. The DVD data just needs the encryption to be viewed, which demonstrates it is a control issue i.e. only people with decoders can view the encrypted videos. So it's not really about DVD data and copyright issue surrounding movies etc. It's more about the right for a licenser of encryption software to profit from a badly written piece of software. Therefore, it has the potential of being like the Microsoft anti-racketeering fiasco now being stretched out in federal court with the taxpayers footing the government's legal bills. In essence, this DVD legal problem is like Seagrams suing a home brewer for figuring how to make cheap whiskey that tastes like their finest, despite the fact that alcohol is a metabolic poison. The poison in the case of DVD is encryption itself, which should be used to protect the privacy of private citizens not allow the government to avoid public scrutiny. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 10 14:55:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA14941 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:55:30 -0500 Received: from mars.dname.net (root@mars.dname.net [216.161.236.97]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA14938 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:55:28 -0500 Received: from hobbiton.org (sage_b@thorin.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.98]) by mars.dname.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1AK4EC19315 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:04:14 -0600 (CST) Received: (from sage_b@localhost) by hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f1AJw6p24439; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:58:06 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:58:06 -0600 (CST) From: Stephen Kawamoto Message-Id: <200102101958.f1AJw6p24439@hobbiton.org> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Show me the Money! Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Tom replied Friday, February 09, 2001 1:41 AM > (4)the money not spent on software is spent somewhere else, therefore > while piracy may damage the copyright industry, it does NOT damage the > economy as a whole. However, the copyright lawyers's profit margin is severely affected by piracy. The anti-piracy business interests are strictly in it for the profit, not to protect the industry's botton-line. One should never forget that the price of a software package pays for the LICENCE itself, but the programs you pay for are essentially almost free, depending on how proprietary the manufacturer is. Canon uses for its publishing software for its printers the CD-ROM dongle where the CD-ROM must be accessed to use the software. Other companies use a machine port dongle. Some games manufacturers ask for passwords during game play. Arcade machines at the local poolhall require tokens or money to play. In all these examples, a profit motive is at play even when no money exchanges hands. Canon's CD-ROM dongle is cheaper than AmiPro or Ms Publisher or even the machine port dongle method -- which even newspaper publishers use. Hence there is a profit motive here for copy protection. However, this does not affect the global economy a bit. It just makes it easier for coypright lawyers to profit handsomely and invest in the widening gap between the rich and the poor, the technological haves and have-nots. In essence, then it's purely political since copyrights empower authors of all shapes and sizes, giving them rights to their works and perhaps a higher status over consumers, who are not actively encouraged to produce intellectual property. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 10 15:00:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA15069 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:00:54 -0500 Received: from mars.dname.net (root@mars.dname.net [216.161.236.97]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA15066 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:00:51 -0500 Received: from hobbiton.org (sage_b@thorin.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.98]) by mars.dname.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1AK9cC18089 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:09:38 -0600 (CST) Received: (from sage_b@localhost) by hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f1AK3Tg17129; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:03:29 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:03:29 -0600 (CST) From: Stephen Kawamoto Message-Id: <200102102003.f1AK3Tg17129@hobbiton.org> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I have a site up that may be libelous to Microsoft and Bill Gates. Does this violate any laws? :) > ------------ Begin Original ------------ > From: Richard Hartman > To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:08:16 -0800 > > Well ... you can set up a soapbox website and try to make > the URL highly visible on all the search sites. Make sure > your site comes up whenever somebody puts "DVD" "MPAA", "DMCA" > or even "The Matrix" and "Titanic" in for search. > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > ------------ End Original ------------ > to access my site, i should tell you hobbiton.org never uses www in its domain and it runs on UNIX. hence the url is not www.hobbiton.org/Sage_b From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 10 19:26:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA16591 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:26:13 -0500 Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA16588 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:26:10 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-34-126.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.34.126]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA10476 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:30:34 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:30:43 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: [dvd-discuss] a tidbit of news Message-ID: <3A8588D3.3533.486174@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Is it still an issue that DeCSS was made first for windows, and then for Linux? I don't recall if the plaintiffs made a big deal over that point. Anyway, there's a blurb on Slashdot today about an open source 3D graphics technology which has just been released (see http://openfx.org/download/index.php). This technology only exists for Windows so far, they have not yet ported it to Linux, but they intend to do so. Would this have any bearing on the fact that DeCSS was made first for Windows and then for Linux? It seems minor but it might provide a good point. In general, this has made me think that it really doesn't matter that DeCSS was made first for Windows, in the sense that it doesn't matter for what platform an open source project is intended. If DeCSS (and by extension LiViD) had been intended primarily for Windows, would that make it any less open source or any less legal? Again, I hope this isn't The Issue Moldier Then Last Thanksgiving's Stuffing. If it is.. oh well.. sparky From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 10 21:57:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA17818 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:57:51 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA17815 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:57:39 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA11594 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:01:45 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:01:40 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS Message-ID: <20010210220139.A11423@eldritchpress.org> References: <200102101002.f1AA2vs14785@hobbiton.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200102101002.f1AA2vs14785@hobbiton.org>; from sage_b@hobbiton.org on Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 04:02:58AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu earlier i discussed briefly the harm that encryption does to the concept of copyright and the public domain. but it also occurs to me that the shotgun wedding of encryption and copyright also does great harm to encryption. this added layer of 'protection' does not protect the content, while it only entraps those who wish, for legitimate reasons, to do reverse engineering and research on encryption. it only creates an environment where the law protects the worse and shoddiest forms of encryption. when encryption is then intended to protect the interests of both producers and consumers neither benefits. encryption experts have a duty to draw this matter to the attention of lawmakers and the courts. another problem i did not mention directly is that works 'in the public domain' don't necessarily stay there once they enter that realm. copyright law in the u.s. and other nations has taken many thousands of works out of the public domain (see the gatt provisions) and placed them under copyright, under certain complicated circumstances. if the original 'public domain' copies become inaccessible for one reason or another (acid paper, for example) then the newly encrypted work will never go back into the public domain, and unless the work exists in unencrypted form, it is highly likely that new works will ever enter the public domain. the dmca does contain references to self-help remedies by librarians and the like, but clearly these are useless sops written by the copyright forces. once a copyrighted work is encrypted and protected by the dmca it appears it will never enter the public domain. since promoting the public domain and fair use are the reasons the framers established copyright in the u.s., the dmca should be unconstitutional just on that ground alone. On Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 04:02:58AM -0600, Stephen Kawamoto wrote: > I thought crypto is used for privacy reasons, though originally for > keeping secrets. Copyrighted material is sometimes encrypted for > commercial reasons. Obviously then, what is in the public domain > should not be copyrighted or made copyrighted (as in databases). > > > > ------------ Begin Original ------------ > > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:04:59 -0800 > > > > > > I agree. Encryption, by its very nature, attempts to keep information > > secret. This is diametrically opposed to a free and open exchange and > > availability. It creates a fundamental contradiction. If encryption > is to > > be allowed, then copyright protection must not be extended to those > works > > at any time or manner. > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 10 22:48:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA18174 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:48:28 -0500 Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA18171 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:48:26 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld4b1.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.145.97]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA10736 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:52:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A860BB7.244C2E5@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:49:12 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss Subject: [dvd-discuss] BSA Sends Letter to Bush Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The BSA (not the scouts, the other BSA) announced that they have sent a letter to President Bush. A copy of the letter can be seen here: http://www.bsa.org/usa/policy/potusltr.phtml In the letter, they make note of some attached "issue"documents, one of which discusses copyright. Here is a link to that paper: http://www.bsa.org/resources/2001-02-08.41.pdf A choice quote from it: "Businesses depend upon a stable copyright system to give the creator of a work the ultimate decision regarding how it will be used." mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 11 00:41:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA18893 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:41:14 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA18890 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:41:01 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA11712 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:45:08 -0500 Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:45:03 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] up against the wall Message-ID: <20010211004503.A11698@eldritchpress.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54718-2001Feb10.html how will the forces that control our culture respond to truly free speech? some interesting reactions to the proposal to erect a public domain chalkboard across from city hall in charlottesville, va.: "My only request is that participants have a sense of humor," Brown wrote. "Freedom demands constant vigilance against the dull, the pretentious and the bad liar. At least good liars have amusement value." But some residents, including many City Hall workers, fear that disgruntled residents with gripes about city government will express their displeasure in raw excoriations on the board just outside the building's front door. "Why give them an invitation?" said Barbara Ronan, a paralegal for the city. "If people write on buildings, it's a crime. This just encourages it. People will tend to write obscenities." It's just too big a risk, said Barbara Merriwether, a retired educator who grew up in Mississippi. "There will be hate messages, messages of intolerance," said Merriwether, who spoke out against the board at the public hearing. "My white friends think it's going to happen, too. It's in our society already. What's the purpose of inviting it?" Let's not make dvds recordable. why give the pirates and consumers an invitation to produce and distribute something that might possibly be better than what the mpaa or bsa or riaa could produce on its own? no, let's keep the internet safe for e-commerce and put those hudson kayakers in jail! they have no conception that there no longer is such a thing as the public domain--every expression is copyrighted as soon as it is created. after all, they already have /.--why expose our children to goat sex? No, Mr Jefferson, your ideas about free speech will never work! (as confirmed by the fad of renaming public schools that had been named after slaveowners such as jefferson and washington--we don't want to encourage respect for our founding fathers and their ideas if there is any possible chance of demeaning some of our children who happen to have descended from slaves or even jefferson himself.) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 11 02:25:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA19529 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 02:25:06 -0500 Received: from web10003.mail.yahoo.com (web10003.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.130.39]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA19526 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 02:25:04 -0500 Message-ID: <20010211072929.69317.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.131.99.129] by web10003.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:29:29 PST Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:29:29 -0800 (PST) From: Larry Blunk Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA going after the "Gallery of CSS Descramblers" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dr. David Touretzky has received a notice from the MPAA concerning his gallery of CSS descramblers at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/ The standard MPAA notice can be found here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/mpaa-threat-feb2001.txt Read Dr. Touretzky's wonderful reply here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/mpaa-reply-feb2001.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 11 13:36:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA23609 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:36:29 -0500 Received: from osiris.978.org (qmailr@bluebox.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.24.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA23315 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:39:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 6662 invoked by uid 1000); 11 Feb 2001 17:44:17 -0000 Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:44:17 -0500 From: Brian Ristuccia To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Region Free DVD Players on Int'l Space Station Message-ID: <20010211124417.Q16908@osiris.978.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I don't know if this has been posted here before (or if it's for real), but from the looks of this story, NASA shares many of our views on region coding and the right to modify one's DVD player: http://www.techtronics.com/uk/shop/510-nasa.html Hello, this is NASA And we need your multi-region DVD players. This was the surprise email enquiry we received from Steve Vanderark of NASA Johnson Space Center on Aug 5th, 2000. It turns out that the real customers are the International Space Station, whose diverse residents are expected to come from as many as 16 nations. In terms of DVD regional codes , that includes Region 1, 2, 4 & 5. In order not to show any bias, it is only natural that they opt for a Multi-Region player over a virgin single Region player. -- Brian Ristuccia brian@ristuccia.com bristucc@cs.uml.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 05:16:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA29532 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 05:16:06 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA29529 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 05:16:03 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06165; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:20:30 GMT Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:20:30 GMT Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Harold Eaton" wrote: > The reality is if you accept the "authorized device" interpretation > of 1201, then anything can be a TPM - even a book cover. If you > instead accept the "authorized person" interpretation, then many fewer > things qualify. > The "authorised device" argument is exactly the one that the MPAA will be trying to convince the courts to accept. Whether *we* accept it or not is irrelevant! (Of course we don't accept it). It would be useful to hear contributions that propose as many possible ways that the MPAA could argue that case. That will help to show that our side has counter-arguments for them all. Better to find out if we've got a flaw in our defence here on the discussion list, than in court! -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 08:23:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA30514 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:23:53 -0500 Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA30511 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:23:47 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38lcijm.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.74.118]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA09733 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:28:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A87E3E5.D0F9CD42@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:23:49 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] up against the wall References: <20010211004503.A11698@eldritchpress.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think the chalkboard idea is great. I remember a middle school teacher of mine managed to get the bathroom walls covered in paper for the same reason. The school tolerated it only for a short time, but it was long enough for me to respect the teacher for trying. For the big chalkboard, I could see how parents would not want to have to explain some things to young children, so maybe it shouldn't face the main street. They should put the backside to the street with the text of the First Amendment painted on it, with a half-circle street and sidewalk around it for viewing. As for recordable media, the same approach could work. Oh, hey, it already does. mickey Eric Eldred wrote: > http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54718-2001Feb10.html > > how will the forces that control our culture respond > to truly free speech? some interesting reactions to > the proposal to erect a public domain chalkboard across > from city hall in charlottesville, va.: > > "My only request is that participants have a sense of humor," Brown wrote. > "Freedom demands constant vigilance against the dull, the pretentious and the > bad liar. At least good liars have amusement value." > > But some residents, including many City Hall workers, fear that disgruntled > residents with gripes about city government will express their displeasure in > raw excoriations on the board just outside the building's front door. > > "Why give them an invitation?" said Barbara Ronan, a paralegal for the city. > "If people write on buildings, it's a crime. This just encourages it. People > will tend to write obscenities." > > It's just too big a risk, said Barbara Merriwether, a retired educator who grew > up in Mississippi. > > "There will be hate messages, messages of intolerance," said Merriwether, who > spoke out against the board at the public hearing. "My white friends think it's > going to happen, too. It's in our society already. What's the purpose of > inviting it?" > > > Let's not make dvds recordable. why give the pirates and > consumers an invitation to produce and distribute something > that might possibly be better than what the mpaa or bsa > or riaa could produce on its own? no, let's keep the > internet safe for e-commerce and put those hudson kayakers > in jail! they have no conception that there no longer is > such a thing as the public domain--every expression is > copyrighted as soon as it is created. after all, they > already have /.--why expose our children to goat sex? > > No, Mr Jefferson, your ideas about free speech will never > work! (as confirmed by the fad of renaming public schools > that had been named after slaveowners such as jefferson and > washington--we don't want to encourage respect for our > founding fathers and their ideas if there is any possible > chance of demeaning some of our children who happen to > have descended from slaves or even jefferson himself.) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 10:46:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA31972 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:46:51 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA31969 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:46:44 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:51:04 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:51:03 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/12/2001 07:51:04 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu CSS is neither necessary or sufficient...nor even required. Unlike the laser or phonograph needle it is totally artificial. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments 02/09/01 05:00 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss No ... that's precisely why the analogy works. CSS is necessary but not suffient when viewing a DVD movie. If it is -necessary- for access then the argument can be made that it is a TPM under the DMCA. Sufficiency is not required. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 7:54 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > The analogy breaks down when one considers that the laser or > phonograph > needle are necessary for access but not sufficient. One must > have the means > of accessing the media first....Now one analogy might be old dbx noise > reduction system. As I recall if you tried to play a dbx > recording through > a non dbx player it sounded pretty odd at times. Probably why Dolby B > became the standard. > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > > arguments > > > 02/08/01 11:14 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mickeym [mailto:mickeym@mindspring.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:36 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > > > > > > > Tom wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:03:42PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > > > > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access > > to a work'' may > > > > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace > > with 'has the > > > > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. > > The whole point > > > > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > > > > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and > > still import > > > > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the > > need to break 1201. > > > > > > I see. that was it's whole purpose, wasn't it? the WIPO > > document on my > > > website says so quite clearly. so according to kaplan, a > simple XOR > > > would've been sufficient. > > > > In the world of computers, almost any method could then be > > argued to meet the > > requirement of 'has the effect of controlling access', to the > > extreme of saying > > that any file format or filesystem type is complicated enough > > to prevent access. > > This would potentially mean that *all* data files can be > > claimed as being in this > > new category of works, and that hex editors will get you into > > trouble since they > > easily reveal what is inside. > > > > Or, to bring back earlier examples: the laser has the effect > of controlling access to the audio content encoded on your CD; > also, a phonograph needle has the effect of controlling access > to the audio content encoded on your LP. > > So ... is the phonograph needle a TPM under the DCMA? Ok, > so it's analog audio content and possibly does not come under > the aegis of the DMCA ... let's move the discussion to the > laser in your CD player ... TPM? So now nobody can manufacture > CD players w/o the consent of the music publishers ?? > > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 10:49:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA32079 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:49:52 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA32060 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:49:30 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:53:58 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:53:55 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/12/2001 07:53:58 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Exactly. No one thing is sufficient for access....in fact the whole TPM issue begins to look more and more like it was really decided in the 1917 case on films. "Harold Eaton" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/09/01 06:51 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >The analogy breaks down when one considers that the laser or phonograph >needle are necessary for access but not sufficient. One must have the means >of accessing the media first.... Uh, *no single thing* is "sufficient" for accessing a DVD or CD. Consider this in particular: A CSS decoder is necessary for "access" to an encrypted DVD, but it is not sufficient. By your logic, it is not a TPM, and nothing could ever be. The reality is if you accept the "authorized device" interpretation of 1201, then anything can be a TPM - even a book cover. If you instead accept the "authorized person" interpretation, then many fewer things qualify. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 11:03:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA32316 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:03:48 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA32313 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:03:44 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:08:07 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:08:05 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/12/2001 08:08:07 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I tend to view the encryption of copyrighted material on cable TV (e.g, Pay for View) as a private contract between the provider and the subscriber. I tend to also view databases as not copyrightable as well (collections of facts. Again, use of a database is a private contract (although the internet reduces the usefulness of some. Why should I use dialog to search for US patents, when the USPO now has them on line with figures which dialog does not) What is in the public domain can never be copyrighted by definition. Where I don't think encryption has any place is in publishing or sale to the public as personal property. Stephen Kawamoto To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to arvard.edu MPAA re: DeCSS 02/10/01 02:06 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss I thought crypto is used for privacy reasons, though originally for keeping secrets. Copyrighted material is sometimes encrypted for commercial reasons. Obviously then, what is in the public domain should not be copyrighted or made copyrighted (as in databases). > ------------ Begin Original ------------ > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:04:59 -0800 > > > I agree. Encryption, by its very nature, attempts to keep information > secret. This is diametrically opposed to a free and open exchange and > availability. It creates a fundamental contradiction. If encryption is to > be allowed, then copyright protection must not be extended to those works > at any time or manner. > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 11:07:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA32421 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:07:03 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA32416 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:06:59 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:11:21 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:11:19 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/12/2001 08:11:20 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Truth is always a defense.....Bill is greedy. Stephen Kawamoto To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/10/01 12:07 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss I have a site up that may be libelous to Microsoft and Bill Gates. Does this violate any laws? :) > ------------ Begin Original ------------ > From: Richard Hartman > To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:08:16 -0800 > > Well ... you can set up a soapbox website and try to make > the URL highly visible on all the search sites. Make sure > your site comes up whenever somebody puts "DVD" "MPAA", "DMCA" > or even "The Matrix" and "Titanic" in for search. > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > ------------ End Original ------------ > to access my site, i should tell you hobbiton.org never uses www in its domain and it runs on UNIX. hence the url is not www.hobbiton.org/Sage_b From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 11:23:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00415 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:23:50 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00412 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:23:44 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06479; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:28:12 GMT Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:28:12 GMT Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: > CSS is neither necessary or sufficient...nor even required. Unlike the > laser or phonograph needle it is totally artificial. > Surely this is irrelevant? Any form of 'access control' or 'protection method' can be argued to be only 'necessary' in that you have to decode through that layer somehow in order to get to the real datastream. You only have to use deCSS (or whatever the so-called 'legal' version used in licenced DVD players is called) in order to play back CSS-encoded DVDs. DMCA is specifically written to provide protection for such mechanisms. We argue that DMCA's provisions are being misused in this case, but that's the reason that CSS is there, and while it is there then deCSS (or the 'legal' equivalent) *are* necessary. What is the argument here? I seem to have lost the plot on this 'necessary and sufficient' thread... :-) -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 11:30:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00561 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:30:18 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00558 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:30:12 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:34:39 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:34:38 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/12/2001 08:34:39 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That's a good point on encryption research. The DMCA not only ignores the traditional approach of ruthless peer review but attempts to do away with it. It is unhealthy. Your thoughts works entering and leaving the public domain echo some that I was pondering this weekend. A few weeks ago, I saw the newly restored version of "Lawrence of Arabia" and at the end was the copyright for that version. What tends to bother me about that was if it is restored, then it is merely putting back together what was originally released in the 1960s and the copyright should be from that date and not the 1990s. So some of the footage is copyrighted in the 1960s and some in the 1990s? but ALL was shot in the 1960. Of course I might add that not having to deposit a copy in the LOC makes it impossible to sort out when the copyright DOES expire. If copyright law is going to allow copyright at time of creation then in the case of recordings, it should be at the time of creation of the original footage or tapes and not the release of later versions. In contrast to this, is the reconstruction of Stravinsky and Nijinski's Rite of Spring. The music and dancing was so much beyond its time that the Parisians Rioted in 1912 and it only had three performances and the choreography was lost. In the 70s a couple of scholars began working on a reconstruction that was ultimately performed by the Joffrey ballet almost 2 decades later. The costumes were reconstruction from pictures. The set was recreated from photos, sketches, and knowledge of the style of the painter that created it originally. The choreography was recreated from sketches that an art student had done during one of the performances and some interviews and memories. (during rehearsal of one section, Joffrey suddenly yelled "storks...Romberg [one of the original dancers and his teacher] said they danced like storks" confirming that they had gotten it right"....I remember seeing at the end, that the reconstruction is copyrighted too. In comparison to all the director's cuts etc, here is something that truly does deserve copyright protection because there is more than just collection of facts or recreation. They had to guess, fill in the blanks and the effort was considerable - two decades worth. The more I ponder the notion of derivative works, themore I think that either they should not enjoy copyright protection or they should not have the copyright extended beyond the original time. Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to arvard.edu MPAA re: DeCSS 02/10/01 07:04 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss earlier i discussed briefly the harm that encryption does to the concept of copyright and the public domain. but it also occurs to me that the shotgun wedding of encryption and copyright also does great harm to encryption. this added layer of 'protection' does not protect the content, while it only entraps those who wish, for legitimate reasons, to do reverse engineering and research on encryption. it only creates an environment where the law protects the worse and shoddiest forms of encryption. when encryption is then intended to protect the interests of both producers and consumers neither benefits. encryption experts have a duty to draw this matter to the attention of lawmakers and the courts. another problem i did not mention directly is that works 'in the public domain' don't necessarily stay there once they enter that realm. copyright law in the u.s. and other nations has taken many thousands of works out of the public domain (see the gatt provisions) and placed them under copyright, under certain complicated circumstances. if the original 'public domain' copies become inaccessible for one reason or another (acid paper, for example) then the newly encrypted work will never go back into the public domain, and unless the work exists in unencrypted form, it is highly likely that new works will ever enter the public domain. the dmca does contain references to self-help remedies by librarians and the like, but clearly these are useless sops written by the copyright forces. once a copyrighted work is encrypted and protected by the dmca it appears it will never enter the public domain. since promoting the public domain and fair use are the reasons the framers established copyright in the u.s., the dmca should be unconstitutional just on that ground alone. On Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 04:02:58AM -0600, Stephen Kawamoto wrote: > I thought crypto is used for privacy reasons, though originally for > keeping secrets. Copyrighted material is sometimes encrypted for > commercial reasons. Obviously then, what is in the public domain > should not be copyrighted or made copyrighted (as in databases). > > > > ------------ Begin Original ------------ > > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:04:59 -0800 > > > > > > I agree. Encryption, by its very nature, attempts to keep information > > secret. This is diametrically opposed to a free and open exchange and > > availability. It creates a fundamental contradiction. If encryption > is to > > be allowed, then copyright protection must not be extended to those > works > > at any time or manner. > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 11:46:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00725 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:46:46 -0500 Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00722 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:46:44 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14351 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:49:44 -0700 (MST) Received: from 64-212-30-68.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.30.68), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAp5aO0y; Mon Feb 12 09:46:03 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA15681 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:47:21 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:47:21 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021209472103.21140@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Monday 12 February 2001 09:34, you wrote: # Your thoughts works entering and leaving the public domain echo some that I # was pondering this weekend. A few weeks ago, I saw the newly restored # version of "Lawrence of Arabia" and at the end was the copyright for that # version. What tends to bother me about that was if it is restored, then it # is merely putting back together what was originally released in the 1960s # and the copyright should be from that date and not the 1990s. So some of # the footage is copyrighted in the 1960s and some in the 1990s? but ALL was # shot in the 1960. Of course I might add that not having to deposit a copy # in the LOC makes it impossible to sort out when the copyright DOES expire. # If copyright law is going to allow copyright at time of creation then in # the case of recordings, it should be at the time of creation of the # original footage or tapes and not the release of later versions. Any copy of the original after 2030 will be illegal, since it's obviously just a minor snippage from the 199x version (which is, in turn, negligibly different from the 2010 version, which is in turn negligibly different from the 2035 version, etc.) Forever minus a day. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 11:46:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00716 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:46:23 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00713 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:46:16 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:50:38 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:50:37 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/12/2001 08:50:38 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Me too. I've lost the thread as well. I think it is that a distinction should be made between the physical mechanisms necessary to access a work and the TPM. WIthout a working player, I certainly cannot access anything. "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arvard.edu arguments 02/12/01 08:41 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: > CSS is neither necessary or sufficient...nor even required. Unlike the > laser or phonograph needle it is totally artificial. > Surely this is irrelevant? Any form of 'access control' or 'protection method' can be argued to be only 'necessary' in that you have to decode through that layer somehow in order to get to the real datastream. You only have to use deCSS (or whatever the so-called 'legal' version used in licenced DVD players is called) in order to play back CSS-encoded DVDs. DMCA is specifically written to provide protection for such mechanisms. We argue that DMCA's provisions are being misused in this case, but that's the reason that CSS is there, and while it is there then deCSS (or the 'legal' equivalent) *are* necessary. What is the argument here? I seem to have lost the plot on this 'necessary and sufficient' thread... :-) -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 11:49:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00862 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:49:45 -0500 Received: from cyber.law.harvard.edu (cyber.law.harvard.edu [140.247.216.239]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00859 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:49:44 -0500 From: wendy@seltzer.com Message-Id: <200102121649.LAA00859@eon.law.harvard.edu> Received: from cyber.law.harvard.edu ([140.247.216.239]) by cyber.law.harvard.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id 1B2CL44K; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:56:42 -0500 Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA23 busy again? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Mime-version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id LAA00860 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Has anyone gotten an MPAA nastygram lately over DeCSS posts or links? I'm wondering whether the cease and desist to Dr. Touretzky was part of a new round in the intimidation campaign, or simply out of embarrassment that his Gallery of CSS Descramblers is still up and cited as a scientific publication. That and whether mpaa23@pacbell.net will have the courtesy to reply to Touretzky's questions, Thanks! --Wendy Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 11:50:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00881 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:50:39 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00878 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:50:37 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id IAA11798 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:55:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma010165; Mon, 12 Feb 01 08:51:12 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:52:49 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00232; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:51:11 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:00:21 -0700 Message-ID: <000701c09515$48dbf380$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 1696CB6B321664-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Hosgood Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 9:28 AM > > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: > > CSS is neither necessary or sufficient...nor even required. Unlike the > > laser or phonograph needle it is totally artificial. > > > > Surely this is irrelevant? Any form of 'access control' or 'protection > method' can be argued to be only 'necessary' in that you have to decode > through that layer somehow in order to get to the real datastream. Absent a PPV model (such as Circuit City's Divex) access control that doesn't discern authorized persons is artificial. With CSS -- unlimited plays by any viewer Without CSS -- unlimited plays by any viewer With CSS -- no marginal revenue to copyright holder per-pay WithoutCSS -- no marginal revenue to copyright holder per-pay With CSS -- player does not check for "authority of copyright holder" Without CSS -- player does not check for "authority of copyright holder" With CSS -- player cannot detect stolen or bit-for-bit pirated copies Without CSS -- player cannot detect stolen or bit-for-bit pirated copies The only difference is that CSS checks for an authorized "player." Without CSS an authorized "player" is not required. CSS is a artificial constraint, the only function of which is to restrict access to DVD only to authorized players. Through this limitation licensing restrictions allow for restricting functionality and imposing usage limitations. Read Marks et. al. to WIPO or the CPSA doc. Both describe encyrption as a hook -- explicitly pretextual -- to force device and software mfgs to conform to the wishes of the copyright holder industry^Wcartel. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 13:39:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02482 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:39:17 -0500 Received: from godzilla.monsters.org (root@godzilla.monsters.org [204.180.109.4]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02479 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:39:14 -0500 Received: from zero.monsters.org (IDENT:root@zero.monsters.org [208.191.248.1]) by godzilla.monsters.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19486 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:43:41 -0600 Received: from zero.monsters.org by zero.monsters.org (8.11.0) id f1CIhf515336; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:43:41 -0600 Message-Id: <200102121843.f1CIhf515336@zero.monsters.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court Verdict in Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:43:41 -0600 From: Stephen L Johnson Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Maybe of some interest to the list. I saw on SlashDot the decision of the Napster appeal of it's injuction is in. According to new.CNet.com - "The Appeals Court wants Napster injunction modified." Some URL's to the decision http://lvalue.com/nap.html http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/4bc2cbe0ce5be94e88256927007a37b 9/c4f204f69c2538f6882569f100616b06?OpenDocument The court site appears to be totally overwhelmed or shutdown. I've just skimmed though the decision, but there appears to be several goo tidbit for discussion. Stephen L Johnson From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 13:48:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02681 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:48:18 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02678 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:48:17 -0500 Received: from banquo (adsl-151-202-34-10.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.34.10]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.9.3 (PHNE_21697)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19212 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:52:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010212135113.01f15fd0@pop.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:55:02 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court Verdict in In-Reply-To: <200102121843.f1CIhf515336@zero.monsters.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 12:43 PM 02/12/2001 -0600, you wrote: >Maybe of some interest to the list. I saw on SlashDot the decision of the >Napster appeal of it's injuction is in. According to new.CNet.com - "The >Appeals Court wants Napster injunction modified." > >Some URL's to the decision Thanks. I've put another at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/~wseltzer/napster.html I've been so busy trying to find the thing I haven't yet gotten to read it, though... It appears to rule that Napster can be held liable for contributory or vicarious infringement, and the injunction may be reimposed if narrowed to ensure that Napster has notice of the infringing copying. --Wendy --- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 14:09:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA03190 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:09:14 -0500 Received: from zork.zork.net (user93636@[208.41.174.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA03185 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:09:11 -0500 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14SOPr-0007vX-00; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:13:39 -0800 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:13:39 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court Verdict in Message-ID: <20010212111339.O672@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: Seth David Schoen , dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200102121843.f1CIhf515336@zero.monsters.org> <4.2.2.20010212135113.01f15fd0@pop.bellatlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010212135113.01f15fd0@pop.bellatlantic.net>; from wendy@seltzer.com on Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:55:02PM -0500 X-Accept-Language: en,la,eo Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Wendy Seltzer writes: > At 12:43 PM 02/12/2001 -0600, you wrote: > >Maybe of some interest to the list. I saw on SlashDot the decision of the > >Napster appeal of it's injuction is in. According to new.CNet.com - "The > >Appeals Court wants Napster injunction modified." > > > >Some URL's to the decision > > Thanks. I've put another at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/~wseltzer/napster.html > > I've been so busy trying to find the thing I haven't yet gotten to read it, > though... It appears to rule that Napster can be held liable for > contributory or vicarious infringement, and the injunction may be reimposed > if narrowed to ensure that Napster has notice of the infringing copying. I'm troubled by a extremely brief section dismissing Napster's first amendment defenses. In fact, the "directory" argument is not even addressed, simply mentioned! Of course, I've never not been troubled by any court's view of the first amendment v. copyright issue. I suppose there might be a "commercial speech" subtext, along the lines of "since Napster is a for-profit company and the complained-of speech is part of its business, we won't show very much interest in their first amendment defense". -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 14:16:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA03482 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:16:53 -0500 Received: from zork.zork.net (user92446@[208.41.174.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA03479 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:16:52 -0500 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14SOXI-0007wg-00; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:21:20 -0800 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:21:20 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] To Reply or Not To Reply... Message-ID: <20010212112120.P672@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: Seth David Schoen , dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20001226165441.K4445@osiris.978.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001226165441.K4445@osiris.978.org>; from brian@ristuccia.com on Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 04:54:42PM -0500 X-Accept-Language: en,la,eo Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Brian Ristuccia writes: > Richard Bowers writes: > > > > The DMCA actually specifies the form of cease & desist letters that may be > > supplied. They don't have to be paper, but they do need to supply an > > almost-generic section referring to the DMCA, and stating "under penalty of > > perjury", and so on. > > > > Oh, and I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet. I don't know that > > I advise one way or the other on what to do with the email, other then > > responding once with a note saying "Your letter doesn't conform to the > > requirements of the DMCA. If this is a legitimate email, please reply with > > the information required under the Act." > > I replied to their message that was sent in January of 2000. See > http://osiris.978.org/~brianr/css/demand.txt > > My reply is at > http://osiris.978.org/~brianr/css/draft-response.txt > > Since then they've sent me the generic followup form letters everyone else > has received. I haven't been targeted for any special action, nor have they > left me alone. I am, however, quoted in one of the filings in the CA case, > but I beleive this occured before I sent my reply. Because replying to them > has done nothing to benefit me, it's unlikely replying will be of any > benefit to you. With no benefit to offset the risk of saying anything that > might be used against you later on, I'd suggest just keeping quiet. > > I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't get any help from one when drafting my > response to the MPAA's first letter - although a few did read it and all > concluded it was about equally harmless to send or not send. Both choices > being otherwise equal back in January, I think a professional would have > erred in favor of not sending. Not only does that path require less work, > but it's also always possible to claim that the letter or the response to it > was lost if such a response was indeed justified and none was sent. Some lawyers said it was a big deal to reply to demand letters because it identifies you and proves that you were aware of the demand as of a certain date. E-mail is a controversial means for service of legal documents, and there could be much question about it in court -- but a reply is (by design) a pretty clear statement that you've read and ignored their demands. It took me a while to appreciate that the MPAA would have people who were paid to ignore your reply but to file it somewhere, very carefully, in case they should ever need it. It would be nice to think that we were dealing with people who might be interested in what we had to say -- even when we say they're wrong -- just as we are interested in what they have to say. Unfortunately, it seems so far that the MPAA's demand letters are like what they say about DeCSS: a set of formulas, merely functional, not expressive. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 14:30:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA03788 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:30:46 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA03785 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:30:40 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:33:38 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to MPAA re: DeCSS To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:33:35 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/12/2001 11:33:38 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'm afraid that forever less a day is exactly what the case is. I'm too conservative a person to abandon the notion of the public domain to enrich the pockets of corporations. "D. C. Sessions" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Question to pose to arvard.edu MPAA re: DeCSS 02/12/01 09:25 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Monday 12 February 2001 09:34, you wrote: # Your thoughts works entering and leaving the public domain echo some that I # was pondering this weekend. A few weeks ago, I saw the newly restored # version of "Lawrence of Arabia" and at the end was the copyright for that # version. What tends to bother me about that was if it is restored, then it # is merely putting back together what was originally released in the 1960s # and the copyright should be from that date and not the 1990s. So some of # the footage is copyrighted in the 1960s and some in the 1990s? but ALL was # shot in the 1960. Of course I might add that not having to deposit a copy # in the LOC makes it impossible to sort out when the copyright DOES expire. # If copyright law is going to allow copyright at time of creation then in # the case of recordings, it should be at the time of creation of the # original footage or tapes and not the release of later versions. Any copy of the original after 2030 will be illegal, since it's obviously just a minor snippage from the 199x version (which is, in turn, negligibly different from the 2010 version, which is in turn negligibly different from the 2035 version, etc.) Forever minus a day. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 14:30:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA03779 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:30:18 -0500 Received: from VL-MS-MR001.sc1.videotron.ca (mail@relais.videotron.ca [24.201.245.36]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA03773 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:30:16 -0500 Received: from videotron.ca ([24.203.83.80]) by VL-MS-MR001.sc1.videotron.ca (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id G8NSZ504.YAX for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:33:05 -0500 Message-ID: <3A883A97.9011888A@videotron.ca> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:33:43 -0500 From: Dan Steinberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court Verdict in References: <4.2.2.20010212135113.01f15fd0@pop.bellatlantic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I may be wrong but I think I also read a limitation in the scope of the injuction to exclude files that are difficult to identify as infringing material, such as calling "A Hard Day's Night" something real simple like "1233345.mp3" Wendy Seltzer wrote: > At 12:43 PM 02/12/2001 -0600, you wrote: > >Maybe of some interest to the list. I saw on SlashDot the decision of the > >Napster appeal of it's injuction is in. According to new.CNet.com - "The > >Appeals Court wants Napster injunction modified." > > > >Some URL's to the decision > > Thanks. I've put another at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/~wseltzer/napster.html > > I've been so busy trying to find the thing I haven't yet gotten to read it, > though... It appears to rule that Napster can be held liable for > contributory or vicarious infringement, and the injunction may be reimposed > if narrowed to ensure that Napster has notice of the infringing copying. > > --Wendy > > --- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@vrx.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 14:58:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA04773 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:58:12 -0500 Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA04769 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:58:09 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa212.pool008.at001.earthlink.net [216.249.79.212]) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00498 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:02:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010212115900.05cf38b0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: jstyre@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:02:50 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] To Reply or Not To Reply... In-Reply-To: <20010212112120.P672@zork.net> References: <20001226165441.K4445@osiris.978.org> <20001226165441.K4445@osiris.978.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 11:21 AM 2/12/2001 -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: >Brian Ristuccia writes: > > > Richard Bowers writes: > > > > > > The DMCA actually specifies the form of cease & desist letters that > may be > > > supplied. They don't have to be paper, but they do need to supply an > > > almost-generic section referring to the DMCA, and stating "under > penalty of > > > perjury", and so on. > > > > > > Oh, and I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet. I don't > know that > > > I advise one way or the other on what to do with the email, other then > > > responding once with a note saying "Your letter doesn't conform to the > > > requirements of the DMCA. If this is a legitimate email, please reply > with > > > the information required under the Act." Last week, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case on the adequacy of notice, holding that substantial compliance is all that is required, not literal compliance. I believe that it is the first adequacy of DMCA notice appellate decision. Als Scan v. Remarq, http://laws.findlaw.com/4th/001351p.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 This man, who seems to have led a life of unrelieved insignificance, must have been astonished to find himself suddenly putting the Government of the United States in such fear that it was afraid to tell him why it was afraid of him. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) (Jackson, J., dissenting) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 17:55:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA07072 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:55:11 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07069 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:55:10 -0500 Received: from seltzerw ([204.243.92.112]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.9.3 (PHNE_21697)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09855 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:59:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010212162933.01a5c930@pop.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:51:54 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court Verdict in In-Reply-To: <20010212111339.O672@zork.net> References: <4.2.2.20010212135113.01f15fd0@pop.bellatlantic.net> <200102121843.f1CIhf515336@zero.monsters.org> <4.2.2.20010212135113.01f15fd0@pop.bellatlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 11:13 AM 2/12/01 -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: >I'm troubled by a extremely brief section dismissing Napster's first >amendment defenses. In fact, the "directory" argument is not even >addressed, simply mentioned! You're right -- and with the short shrift the court gave it, I barely noticed myself. I was also disturbed by the ease with which the court found "commercial" use, whether in this or the fair use context. Because copyright offenses have been broadened, we're now starting to see speech in connection with them that isn't even covered by the fair use "safety valve." Fair use works when the only alleged restriction on speech is repeating or modifying a copyrighted work. Now we're seeing courts willing to restrict talking about "circumvention devices" or discussing the locations of possibly-infringing works (both here and in MP3board, Scour, etc.), yet courts are still using the "fair use" escape valve where it's completely inapplicable to deny a First Amendment problem (even as they narrow the scope of fair use). Yes, speech can be part of an offense (the offering of a bribe, the overt act of a conspiracy, defamation), and the speech in Napster's directory may facilitate copyright infringement (if the underlying exchange is infringement), but the issue deserves more attention than a sideways glance to fair use. --Wendy >Of course, I've never not been troubled by any court's view of the >first amendment v. copyright issue. > >I suppose there might be a "commercial speech" subtext, along the >lines of "since Napster is a for-profit company and the complained-of >speech is part of its business, we won't show very much interest in >their first amendment defense". Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 18:12:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA07355 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:12:13 -0500 Received: from attila.stevens-tech.edu (khockenb@attila.stevens-tech.edu [155.246.14.11]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA07352 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:12:10 -0500 Received: from localhost (khockenb@localhost) by attila.stevens-tech.edu (SGI-8.9.3/8.9.3/7) with ESMTP id SAA75641 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:16:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:16:38 -0500 From: Kurt Hockenbury To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] Watching the corporate prongs close. In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010212162933.01a5c930@pop.bellatlantic.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/161532.html _Europeans Move Closer To Internet Copyright Law_ "[...] The European legislation bears broad resemblance to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which the US Congress passed in 1998." Why does something inside of me cringe? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 18:14:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA07408 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:14:35 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f151.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.151]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA07403 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:14:33 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:18:32 -0800 Received: from 208.41.124.41 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:18:32 GMT X-Originating-IP: [208.41.124.41] From: "Richard Ramos" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court Verdict in Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:18:32 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2001 23:18:32.0381 (UTC) FILETIME=[1DA476D0:01C0954A] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The following doesn't make sense. I remember the Recording studios I've seen having tons of computers in the sound booths. To say that computers are NOT "digital audio recording devices" is totally ignorant. Any electronic device with a chip is technically a computer. They should have been specific that a home personal computer, but even than, I have friends that use their home computer to do word processing, internet browsing and musical compositions on. What gives here? Richard Ramos A. Audio Home Recording Act The statute states in part: No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. 17 U.S.C. ß 1008 (emphases added). Napster contends that MP3 file exchange is the type of "noncommercial use" protected from infringement actions by the statute. Napster asserts it cannot be secondarily liable for users' nonactionable exchange of copyrighted musical recordings. The district court rejected Napster's argument, stating that the Audio Home Recording Act is "irrelevant" to the action because: (1) plaintiffs did not bring claims under the Audio Home Recording Act; and (2) the Audio Home Recording Act does not cover the downloading of MP3 files. Napster, 114 F. Supp. 2d at 916 n.19. We agree with the district court that the Audio Home Recording Act does not cover the downloading of MP3 files to computer hard drives. First, "[u]nder the plain meaning of the Act's definition of digital audio recording devices, computers (and their hard drives) are not digital audio recording devices because their 'primary purpose' is not to make digital audio copied recordings." Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999). Second, notwithstanding Napster's claim that computers are "digital audio recording devices," computers do not make "digital music recordings" as defined by the Audio Home Recording Act. Id. at 1077 (citing S. Rep. 102-294) ("There are simply no grounds in either the plain language of the definition or in the legislative history for interpreting the term 'digital musical recording' to include songs fixed on computer hard drives."). ----Original Message Follows---- From: Wendy Seltzer Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court Verdict in Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:55:02 -0500 At 12:43 PM 02/12/2001 -0600, you wrote: >Maybe of some interest to the list. I saw on SlashDot the decision of the >Napster appeal of it's injuction is in. According to new.CNet.com - "The >Appeals Court wants Napster injunction modified." > >Some URL's to the decision Thanks. I've put another at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/~wseltzer/napster.html I've been so busy trying to find the thing I haven't yet gotten to read it, though... It appears to rule that Napster can be held liable for contributory or vicarious infringement, and the injunction may be reimposed if narrowed to ensure that Napster has notice of the infringing copying. --Wendy --- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 18:44:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA08036 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:44:29 -0500 Received: from mercury.clearway.com ([199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA08033 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:44:26 -0500 Received: by MERCURY with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <15D4R7VH>; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:48:17 -0500 Message-ID: From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court Verdict in Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:48:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The specific definition in the cited law creates a new meaning of "digital audio recording device." The choice of words is highly unfortunate. This law is an old compromise that was enacted during those dark days when the latest technology was DAT. The law basically says that if you have a digital media that can only be used for recorded music then certain copy protection systems (and a royalty system, if I recall) are required. The problem is that the lawmakers did not want every type of thing that can contain sound recordings to fall within the scope of the law. In particular, they did not want to require copy protection in hard drives. So they made the law very narrow in scope. This is discussed in great detail in the DoJ amicus brief. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Ramos [mailto:crazed376@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 6:19 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court Verdict in The following doesn't make sense. I remember the Recording studios I've seen having tons of computers in the sound booths. To say that computers are NOT "digital audio recording devices" is totally ignorant. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 19:04:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA08270 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:04:31 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA08263 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:04:22 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:07:35 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Watching the corporate prongs close. To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:07:33 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/12/2001 04:07:35 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Because now the rest of the world has to deal with a lementable mistake too? Kurt Hockenbury To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Watching the corporate arvard.edu prongs close. 02/12/01 03:19 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/161532.html _Europeans Move Closer To Internet Copyright Law_ "[...] The European legislation bears broad resemblance to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which the US Congress passed in 1998." Why does something inside of me cringe? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 19:38:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA08544 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:38:01 -0500 Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA06594 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:03:13 -0500 Received: from panix.com (www2.panix.com [166.84.0.221]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0F1FB970E for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:04:38 -0500 (EST) From: "Roy Murphy" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:04:38 -0500 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] To Reply or Not To Reply... X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.6k, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3a885df6.6c31.0@panix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 'Twas brillig when James S. Tyre said: >Last week, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case on the >adequacy of notice, holding that substantial compliance is all that is >required, not literal compliance. I believe that it is the first >adequacy of DMCA notice appellate decision. And a sad decision it is. It contains one glaring misstatement of fact: "These postings are placed in these newsgroups by RemarQ's subscribers." The posting are placed there by Usenet subscribers some of whom may be Remarq subscribers but the majority of whom are probably not. This is exactly the situation that the DCMA Safe Harbor was intended to address. The plaintiff wants to stop the carrying of two entire newsgroups because of third party copyright infringement and it goes against an ISP to do so. -- Roy Murphy \ CSpice -- A mailing list for Clergy Spouses murphy@panix.com \ http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 20:03:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA08850 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:03:02 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA08845 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:02:24 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14058 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:06:51 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:06:46 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court Verdict in Message-ID: <20010212200646.D12691@eldritchpress.org> References: <4.2.2.20010212135113.01f15fd0@pop.bellatlantic.net> <200102121843.f1CIhf515336@zero.monsters.org> <4.2.2.20010212135113.01f15fd0@pop.bellatlantic.net> <20010212111339.O672@zork.net> <4.2.2.20010212162933.01a5c930@pop.bellatlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010212162933.01a5c930@pop.bellatlantic.net>; from wendy@seltzer.com on Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 05:51:54PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu i am bothered by the possible interpretation of this ruling on the legality of hyperlinks to material which is possibly infringing of copyright. the decision says: We, however, briefly address Napster's First Amendment argument so that it is not reasserted on remand. Napster contends that the present injunction violates the First Amendment because it is broader than necessary. The company asserts two distinct free speech rights: (1) its right to publish a "directory" (here, the search index) and (2) its ^^^^^^^^^ (and it never says a word about that, only that the First Amendment issue cannot be raised again on remand.) users' right to exchange information. We note that First Amendment concerns in copyright are allayed by the presence of the fair use doctrine. See 17 U.S.C. ß 107; see generally Nihon Keizai Shimbun v. Comline Business Data, Inc., 166 F.3d 65, 74 (2d Cir. 1999); Netcom, 923 F. Supp. at 1258 (stating that the Copyright Act balances First Amendment concerns with the rights of copyright holders). There was a preliminary determination here that Napster users are not fair users. Uses of copyrighted material that are not fair uses are rightfully enjoined. See Dr. Seuss Enters. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1403 (9th Cir. 1997) (rejecting defendants' claim that injunction would constitute a prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment). will this be considered to apply to hyperlinks as well? will it possibly have an effect on the decss case? i mean, napster did not actually store the data on its own drives, only maintained essentially links to the data on users' drives, right? if this issue can't be raised on remand, how can we get a court to consider it if the appeal is not successful? On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 05:51:54PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > At 11:13 AM 2/12/01 -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > >I'm troubled by a extremely brief section dismissing Napster's first > >amendment defenses. In fact, the "directory" argument is not even > >addressed, simply mentioned! > > You're right -- and with the short shrift the court gave it, I barely > noticed myself. I was also disturbed by the ease with which the court > found "commercial" use, whether in this or the fair use context. > > Because copyright offenses have been broadened, we're now starting to see > speech in connection with them that isn't even covered by the fair use > "safety valve." Fair use works when the only alleged restriction on speech > is repeating or modifying a copyrighted work. Now we're seeing courts > willing to restrict talking about "circumvention devices" or discussing the > locations of possibly-infringing works (both here and in MP3board, Scour, > etc.), yet courts are still using the "fair use" escape valve where it's > completely inapplicable to deny a First Amendment problem (even as they > narrow the scope of fair use). > > Yes, speech can be part of an offense (the offering of a bribe, the overt > act of a conspiracy, defamation), and the speech in Napster's directory may > facilitate copyright infringement (if the underlying exchange is > infringement), but the issue deserves more attention than a sideways glance > to fair use. > > --Wendy > > >Of course, I've never not been troubled by any court's view of the > >first amendment v. copyright issue. > > > >I suppose there might be a "commercial speech" subtext, along the > >lines of "since Napster is a for-profit company and the complained-of > >speech is part of its business, we won't show very much interest in > >their first amendment defense". > > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 21:46:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA09899 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:46:59 -0500 Received: from smtp10.phx.gblx.net (smtp10.phx.gblx.net [206.165.6.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA09896 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:46:54 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp10.phx.gblx.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA52828 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:50:52 -0700 Received: from 64-212-30-82.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.30.82), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp10.phx.gblx.net, id smtpduBPvaa; Mon Feb 12 19:50:44 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA16891 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:51:11 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:51:10 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Watching the corporate prongs close. MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021219511000.21895@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Monday 12 February 2001 16:16, you wrote: # http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/161532.html # # _Europeans Move Closer To Internet Copyright Law_ # # "[...] The European legislation bears broad resemblance to the Digital # Millennium Copyright Act, which the US Congress passed in 1998." # # Why does something inside of me cringe? You mean, aside from the fact that one of the main justifications for the DMCA was that it was necessary to harmonize US law with European law? -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 12 22:58:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA10458 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:58:27 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA10455 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:58:24 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30Q1X>; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:17:03 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:17:02 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Given that the content is encrypted, CSS is necessary to gain access to that content. Given that the content is burned into a reflective substrate, a laser is necessary to gain access to that content. Now please explain to me that -- between the laser and the CSS algorithm -- one is a TPM and the other is not? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:51 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > CSS is neither necessary or sufficient...nor even required. Unlike the > laser or phonograph needle it is totally artificial. > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > > arguments > > > 02/09/01 05:00 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > No ... that's precisely why the analogy works. CSS is > necessary but not suffient when viewing a DVD movie. > If it is -necessary- for access then the argument can > be made that it is a TPM under the DMCA. Sufficiency > is not required. > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 7:54 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > > > > > The analogy breaks down when one considers that the laser or > > phonograph > > needle are necessary for access but not sufficient. One must > > have the means > > of accessing the media first....Now one analogy might be > old dbx noise > > reduction system. As I recall if you tried to play a dbx > > recording through > > a non dbx player it sounded pretty odd at times. Probably > why Dolby B > > became the standard. > > > > > > > > > > Richard Hartman > > > > To: > > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > > Sent by: > > > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > > > arvard.edu > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > > > > arguments > > > > > > 02/08/01 11:14 PM > > > > Please respond to > > > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: mickeym [mailto:mickeym@mindspring.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:36 AM > > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:03:42PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > > > > > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access > > > to a work'' may > > > > > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace > > > with 'has the > > > > > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. > > > The whole point > > > > > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > > > > > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and > > > still import > > > > > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the > > > need to break 1201. > > > > > > > > I see. that was it's whole purpose, wasn't it? the WIPO > > > document on my > > > > website says so quite clearly. so according to kaplan, a > > simple XOR > > > > would've been sufficient. > > > > > > In the world of computers, almost any method could then be > > > argued to meet the > > > requirement of 'has the effect of controlling access', to the > > > extreme of saying > > > that any file format or filesystem type is complicated enough > > > to prevent access. > > > This would potentially mean that *all* data files can be > > > claimed as being in this > > > new category of works, and that hex editors will get you into > > > trouble since they > > > easily reveal what is inside. > > > > > > > Or, to bring back earlier examples: the laser has the effect > > of controlling access to the audio content encoded on your CD; > > also, a phonograph needle has the effect of controlling access > > to the audio content encoded on your LP. > > > > So ... is the phonograph needle a TPM under the DCMA? Ok, > > so it's analog audio content and possibly does not come under > > the aegis of the DMCA ... let's move the discussion to the > > laser in your CD player ... TPM? So now nobody can manufacture > > CD players w/o the consent of the music publishers ?? > > > > > > -- > > -Richard M. Hartman > > hartman@onetouch.com > > > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > > > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 00:12:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA11208 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:12:39 -0500 Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (johnson.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.177]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA11205 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:12:35 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld7jr.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.158.123]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA17405 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:16:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A88C24D.256412B3@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:12:45 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? References: <01010910242500.19164@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> <20010109163837.4548.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> <20010109175715.D16993@lemuria.org> <01010910242500.19164@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010123184057.00ab3f00@mail.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >From the Napster case: "We are compelled to make a clear distinction between the architecture of the Napster system and Napster’s conduct in relation to the operational capacity of the system." Isn't the architecture of the system comprised, for the most part, of software? mickeym "James S. Tyre" wrote: > A little birdie tells me that this subject may be addressed at some length > in the so-called computer scientists' amicus brief in support of 2600. > > Since I wrote the brief, I believe that I am correctly compiling what the > little birdie told me. > > Went out today by FedEx, will be filed with the Court and received by > counsel tomorrow, expect to see it soon on a web site near you. > > "A more proper definition of source code may be simply that it is that > subset of human expression which computers can interpret and execute. As > time progresses, computers can interpret increasingly larger subsets of > human expression; thus, restricting the expression of source code restricts > increasingly larger subsets of human expression." > > (Quoting myself.) > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com > Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 02:58:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA12596 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 02:58:56 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA12588 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 02:58:50 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30QFV>; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:20:11 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:20:09 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Actually I was trying to illustrate that there -is- no distinction ... at least given the current definition of a TPM under the law. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 8:51 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > Me too. I've lost the thread as well. I think it is that a distinction > should be made between the physical mechanisms necessary to > access a work > and the TPM. WIthout a working player, I certainly cannot > access anything. > > > > > "Steve Hosgood" > > To: > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > arvard.edu > arguments > > > > > 02/12/01 08:41 AM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: > > CSS is neither necessary or sufficient...nor even required. > Unlike the > > laser or phonograph needle it is totally artificial. > > > > Surely this is irrelevant? Any form of 'access control' or 'protection > method' can be argued to be only 'necessary' in that you have > to decode > through that layer somehow in order to get to the real datastream. > > You only have to use deCSS (or whatever the so-called 'legal' > version used > in licenced DVD players is called) in order to play back > CSS-encoded DVDs. > DMCA is specifically written to provide protection for such > mechanisms. We > argue that DMCA's provisions are being misused in this case, > but that's > the reason that CSS is there, and while it is there then deCSS (or the > 'legal' > equivalent) *are* necessary. > > What is the argument here? I seem to have lost the plot on > this 'necessary > and sufficient' thread... :-) > > -- > > Steve | > S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan > today is better > Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan > tomorrow" > Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - > Conrad Brean > --------------------------------------------+ > http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the > film "Wag the > Dog" ) > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 02:58:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA12589 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 02:58:50 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA12585 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 02:58:48 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30QFR>; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:19:16 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:19:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu What is it with you and "sufficient"? Sufficiency has never been the issue re. classifying something as a TPM. Given that almost any technological product consists of numerous parts each of which must work in order for the whole to be sucessful it would not be possible to say that -any- one part is "sufficient". However, many of them would be "necessary". Can we get off of "sufficient" already? It is a red herring. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:54 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > Exactly. No one thing is sufficient for access....in fact the > whole TPM > issue begins to look more and more like it was really decided > in the 1917 > case on films. > > > > > "Harold Eaton" > > To: > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > arvard.edu > arguments > > > > > 02/09/01 06:51 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > >The analogy breaks down when one considers that the laser or > phonograph > >needle are necessary for access but not sufficient. One must have the > means > >of accessing the media first.... > > Uh, *no single thing* is "sufficient" for accessing a DVD or CD. > Consider this in particular: A CSS decoder is necessary for "access" > to an encrypted DVD, but it is not sufficient. By your logic, it > is not a TPM, and nothing could ever be. > > The reality is if you accept the "authorized device" interpretation > of 1201, then anything can be a TPM - even a book cover. If you > instead accept the "authorized person" interpretation, then many fewer > things qualify. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 03:43:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA12871 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:43:10 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA12868 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:43:03 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb30.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.48]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D4CF27A96 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:42:14 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8D319175195; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:44:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:44:43 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Message-ID: <20010213094442.B13177@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from hartman@onetouch.com on Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 10:17:02AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 10:17:02AM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > Given that the content is encrypted, CSS is necessary > to gain access to that content. Given that the content > is burned into a reflective substrate, a laser is necessary > to gain access to that content. > > Now please explain to me that -- between the laser and > the CSS algorithm -- one is a TPM and the other is not? quite simple: technical PROTECTION measure. the laser is not meant to and hasn't been designed to PROTECT access to the work, or anything else, for that matter. CSS has. whether or not it is good at what it was designed to do is insubstantial and not the court's job to decide. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 05:07:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA13636 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 05:07:50 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA13633 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 05:07:48 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07139; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:12:19 GMT Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:12:19 GMT Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <000701c09515$48dbf380$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "John Zulauf" writes: > The only difference is that CSS checks for an authorized "player." Without > CSS an authorized "player" is not required. CSS is a artificial constraint, > the only function of which is to restrict access to DVD only to authorized > players. Through this limitation licensing restrictions allow for > restricting functionality and imposing usage limitations. > Even that isn't right! The best thing that the DVD-CCA could hope for was that CSS could check for an authorised player. *Actually* what it checks for is a player that can decode CSS! Nothing to do with "authorised" or not. As the LiViD player proves.... -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 05:16:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA13800 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 05:16:55 -0500 Received: from rasputin.trustix.com (rasputin.trustix.com [195.139.104.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA13797 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 05:16:54 -0500 Received: from trustix.com (singsing.trustix.com [195.139.105.100]) by rasputin.trustix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C7C061DAB for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:23:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A890AD8.550F971D@trustix.com> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:22:16 +0100 From: Lars Gaarden Organization: Trustix AS X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1-ac10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Call for openlaw-EU (was: [dvd-discuss] Watching the corporate prongs close.) References: <01021219511000.21895@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "D. C. Sessions" wrote: > > On Monday 12 February 2001 16:16, you wrote: > # http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/161532.html > # > # _Europeans Move Closer To Internet Copyright Law_ > # > # "[...] The European legislation bears broad resemblance to the Digital > # Millennium Copyright Act, which the US Congress passed in 1998." > # > # Why does something inside of me cringe? > > You mean, aside from the fact that one of the main justifications for > the DMCA was that it was necessary to harmonize US law with > European law? I believe that the justification for DMCA was that it was required to comply with the WIPO WCT and WPPT. The european counterpart to DMCA has had a rather long and thorny way through the EU Parliament, Commission, Council and various committees. The latest official draft is available here: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/intprop/intprop/news/commpen.pdf Some amendments have been applied since september 2000, but I don't have a complete list. I believe amendments from the Feb. 5th meeting can be found here (Word format only, of course): http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20010205/juri20010205.htm http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20010205/429984en.doc The draft is expected to be OK'd by the EU Parliament tomorrow (14th), and the next step is that the EU and EEC countries start drafting local laws to comply with the EU-DMCA. I expect that it is far too late to stop this abomination in the EU system, so we'll have to fight this in each european country instead. An european counterpart of Openlaw is needed to coordinate the opposition in Europe. I expect to have a server available for the purpose by the end of the month, but if someone has one that is available today please raise your hand. -- LarsG From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 05:54:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA14089 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 05:54:20 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA14086 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 05:54:18 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 9346427AE3; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:53:40 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:53:40 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Call for openlaw-EU (was: [dvd-discuss] Watching the corporate prongs close.) Message-ID: <20010213115340.B26566@lemuria.org> References: <01021219511000.21895@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> <3A890AD8.550F971D@trustix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A890AD8.550F971D@trustix.com>; from larsg@trustix.com on Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 11:22:16AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 11:22:16AM +0100, Lars Gaarden wrote: > An european counterpart of Openlaw is needed to coordinate the > opposition > in Europe. I expect to have a server available for the purpose by the > end > of the month, but if someone has one that is available today please > raise > your hand. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 08:13:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA15324 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:13:21 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA15321 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:13:19 -0500 Received: from ip94.bedford7.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.77.94]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 14SfL5-0002Oh-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:17:51 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:18:27 -0500 Message-ID: References: <01010910242500.19164@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> <20010109163837.4548.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> <20010109175715.D16993@lemuria.org> <01010910242500.19164@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010123184057.00ab3f00@mail.earthlink.net> <3A88C24D.256412B3@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3A88C24D.256412B3@mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id IAA15322 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:12:45 -0500, mickeym wrote: >>From the Napster case: > >"We are compelled to make a clear distinction between the architecture of the >Napster system and Napster’s conduct in relation to the operational capacity of >the system." > >Isn't the architecture of the system comprised, for the most part, of software? I don't see how this ruling won't apply to AOL or any ISP. Doesn't AOL facilitate widespread copyright infringement? And the materials in that case would be on their servers. Does AOL carry alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.* ? Won't this precedent will affect all ISPs and go way beyond just music? __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 11:43:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA18132 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:43:11 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA18129 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:43:08 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:47:25 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:47:23 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/13/2001 08:47:25 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu One deals with physics and the other doesn't........so how much hair can be split? Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments 02/12/01 08:08 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Given that the content is encrypted, CSS is necessary to gain access to that content. Given that the content is burned into a reflective substrate, a laser is necessary to gain access to that content. Now please explain to me that -- between the laser and the CSS algorithm -- one is a TPM and the other is not? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:51 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > CSS is neither necessary or sufficient...nor even required. Unlike the > laser or phonograph needle it is totally artificial. > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > > arguments > > > 02/09/01 05:00 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > No ... that's precisely why the analogy works. CSS is > necessary but not suffient when viewing a DVD movie. > If it is -necessary- for access then the argument can > be made that it is a TPM under the DMCA. Sufficiency > is not required. > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 7:54 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > > > > > The analogy breaks down when one considers that the laser or > > phonograph > > needle are necessary for access but not sufficient. One must > > have the means > > of accessing the media first....Now one analogy might be > old dbx noise > > reduction system. As I recall if you tried to play a dbx > > recording through > > a non dbx player it sounded pretty odd at times. Probably > why Dolby B > > became the standard. > > > > > > > > > > Richard Hartman > > > > To: > > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > > Sent by: > > > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > > > arvard.edu > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > > > > arguments > > > > > > 02/08/01 11:14 PM > > > > Please respond to > > > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: mickeym [mailto:mickeym@mindspring.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:36 AM > > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:03:42PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > > > > > Kaplan's interpretation of ''effectively controls access > > > to a work'' may > > > > > have been the only sound part of his opinion -- replace > > > with 'has the > > > > > effect of controlling access' not 'stands up to attack'. > > > The whole point > > > > > of Section 1201 is that the TPM is backed by law, not strong > > > > > encryption. CSS could have a hole the size of Texas and > > > still import > > > > > 1201's hellfire against those who "broke" it -- hence the > > > need to break 1201. > > > > > > > > I see. that was it's whole purpose, wasn't it? the WIPO > > > document on my > > > > website says so quite clearly. so according to kaplan, a > > simple XOR > > > > would've been sufficient. > > > > > > In the world of computers, almost any method could then be > > > argued to meet the > > > requirement of 'has the effect of controlling access', to the > > > extreme of saying > > > that any file format or filesystem type is complicated enough > > > to prevent access. > > > This would potentially mean that *all* data files can be > > > claimed as being in this > > > new category of works, and that hex editors will get you into > > > trouble since they > > > easily reveal what is inside. > > > > > > > Or, to bring back earlier examples: the laser has the effect > > of controlling access to the audio content encoded on your CD; > > also, a phonograph needle has the effect of controlling access > > to the audio content encoded on your LP. > > > > So ... is the phonograph needle a TPM under the DCMA? Ok, > > so it's analog audio content and possibly does not come under > > the aegis of the DMCA ... let's move the discussion to the > > laser in your CD player ... TPM? So now nobody can manufacture > > CD players w/o the consent of the music publishers ?? > > > > > > -- > > -Richard M. Hartman > > hartman@onetouch.com > > > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > > > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 11:47:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA18242 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:47:27 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA18238 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:47:25 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:51:13 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:51:12 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/13/2001 08:51:13 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That makes the DMCA poorly written. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments 02/13/01 12:04 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Actually I was trying to illustrate that there -is- no distinction ... at least given the current definition of a TPM under the law. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 8:51 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > Me too. I've lost the thread as well. I think it is that a distinction > should be made between the physical mechanisms necessary to > access a work > and the TPM. WIthout a working player, I certainly cannot > access anything. > > > > > "Steve Hosgood" > > To: > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > arvard.edu > arguments > > > > > 02/12/01 08:41 AM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: > > CSS is neither necessary or sufficient...nor even required. > Unlike the > > laser or phonograph needle it is totally artificial. > > > > Surely this is irrelevant? Any form of 'access control' or 'protection > method' can be argued to be only 'necessary' in that you have > to decode > through that layer somehow in order to get to the real datastream. > > You only have to use deCSS (or whatever the so-called 'legal' > version used > in licenced DVD players is called) in order to play back > CSS-encoded DVDs. > DMCA is specifically written to provide protection for such > mechanisms. We > argue that DMCA's provisions are being misused in this case, > but that's > the reason that CSS is there, and while it is there then deCSS (or the > 'legal' > equivalent) *are* necessary. > > What is the argument here? I seem to have lost the plot on > this 'necessary > and sufficient' thread... :-) > > -- > > Steve | > S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan > today is better > Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan > tomorrow" > Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - > Conrad Brean > --------------------------------------------+ > http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the > film "Wag the > Dog" ) > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 12:58:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA19441 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:58:03 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA19438 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:58:00 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id NAA10503 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:02:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id NAA02324; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:02:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:02:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102131802.NAA02324@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? In-Reply-To: References: <01010910242500.19164@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> <20010109163837.4548.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> <20010109175715.D16993@lemuria.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20010123184057.00ab3f00@mail.earthlink.net> <3A88C24D.256412B3@mindspring.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ron Gustavson writes: > I don't see how this ruling won't apply to AOL or any ISP. > > Doesn't AOL facilitate widespread copyright infringement? > And the materials in that case would be on their servers. > > Does AOL carry alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.* ? > > Won't this precedent will affect all ISPs and go way beyond > just music? One thing to note is that the DMCA does provide protection for ISPs specifically (under a different title than the anticircumvention stuff that we're primarily concerned with here, but it's there). There are actually a few pages in the Napster decision devoted to arguing that Napster isn't an ISP, apparently to bring it outside the scope of those provisions.... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 13:35:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA19831 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:35:33 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19828 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:35:23 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:39:34 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court Verdict in To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:39:33 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/13/2001 10:39:33 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id NAA19829 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Has anybody looked at the marketing hype for WINDOWS2000. It is less about improvements to a computer operating system and more about NEW MULTIMEDIA EXPERIENCES....their logic that a computer is not a digital audio player looks more and more specious. (ie. input = digital media, output = acoustic waves WRT to napster. Unlike DeCSS and Eldred v. Reno the issues are not as clear. YOu can bet that Jack Boots Valenti will be making a lot of noises about how its similiar to the DeCSS but This is a diversion and the wrong battle to fight. "Richard Ramos" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court arvard.edu Verdict in 02/12/01 03:23 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss The following doesn't make sense. I remember the Recording studios I've seen having tons of computers in the sound booths. To say that computers are NOT "digital audio recording devices" is totally ignorant. Any electronic device with a chip is technically a computer. They should have been specific that a home personal computer, but even than, I have friends that use their home computer to do word processing, internet browsing and musical compositions on. What gives here? Richard Ramos A. Audio Home Recording Act The statute states in part: No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. 17 U.S.C. ß 1008 (emphases added). Napster contends that MP3 file exchange is the type of "noncommercial use" protected from infringement actions by the statute. Napster asserts it cannot be secondarily liable for users' nonactionable exchange of copyrighted musical recordings. The district court rejected Napster's argument, stating that the Audio Home Recording Act is "irrelevant" to the action because: (1) plaintiffs did not bring claims under the Audio Home Recording Act; and (2) the Audio Home Recording Act does not cover the downloading of MP3 files. Napster, 114 F. Supp. 2d at 916 n.19. We agree with the district court that the Audio Home Recording Act does not cover the downloading of MP3 files to computer hard drives. First, "[u]nder the plain meaning of the Act's definition of digital audio recording devices, computers (and their hard drives) are not digital audio recording devices because their 'primary purpose' is not to make digital audio copied recordings." Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999). Second, notwithstanding Napster's claim that computers are "digital audio recording devices," computers do not make "digital music recordings" as defined by the Audio Home Recording Act. Id. at 1077 (citing S. Rep. 102-294) ("There are simply no grounds in either the plain language of the definition or in the legislative history for interpreting the term 'digital musical recording' to include songs fixed on computer hard drives."). ----Original Message Follows---- From: Wendy Seltzer Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court Verdict in Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:55:02 -0500 At 12:43 PM 02/12/2001 -0600, you wrote: >Maybe of some interest to the list. I saw on SlashDot the decision of the >Napster appeal of it's injuction is in. According to new.CNet.com - "The >Appeals Court wants Napster injunction modified." > >Some URL's to the decision Thanks. I've put another at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/~wseltzer/napster.html I've been so busy trying to find the thing I haven't yet gotten to read it, though... It appears to rule that Napster can be held liable for contributory or vicarious infringement, and the injunction may be reimposed if narrowed to ensure that Napster has notice of the infringing copying. --Wendy --- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 14:05:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA20119 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:05:05 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA20116 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:04:58 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id LAA27668 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:09:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma010496; Tue, 13 Feb 01 10:31:03 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:32:41 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09069; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:31:01 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:40:07 -0700 Message-ID: <001e01c095ec$63459960$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 1697A243569919-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Hartman Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 11:20 AM > > Actually I was trying to illustrate that there -is- no > distinction ... at least given the current definition > of a TPM under the law. That's only a problem if you take the point of view that the DMCA covers anything other than establishing authorized users. Once you get on the "authorized player" slippery slope, the distintion between a patented (or licenced) shape** for the power cord (instead of the standard shape), a custom frequency or filter for the laser pickup, a smart/password id system evaporates. This is why the DMCA, as interpreted by the lower Court doesn't make sense. Once you limit TPM's to processes which require actual information regarding the identity and authority of the person attempting to access media or a data stream (as do smart-cards, user-associated machine ID's, passwords, or even "burnable" use count, date, user-id on sectors on the disk) then the distinction a real one. One requires that an authorized person respond to a challenge to their authority to view, the other just mechanistcally functions with regard to the authority of the person. The concept that a TPM can even be considered present in an unlimited view/access scheme such as a DVD player is palpable nonsense. (This goes back to our deadbolt with welded in key/safe with engrave combination thread of months past.) Having said that, limiting TPM's to only "authorized person"/PPV models is only half the battle. The other half is restricting the legal applications of TPM's to first-access/first-sale usages, such that fair use by authorized persons cannot be impeded. Any imposition of a TPM post first-sale/first-access**** must be considered copyright abuse, as fair use rights are being grossly abridged. This avoids the 4C/5C/CPSA horribles where the WIPO-esque total control of use is circumscribed by the exigencies of the media company business models. Zulauf's Three Laws of Copy Protection (v1.0) ****** 1. To be legal, a copy protection scheme must allow for fair use. 2. To allow fair use, any copy protection scheme must have a simple, readily available means of circumventing that scheme. 3. The only legal copy protection schemes are those which are trivially defeated and thus serve no purpose. Zulauf Axioms of Access Control (v1.0) 1. Any "access control" must be restricted to controling access by authorized persons to a given media, content, or data stream. 2. Subsequent restrictions on the use of the accessed media, content, or data stream consititute copy protections schemes, subject to the Three Laws above. Strangely enough I **can** see a reading of the DMCA that would allow that view -- though the whole of the Macrovision provision is incompatible with that reading and the US Constitution unless you allow for fair use circumvention. Folks would be up in arms about Macrovision where it not for the general and easy availability of "image stablizers." IHMO that's the only reason Macrovision has had a "free ride" from the public so far. As the "I can't hook my DVD through my VCR" bug becomes more commonly encountered, that may end as well. If Macrovision ever decided to go after the image stabilizers -- there would be a storm of protest. Best Regards John Zulauf private netizen ** A patent on the shape of the cartridge connector was one of the means Nintendo used to enforce it's licensing scheme. Anything that could fit their socket infringed the patent (at least in Japan) and couldn't be made or sold. Nintendo thus had exclusive control over production of the game cartridges and thus the distribution and licensing of the games as well. I'm not sure if this scheme was eventually challenged (and if so successfully). **** When I use first-access, I don't mean it in the sense of "once I've payed to view a movie I can crack the PPV to see it again." What I mean is in terms of the signal flow -- once I have authority for the signal to reach my eyes/ears I have "first-access" (first in the sense of the data stream and by allusion first as in first sale). If I decide to make fair-use of that data stream, by time or space shifting, that must be permitted I have "first sale" access to the stream. ****** (with apoligies to Mr. Asimov) The above three laws (and axioms) are licensed under the LGPL. You may extend these laws only if such extension is published in compliance with the LGPL. However these laws may be freely used i.e. "linked" with any other argument freely without infecting such arguments with the restrctions of the LGPL. (c) John Zulauf, 2001 just to make sure no one is ever able to ban access to my words. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael A Rolenz > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 8:51 AM > > > > Me too. I've lost the thread as well. I think it is that a distinction > > should be made between the physical mechanisms necessary to > > access a work > > and the TPM. WIthout a working player, I certainly cannot > > access anything. > > > > > > > > > > "Steve Hosgood" > > > > To: > > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Sent by: cc: > > > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > > arvard.edu > > arguments > > > > > > > > > > 02/12/01 08:41 AM > > > > Please respond to > > > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: > > > CSS is neither necessary or sufficient...nor even required. > > Unlike the > > > laser or phonograph needle it is totally artificial. > > > > > > > Surely this is irrelevant? Any form of 'access control' or 'protection > > method' can be argued to be only 'necessary' in that you have > > to decode > > through that layer somehow in order to get to the real datastream. > > > > You only have to use deCSS (or whatever the so-called 'legal' > > version used > > in licenced DVD players is called) in order to play back > > CSS-encoded DVDs. > > DMCA is specifically written to provide protection for such > > mechanisms. We > > argue that DMCA's provisions are being misused in this case, > > but that's > > the reason that CSS is there, and while it is there then deCSS (or the > > 'legal' > > equivalent) *are* necessary. > > > > What is the argument here? I seem to have lost the plot on > > this 'necessary > > and sufficient' thread... :-) > > > > -- > > > > Steve | > > S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan > > today is better > > Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan > > tomorrow" > > Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - > > Conrad Brean > > --------------------------------------------+ > > http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the > > film "Wag the > > Dog" ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 14:21:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA20403 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:21:35 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA20396 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:21:25 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd9500644.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.68]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0FF427A96 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:20:39 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5C695175195; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:23:05 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:23:05 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Message-ID: <20010213202304.C14186@lemuria.org> References: <001e01c095ec$63459960$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <001e01c095ec$63459960$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com>; from johnzu@ia.nsc.com on Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 11:40:07AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 11:40:07AM -0700, John Zulauf wrote: > That's only a problem if you take the point of view that the DMCA covers > anything other than establishing authorized users. Once you get on the > "authorized player" slippery slope, the distintion between a patented (or > licenced) shape** for the power cord (instead of the standard shape), a > custom frequency or filter for the laser pickup, a smart/password id system > evaporates. This is why the DMCA, as interpreted by the lower Court doesn't > make sense. does it make sense for us to discuss what the PURPOSE of CSS is during the court battle? would it give us advantages if we can prove that it was designed specifically NOT to be an actual TPM, but to bring the scheme under the DMCA? I have no idea how US courts view such stunts, that is why I'm asking. it does seem to work the other way around, i.e. napster couldn't make itself not responsible by putting a "we are not responsible for whatever you may find here" disclaimer on their webpage. if the answer to that is "no", then I believe the whole TPM issue is moot, because in that respect, CSS could've been made by micro$oft - it's just barely good enough. > Having said that, limiting TPM's to only "authorized person"/PPV models is > only half the battle. and seriously, I over here in europe wonder quite a bit why it's so difficult. we DO have several of the people who PASSED the damn law on the record saying that that's how it was intended. the "free" in "free speech" does not mean "free from intention", does it? -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 15:36:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA20990 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:36:04 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA20987 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:36:02 -0500 Received: from ip196.bedford8.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.78.196]) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 14SmFQ-0003eJ-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:40:28 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:41:06 -0500 Message-ID: References: <01010910242500.19164@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> <20010109163837.4548.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> <20010109175715.D16993@lemuria.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20010123184057.00ab3f00@mail.earthlink.net> <3A88C24D.256412B3@mindspring.com> <200102131802.NAA02324@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <200102131802.NAA02324@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id PAA20988 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:02:31 -0500 (EST), "Robert S. Thau" wrote: >One thing to note is that the DMCA does provide protection for ISPs >specifically (under a different title than the anticircumvention stuff >that we're primarily concerned with here, but it's there). It seems to be in Sec. 512 regarding transitory communications and system caching. >There are actually a few pages in the Napster decision devoted to >arguing that Napster isn't an ISP, apparently to bring it outside the >scope of those provisions.... Still, if I were Steve Case, I wouldn't feel comfortable about this. Usenet seems to be a lot less transitory than Napster. I agree with others that Napster is a diversion re DeCSS. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 15:38:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA21014 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:38:08 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA21011 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:38:05 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1DKfVf10743 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:41:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A899C18.ECBAE956@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:42:00 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd Subject: [dvd-discuss] OT(?):Disintermediation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I came across this slide presentation that has an interesting (to me, at least) slide showing the markets where the middle-person is being pushed out. I didn't know that the "Horse Activity Association" tried to get a law passed, in 1919, that banned automobile use in farming. http://www.datlof.com/talks/webkmip/sld029.htm Anyway, the same slide notes that the recording industry distribution channel is broken, ostensibly as a result of the mp3 format. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 15:59:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA21587 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:59:49 -0500 Received: from sgi04-e.std.COM (sgi04-e.std.com [199.172.62.134]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA21584 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:59:45 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by sgi04-e.std.COM (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA5177274 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:57:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from [24.218.56.92] (h000a2792745c.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.56.92]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11969 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:03:04 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:02:53 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court Verdict in Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 10:39 AM -0800 2/13/2001, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >Has anybody looked at the marketing hype for WINDOWS2000. It is less about >improvements to a computer operating system and more about NEW MULTIMEDIA >EXPERIENCES....their logic that a computer is not a digital audio player >looks more and more specious. (ie. input = digital media, output = acoustic >waves Again, the definitions in 17 USC 1001 were designed to exclude computers, which is just as well. Otherwise we would have to pay royalties to the record companies on CD-ROMs (as the do in Canada) and hard disks. That brings up a question I have been curious about. Does anyone know if the "Audio-CD-ROMs that are being sold are subject to the royalty payments under the home recording act? Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 16:09:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA21888 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:09:03 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA21885 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:09:00 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:13:10 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court Verdict in To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:13:07 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/13/2001 01:13:10 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The computer is the most versatile tool ever created on Earth....the legal system hasn't figured that one out yet. Good thing too.....I think that people are going to have to give up their quaint notions that copyright = A physical copy but the right to make copies for personal use. "Arnold G. Reinhold" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court arvard.edu Verdict in 02/13/01 01:09 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 10:39 AM -0800 2/13/2001, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >Has anybody looked at the marketing hype for WINDOWS2000. It is less about >improvements to a computer operating system and more about NEW MULTIMEDIA >EXPERIENCES....their logic that a computer is not a digital audio player >looks more and more specious. (ie. input = digital media, output = acoustic >waves Again, the definitions in 17 USC 1001 were designed to exclude computers, which is just as well. Otherwise we would have to pay royalties to the record companies on CD-ROMs (as the do in Canada) and hard disks. That brings up a question I have been curious about. Does anyone know if the "Audio-CD-ROMs that are being sold are subject to the royalty payments under the home recording act? Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 16:19:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA22140 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:19:28 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA22137 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:19:24 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1DLN5f12429 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:23:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A89A5D6.CBA8C031@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:23:34 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Napster Appeals Court Verdict in References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Isn't that why they are priced higher than their (identical) "data" counterparts? mickeym "Arnold G. Reinhold" wrote: > At 10:39 AM -0800 2/13/2001, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > >Has anybody looked at the marketing hype for WINDOWS2000. It is less about > >improvements to a computer operating system and more about NEW MULTIMEDIA > >EXPERIENCES....their logic that a computer is not a digital audio player > >looks more and more specious. (ie. input = digital media, output = acoustic > >waves > > Again, the definitions in 17 USC 1001 were designed to exclude > computers, which is just as well. Otherwise we would have to pay > royalties to the record companies on CD-ROMs (as the do in Canada) > and hard disks. That brings up a question I have been curious about. > Does anyone know if the "Audio-CD-ROMs that are being sold are > subject to the royalty payments under the home recording act? > > Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 16:26:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA22319 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:26:19 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA22314 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:26:07 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1DLTqf12654 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:30:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A89A76D.95AF769F@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:30:22 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd Subject: [dvd-discuss] Trade Secret Protection Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: http://www.faegre.com/articles/article_462.asp "in Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., the court said that highly sensitive trade secret information belonging to Hoechst that had been publicly available in a court file and that had been accessed by members of the public could still be protected as a trade secret. The court said the secrecy of the information had not been compromised because the amount of public access to the court file was actually quite small and Hoechst had acted nearly instantaneously upon discovering the public availability of the information. This case suggest that [a company] might have some hope if it can show that the amount of actual access to its document is small. This kind of information would be available from the Internet web site hosting service, which would be able to determine how many people have accessed the web site with the confidential material." Any familiar with this case? How might this relate to the "Hoy" document and the trade secret status of CSS? mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 18:23:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA23778 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:23:31 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA23773 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:23:23 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:27:44 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Trade Secret Protection To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:27:42 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/13/2001 03:27:44 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The difference I can imagine is that the public had access to the case file probably were not technical and didn't publish it in a newspaper or anywhere else. In this case it's been put out on the internet. Too late to put the toothpaste back into the tubes. What one court did ad hoc does not set precedence. mickeym To: dvd Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Trade Secret Protection arvard.edu 02/13/01 01:33 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss From: http://www.faegre.com/articles/article_462.asp "in Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., the court said that highly sensitive trade secret information belonging to Hoechst that had been publicly available in a court file and that had been accessed by members of the public could still be protected as a trade secret. The court said the secrecy of the information had not been compromised because the amount of public access to the court file was actually quite small and Hoechst had acted nearly instantaneously upon discovering the public availability of the information. This case suggest that [a company] might have some hope if it can show that the amount of actual access to its document is small. This kind of information would be available from the Internet web site hosting service, which would be able to determine how many people have accessed the web site with the confidential material." Any familiar with this case? How might this relate to the "Hoy" document and the trade secret status of CSS? mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 18:29:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA23962 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:29:35 -0500 Received: from cow.physics.wisc.edu (cow.physics.wisc.edu [128.104.220.128]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA23852 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:25:48 -0500 Received: (from craigm@localhost) by cow.physics.wisc.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA16297; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:30:20 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: cow.physics.wisc.edu: craigm set sender to craigm@cow.physics.wisc.edu using -f From: Craig Markwardt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14985.50059.628327.234186@cow.physics.wisc.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:30:19 -0600 (CST) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Trade Secret Protection X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under Emacs 20.2.1 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu mickeym wrote: > Any familiar with this case? How might this relate to the "Hoy" document > and the trade secret status of CSS? Pardon my momentary de-lurking... I can't speak for the Hoy document, at least the one that appeared in court. Cryptome does have dvdcca-css.zip, which contains the same license text as the Hoy document but I am unsure of it's pedigree. On the other hand, the DVD CCA is making all of these documents, including several more recent versions of the CSS License, publicly available on their web page. Just surf to the following directory: http://www.dvdcca.org/dvdcca/data/css/ and you will find many of the important license documents. The document that is most interesting is the CSS Procedural Specifications. It contains all of the restrictions on manufacturers regarding digital video output and region control. The publication of these documents on the web suggest that the DVD CCA can no longer assert Trade Secret status over these elements of the agreement. I don't see the dreaded no-fast-forward restrictions, which must be in the more-secret CSS Technical Specifications, available only to CCA cohorts. Can anyone mirror these? Craig From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 18:45:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA24204 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:45:37 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA24201 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:45:35 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:43:27 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Trade Secret Protection To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:43:26 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/13/2001 03:43:28 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id SAA24202 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu What's a Secret? Most state laws governing trade secrets derive from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA). Under the UTSA, a defendant may be found liable for trade secret misappropriation if it has used or disclosed the trade secret of another person or company under one of three distinct scenarios: 1. The defendant used improper means itself to obtain the trade secret; 2. The defendant knew, or had reason to know, that the intermediary who provided it with the trade secret used improper means to obtain the trade secret in the first place; or 3. The defendant knew, or had reason to know, that the information was in fact a trade secret and that the information had been acquired by accident or mistake. I've got a problem with #3....accident or mistake..If it's an accident or mistake then the person who lost them didn't take care of them and it's their problem not the finders. Or "You honor I promise never ever ever to even think about it again.", "Thank you but to ensure the court that you never will, we can schedule your lobotomy at your convenience for this afternoon" mickeym To: dvd Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Trade Secret Protection arvard.edu 02/13/01 01:33 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss From: http://www.faegre.com/articles/article_462.asp "in Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., the court said that highly sensitive trade secret information belonging to Hoechst that had been publicly available in a court file and that had been accessed by members of the public could still be protected as a trade secret. The court said the secrecy of the information had not been compromised because the amount of public access to the court file was actually quite small and Hoechst had acted nearly instantaneously upon discovering the public availability of the information. This case suggest that [a company] might have some hope if it can show that the amount of actual access to its document is small. This kind of information would be available from the Internet web site hosting service, which would be able to determine how many people have accessed the web site with the confidential material." Any familiar with this case? How might this relate to the "Hoy" document and the trade secret status of CSS? mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 20:37:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA25244 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:37:53 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA25241 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:37:41 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA15606 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:42:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:42:21 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Whigs and hackers in cyberspace Message-ID: <20010213204221.A15397@eldritchpress.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3RT0W43JC&live=true&useoverridetemplate=IXLZHNNP94C (unwrap long line if mangled by mailer) is article by our esteemed friend Jamie Boyle, in Financial Times Feb 11 2001 concerning the European parliament debate on copyright. Professor Boyle points out that the Tories and Whigs debated the same issue in 1840. But today there is no Macaulay as eloquent spokesman for the cause of freedom. Perhaps more vital today is the issue of patents for drugs. The Manchester Guardian has been following the U.S. papers with its own excellent series on the subject of third-world drug patents. See today's installment at http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,437338,00.html and follow the links at end for the rest of their stories, especially this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4134705,00.html by John le Carre. Big Pharma might even be more powerful than the MPAA. They are all in the same bed. There is no need for Big Pharma to pay lobbyists now--they are getting jobs directly in the new Bush administration. As one who is getting Medicare, I feel sick that the U.S. govt might pay the drug companies for their inflated prices--for the drugs invented using my tax money--instead of doing something for consumers about those monopolies. It is time that all of us heed Boyle's call for political action against these global monopolies. Let us join together to combat the 'strong intellectual property' advocates, not just Jack Valenti. If it comes down to the Republicans vs. the hackers, I know which side I am on. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 21:17:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA25597 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:17:40 -0500 Received: from mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA25594 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:17:39 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010214022205.MCPS2889.mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:22:05 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:36:05 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021319360500.08200@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id VAA25595 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >From what I've been seeing on this group and on the news reports is that the dvd case and the napster case are very similar. Lawyers for these two groups haven't tried proving that software is indeed speech. I think that the biggest obstical to these cases is that most judges and the general public look at software as some sort of device and not as a creative work that the author wrote. Demonstrating to the judge that yes indeed software is speech would prompt the use of the first amendment. How I would do it is by showing that a computer program has all the characteristics of speech. Then illustrating that a computer just follows a set of instruction layed out by the programmer to perform a specified task. I suggest using DECSS for this demonstation. This would relate the problem at hand to the judge and eventually get him to agree. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 21:56:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA26525 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:56:50 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA26522 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:56:49 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:01:20 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:01:19 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/13/2001 07:01:20 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Actually, I don't think the DVD case and Napster are very similiar at all. DVD is about fair use and curtailment of first amendment rights under a recently enacted law -the DMCA . Napster is really about copyright infringement and contribulatory infringement. I've been skeptical of the napster arguments from the beginning. Tactically, putting them together would be a mistake. "Philip V. Neves" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played arvard.edu the free speech card yet? 02/13/01 06:24 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss >From what I've been seeing on this group and on the news reports is that the dvd case and the napster case are very similar. Lawyers for these two groups haven't tried proving that software is indeed speech. I think that the biggest obstical to these cases is that most judges and the general public look at software as some sort of device and not as a creative work that the author wrote. Demonstrating to the judge that yes indeed software is speech would prompt the use of the first amendment. How I would do it is by showing that a computer program has all the characteristics of speech. Then illustrating that a computer just follows a set of instruction layed out by the programmer to perform a specified task. I suggest using DECSS for this demonstation. This would relate the problem at hand to the judge and eventually get him to agree. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 22:14:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA26776 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:14:48 -0500 Received: from exegrnnts005.seattleu.edu (exegrnnts001.seattleu.edu [206.81.198.91]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA26771 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:14:46 -0500 Received: from compaq1687x (172.17.64.75 [172.17.64.75]) by exegrnnts005.seattleu.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 149P1C4S; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:18:49 -0800 From: "David Petteys" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:18:54 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu There are some overlapping issues, but the dissimilarities outweigh the similarities. As to playing the free speech card, the defense in the DVD case played it and is continuing to play it on appeal. There really aren't any colorable First Amendment arguments with respect to Napster. -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 7:01 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Actually, I don't think the DVD case and Napster are very similiar at all. DVD is about fair use and curtailment of first amendment rights under a recently enacted law -the DMCA . Napster is really about copyright infringement and contribulatory infringement. I've been skeptical of the napster arguments from the beginning. Tactically, putting them together would be a mistake. "Philip V. Neves" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played arvard.edu the free speech card yet? 02/13/01 06:24 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss >From what I've been seeing on this group and on the news reports is that the dvd case and the napster case are very similar. Lawyers for these two groups haven't tried proving that software is indeed speech. I think that the biggest obstical to these cases is that most judges and the general public look at software as some sort of device and not as a creative work that the author wrote. Demonstrating to the judge that yes indeed software is speech would prompt the use of the first amendment. How I would do it is by showing that a computer program has all the characteristics of speech. Then illustrating that a computer just follows a set of instruction layed out by the programmer to perform a specified task. I suggest using DECSS for this demonstation. This would relate the problem at hand to the judge and eventually get him to agree. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 22:27:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA26943 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:27:21 -0500 Received: from mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.85]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA26940 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:27:20 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010214033147.JURY5007.mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:31:47 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:45:47 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021320454702.08200@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id WAA26941 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu But in both cases the DMCA would be irrelevent because of the first amendment. There is no doubt in my mind as a programmer that software is speech. The fact is a program is a collection of statements that tell a computer how to perform a task. The software by itself doesn't do anything so you can't call it a device either. In their source form DECSS and the Napster client are even made up of letters and numbers. This in my mind make them speech. If you look at the case against hustler magazine the court couldn't ban hustler and those were pictures made up of colorful dots. Software at least uses the basic elements that make up speech. On Wednesday 14 February 2001 03:01, you wrote: > Actually, I don't think the DVD case and Napster are very similiar at all. > DVD is about fair use and curtailment of first amendment rights under a > recently enacted law -the DMCA . Napster is really about copyright > infringement and contribulatory infringement. I've been skeptical of the > napster arguments from the beginning. Tactically, putting them together > would be a mistake. > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 22:48:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA29095 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:48:44 -0500 Received: from exegrnnts005.seattleu.edu (exegrnnts001.seattleu.edu [206.81.198.91]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA29092 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:48:42 -0500 Received: from compaq1687x (172.17.64.75 [172.17.64.75]) by exegrnnts005.seattleu.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 149P1DF2; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:52:45 -0800 From: "David Petteys" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:52:48 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <01021320454702.08200@rasputan> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The fact that software is expressive doesn't make the DMCA or any other regulation irrelevant; it simply means that the regulation must pass muster under the strict or intermediate scrutiny tests, depending on which is applied. That is the real issue, because intermediate scrutiny is really very little scrutiny at all, but strict scrutiny is generally fatal to the regulation. -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Philip V. Neves Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:46 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? But in both cases the DMCA would be irrelevent because of the first amendment. There is no doubt in my mind as a programmer that software is speech. The fact is a program is a collection of statements that tell a computer how to perform a task. The software by itself doesn't do anything so you can't call it a device either. In their source form DECSS and the Napster client are even made up of letters and numbers. This in my mind make them speech. If you look at the case against hustler magazine the court couldn't ban hustler and those were pictures made up of colorful dots. Software at least uses the basic elements that make up speech. On Wednesday 14 February 2001 03:01, you wrote: > Actually, I don't think the DVD case and Napster are very similiar at all. > DVD is about fair use and curtailment of first amendment rights under a > recently enacted law -the DMCA . Napster is really about copyright > infringement and contribulatory infringement. I've been skeptical of the > napster arguments from the beginning. Tactically, putting them together > would be a mistake. > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 23:05:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA29364 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:05:59 -0500 Received: from web515.mail.yahoo.com (web515.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.230]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA29361 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:05:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20010214041027.16314.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.81.113.151] by web515.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:10:27 PST Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:10:27 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > Actually, I don't think the DVD case and Napster are very similiar at all. > DVD is about fair use and curtailment of first amendment rights under a > recently enacted law -the DMCA . Napster is really about copyright > infringement and contribulatory infringement. I've been skeptical of the > napster arguments from the beginning. Tactically, putting them together > would be a mistake. I kind of agree - the cases are very different. I don't think the Napster First Amendment argument works unless you already concluded that trading mp3's is fair use (in which case you don't really need it). I think it would fall along the lines of aiding and abetting. Thus, it would need to meet strict scrutiny, but probably would do so. I agree with the others here who expressed surprise that the Court dismissed it so quickly, though. They should have gone through the motions. The argument would be something like this: Napster has a personalized interaction with "members" who have accounts as individuals. They provide them with specific information which immediately and predictably assists them in the commission of illegal activity (assuming mp3 trading isn't fair use) in such a way that there is virtually no other use for such information. I think this argument probably does require some knowledge by Napster that, for example "Unforgiven" is a search name commonly used to find a specific song that is copyrighted by Metallica. That requirement gets you around the legitimate cases where "Garage Band B" wants to allow people to use Napster to distribute "Garage Band B's Only Hit". As soon as Napster is made aware, say by a C&D letter, that "Metallica - Unforgiven" is search term seeking copyrighted material I don't see how they can justify brokering an mp3 trade between members based on this search term. Personally, I think the "digital recording device" argument should have won the case for Napster. Saying "Congress didn't intend for computers to qualify" shows exactly why "legislative intent" is such a lousy concept. The law becomes completely useless as a shield against abusive powers if the words don't mean what they say at face value. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 00:29:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA30494 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:29:13 -0500 Received: from mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA30489 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:29:07 -0500 Received: from swbell.net ([208.190.215.192]) by mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0G8Q002UEFB5PQ@mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:30:41 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:27:50 -0600 From: Jolley Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA going after the "Gallery of CSS Descramblers" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <3A8A1756.C02E6AF6@swbell.net> Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-SBI-NC472 (Win98; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en References: <20010211072929.69317.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Mr. Boucher included in the House record correspondence Mr. Coble, chairman subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, had with Mr. Boucher and Mr. Campbell which further defines the terminology that is used in the statute. >From page H7097 And we eliminated any possibility that nonprofit libraries and archives or educational institutions can be held criminally liable for any violation of sections 1201 or 1202, even when such violations are willful. Larry Blunk wrote: > > Dr. David Touretzky has received a notice from the > MPAA concerning his gallery of CSS descramblers at > http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/ > The standard MPAA notice can be found here: > http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/mpaa-threat-feb2001.txt > Read Dr. Touretzky's wonderful reply here: > http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/mpaa-reply-feb2001.html > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 03:12:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA31707 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:12:39 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA31704 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:12:38 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3ee2d5ce.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.206]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77EA27AE2 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:11:50 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E1EC1175195; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:14:20 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:14:20 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Trade Secret Protection Message-ID: <20010214091420.D14937@lemuria.org> References: <14985.50059.628327.234186@cow.physics.wisc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <14985.50059.628327.234186@cow.physics.wisc.edu>; from craigm@cow.physics.wisc.edu on Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 05:30:19PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 05:30:19PM -0600, Craig Markwardt wrote: > Can anyone mirror these? will be mirrored on lemuria within the day. I already have some of them anyways. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 03:54:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA31947 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:54:04 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA31944 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:54:03 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30R8D>; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:12:56 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:12:49 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:51 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > That makes the DMCA poorly written. > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > > arguments > > > 02/13/01 12:04 AM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > Actually I was trying to illustrate that there -is- no > distinction ... at least given the current definition > of a TPM under the law. > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 8:51 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's arguments > > > > > > > > Me too. I've lost the thread as well. I think it is that a > distinction > > should be made between the physical mechanisms necessary to > > access a work > > and the TPM. WIthout a working player, I certainly cannot > > access anything. > > > > > > > > > > "Steve Hosgood" > > > > To: > > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Sent by: cc: > > > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The other side's > > arvard.edu > > arguments > > > > > > > > > > 02/12/01 08:41 AM > > > > Please respond to > > > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: > > > CSS is neither necessary or sufficient...nor even required. > > Unlike the > > > laser or phonograph needle it is totally artificial. > > > > > > > Surely this is irrelevant? Any form of 'access control' or > 'protection > > method' can be argued to be only 'necessary' in that you have > > to decode > > through that layer somehow in order to get to the real datastream. > > > > You only have to use deCSS (or whatever the so-called 'legal' > > version used > > in licenced DVD players is called) in order to play back > > CSS-encoded DVDs. > > DMCA is specifically written to provide protection for such > > mechanisms. We > > argue that DMCA's provisions are being misused in this case, > > but that's > > the reason that CSS is there, and while it is there then > deCSS (or the > > 'legal' > > equivalent) *are* necessary. > > > > What is the argument here? I seem to have lost the plot on > > this 'necessary > > and sufficient' thread... :-) > > > > -- > > > > Steve | > > S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan > > today is better > > Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan > > tomorrow" > > Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - > > Conrad Brean > > --------------------------------------------+ > > http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the > > film "Wag the > > Dog" ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 07:42:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA01371 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:42:46 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA01368 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:42:43 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA03693 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:47:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:47:18 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? In-Reply-To: <01021320454702.08200@rasputan> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Philip V. Neves wrote: > > But in both cases the DMCA would be irrelevent because of the first > amendment. There is no doubt in my mind as a programmer that software is > speech. The fact is a program is a collection of statements that tell a > computer how to perform a task. The software by itself doesn't do anything so > you can't call it a device either. In their source form DECSS and the > Napster client are even made up of letters and numbers. This in my mind make > them speech. If you look at the case against hustler magazine the court > couldn't ban hustler and those were pictures made up of colorful dots. > Software at least uses the basic elements that make up speech. > Which Hustler case was this? The Falwell case involved a parody ofa public figure: "Jerry Falwell talks about his first time." Besides, your honor, I only read Hustler for the articles. Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 08:22:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA01682 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:22:13 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA01679 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:22:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA12326 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:26:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:26:47 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Trade Secret Protection In-Reply-To: <14985.50059.628327.234186@cow.physics.wisc.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Craig Markwardt wrote: > > mickeym wrote: > > Any familiar with this case? How might this relate to the "Hoy" document > > and the trade secret status of CSS? > > Pardon my momentary de-lurking... > > I can't speak for the Hoy document, at least the one that appeared in > court. Cryptome does have dvdcca-css.zip, which contains the same > license text as the Hoy document but I am unsure of it's pedigree. > > On the other hand, the DVD CCA is making all of these documents, > including several more recent versions of the CSS License, publicly > available on their web page. Just surf to the following directory: > > http://www.dvdcca.org/dvdcca/data/css/ > > and you will find many of the important license documents. > > The document that is most interesting is the CSS Procedural > Specifications. It contains all of the restrictions on manufacturers > regarding digital video output and region control. The publication of > these documents on the web suggest that the DVD CCA can no longer > assert Trade Secret status over these elements of the agreement. George Bush downloaded these specs for me. The most interesting aspect was probably the O/S stuff: "Any general O/S product upgrade or update distributed to comply with this section shall decribe the purpose of such update or upgrade in such a manner as to encourage End Users to adopt such upgrade or update." linux-kernel would be so much more fun to read... Perhaps they would describe such patches as "security". Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 09:07:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA02068 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:07:46 -0500 Received: from mail9.wlv.netzero.net (mail9.wlv.netzero.net [209.247.163.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA02064 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:07:44 -0500 Received: (qmail 15980 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2001 14:11:30 -0000 Received: from dialup-209.246.104.211.newyork1.level3.net (HELO c72fb7d1) (209.246.104.211) by mail9.wlv.netzero.net with SMTP; 14 Feb 2001 14:11:30 -0000 From: "m.e.rose" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:13:24 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I've been lurking - you guys are on line toooooo much & it is toooo hard to keep up with you. anyway: on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 Jeremy wrote > Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? The defendants in MPAA v 2600.com played the card over and over - the judge was not interested. and, although I have not read any of his Napster briefs, I doubt that Bois failed to raise the issue. Shop online without a credit card http://www.rocketcash.com RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 09:34:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA02323 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:34:38 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA02320 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:34:36 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id C6C3E27A96; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:33:57 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:33:57 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu, decss@lists.lemuria.org Subject: [dvd-discuss] Linux player with DeCSS Message-ID: <20010214153357.A5943@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu videolan.org has released a new version of their player. this version can do what they call "direct DVD playback", i.e. it works as a fully-featured (if simple) DVD player, much like the livid project. a quick glance at the source reveals that they are using decss (the algorithm, not necessarily an exact copy of the program) to do this. I can diff it against the various decss implementations I have around if anyone's interested in the details. the player is released under GPL. the project is apparently a university or school project in paris, france, with supervision of two teachers. (which, incidently, brings the total count of free DVD players sorted by continent to europe: 2, america: 0 - no, I'm not accepting bets on why that is so.) -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 10:44:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA03000 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:44:42 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA02997 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:44:40 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:44:46 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:44:42 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/14/2001 07:44:46 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes and putting them together means that the DVD case gets tarred with the same brush - "the screaming hoards of hackers who want to "rape, pillage, and plunder" the sacred intellectual property" [BTW - I'm stealing a line from a folksinger's song about a skinny little boy from Cleveland Ohio who comes to town..][ "David Petteys" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speech card yet? 02/13/01 07:21 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss There are some overlapping issues, but the dissimilarities outweigh the similarities. As to playing the free speech card, the defense in the DVD case played it and is continuing to play it on appeal. There really aren't any colorable First Amendment arguments with respect to Napster. -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 7:01 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Actually, I don't think the DVD case and Napster are very similiar at all. DVD is about fair use and curtailment of first amendment rights under a recently enacted law -the DMCA . Napster is really about copyright infringement and contribulatory infringement. I've been skeptical of the napster arguments from the beginning. Tactically, putting them together would be a mistake. "Philip V. Neves" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played arvard.edu the free speech card yet? 02/13/01 06:24 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss >From what I've been seeing on this group and on the news reports is that the dvd case and the napster case are very similar. Lawyers for these two groups haven't tried proving that software is indeed speech. I think that the biggest obstical to these cases is that most judges and the general public look at software as some sort of device and not as a creative work that the author wrote. Demonstrating to the judge that yes indeed software is speech would prompt the use of the first amendment. How I would do it is by showing that a computer program has all the characteristics of speech. Then illustrating that a computer just follows a set of instruction layed out by the programmer to perform a specified task. I suggest using DECSS for this demonstation. This would relate the problem at hand to the judge and eventually get him to agree. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 11:09:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03398 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:09:18 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03393 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:09:16 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:13:41 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:13:37 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/14/2001 08:13:41 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think that all of us agree that software is speech but as you point out it's how it is used that matters. Not all speech is protected by the first amendment and never has been. As Justice Holmes pointed out your first amendment rights end when you yell fire in a crowded theater. The issue in Napster is NOT that it was software. It is not that it was computers, programmers, servers, peer-to-peer or whatever. What do we have for Napster? contributory copyright infringement (and it's really hard to argue otherwise....or Napster wouldn't be even trying to play a first amendement free speech card.) For the DeCSS, No copyright infringment was demonstrated at the trial. No clear and present danger (Sorry I keep bringing up "old fashioned" law notions). NADA. So we stop people from discussing things because somebody somewhere , sometime, possibly maybe in the future might do something bad.THAT's what the judgement against napster stated. The argument that napster is innocent because it is protected by the first amendement is comparable to saying "Oh you honor, my clients are innocent because they planned their deed using speech. Speech is protected so they didn't do it." "Philip V. Neves" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speech card yet? 02/13/01 07:34 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss But in both cases the DMCA would be irrelevent because of the first amendment. There is no doubt in my mind as a programmer that software is speech. The fact is a program is a collection of statements that tell a computer how to perform a task. The software by itself doesn't do anything so you can't call it a device either. In their source form DECSS and the Napster client are even made up of letters and numbers. This in my mind make them speech. If you look at the case against hustler magazine the court couldn't ban hustler and those were pictures made up of colorful dots. Software at least uses the basic elements that make up speech. On Wednesday 14 February 2001 03:01, you wrote: > Actually, I don't think the DVD case and Napster are very similiar at all. > DVD is about fair use and curtailment of first amendment rights under a > recently enacted law -the DMCA . Napster is really about copyright > infringement and contribulatory infringement. I've been skeptical of the > napster arguments from the beginning. Tactically, putting them together > would be a mistake. > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 11:17:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03633 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:17:05 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03630 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:16:59 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:21:26 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:21:23 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/14/2001 08:21:26 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes I am distubed too by the distinction the court made between a computer and a digital recording device Because themarketing hype for Windows2000 improvements made it seem more like a cheesy multimedia playstation (My brother, who does video + CDROm production, needs far more multimedia capability than he's getting in Windows2000 but REALLY REALLY needs it to be bullet proof as an OS so he doesn't lose time on jobs. I find that ironic that we bitch and moan about the same things in computers these days.) But putting alll else aside, Bryan is right napster got caught "aiding and abetting" copyright infringement. On the bright side, BMG is dumping money into it so not all of the big companies are totally stupid. Bryan Taylor To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speech card yet? 02/13/01 08:13 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss --- Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > Actually, I don't think the DVD case and Napster are very similiar at all. > DVD is about fair use and curtailment of first amendment rights under a > recently enacted law -the DMCA . Napster is really about copyright > infringement and contribulatory infringement. I've been skeptical of the > napster arguments from the beginning. Tactically, putting them together > would be a mistake. I kind of agree - the cases are very different. I don't think the Napster First Amendment argument works unless you already concluded that trading mp3's is fair use (in which case you don't really need it). I think it would fall along the lines of aiding and abetting. Thus, it would need to meet strict scrutiny, but probably would do so. I agree with the others here who expressed surprise that the Court dismissed it so quickly, though. They should have gone through the motions. The argument would be something like this: Napster has a personalized interaction with "members" who have accounts as individuals. They provide them with specific information which immediately and predictably assists them in the commission of illegal activity (assuming mp3 trading isn't fair use) in such a way that there is virtually no other use for such information. I think this argument probably does require some knowledge by Napster that, for example "Unforgiven" is a search name commonly used to find a specific song that is copyrighted by Metallica. That requirement gets you around the legitimate cases where "Garage Band B" wants to allow people to use Napster to distribute "Garage Band B's Only Hit". As soon as Napster is made aware, say by a C&D letter, that "Metallica - Unforgiven" is search term seeking copyrighted material I don't see how they can justify brokering an mp3 trade between members based on this search term. Personally, I think the "digital recording device" argument should have won the case for Napster. Saying "Congress didn't intend for computers to qualify" shows exactly why "legislative intent" is such a lousy concept. The law becomes completely useless as a shield against abusive powers if the words don't mean what they say at face value. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 11:32:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03911 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:32:32 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03908 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:32:30 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pD9500650.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.80]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49F1627A96 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:31:52 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8E2B2175195; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:34:22 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:34:22 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Message-ID: <20010214173421.A16197@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 08:21:23AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 08:21:23AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > But putting alll else aside, Bryan is right napster got caught "aiding and > abetting" copyright infringement. On the bright side, BMG is dumping money > into it so not all of the big companies are totally stupid. none of them are. evil, yes. shortsighted, yes. ignorant - definitely. but not stupid. my best guess is that BMG believes it makes more money by cooperating with napster while the other ones think they can make more by first extorting the IPO money from napster through the courts and then destroying it. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 11:37:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04060 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:37:22 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA04055 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:37:19 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pD9500650.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.80]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6101B27A96 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:36:41 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 68805175195; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:39:13 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:39:13 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Message-ID: <20010214173912.B16197@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 08:13:37AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 08:13:37AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > programmers, servers, peer-to-peer or whatever. What do we have for > Napster? contributory copyright infringement (and it's really hard to argue > otherwise....or Napster wouldn't be even trying to play a first amendement > free speech card.) For the DeCSS, No copyright infringment was demonstrated > at the trial. No clear and present danger (Sorry I keep bringing up "old > fashioned" law notions). NADA. there is one similiarity between the cases: the question of how far it is the court's job to protect big cartels from obsolence by emerging technology. the cartels seem to seriously believe that they have a RIGHT to continue working the way they always did, that they should not have to change if the world around them changes, and that the law, which is equally slow in adapting, is the perfect tool to protect themselves from those changes they don't like. a bit like putting your head in the sand, really, except that THIS bird lobbied a law that makes it illegal to see him if he doesn't see you. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 11:41:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04211 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:41:14 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA04208 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:41:08 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id LAA09509 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:45:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id LAA10536; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:45:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:45:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102141645.LAA10536@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA going after the "Gallery of CSS Descramblers" In-Reply-To: <3A8A1756.C02E6AF6@swbell.net> References: <20010211072929.69317.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com> <3A8A1756.C02E6AF6@swbell.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu tjolley@swbell.net writes: > And we eliminated any possibility that nonprofit libraries > and archives or educational institutions can be held > criminally liable for any violation of sections 1201 or > 1202, even when such violations are willful. I think that applies only to criminal, and not civil liability; libraries do have special privileges under 1201 (although whether they make any practical difference is another question), but the language granting those privileges, in 1201(d), makes it clear that they don't have a blanket exemption. See particularly 1201(d)(3) and (4), the latter of which says that repeated, willful violation forfeits the privilege completely. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 11:41:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04203 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:41:07 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA04200 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:41:06 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id IAA24324 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:45:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma022742; Wed, 14 Feb 01 08:40:01 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:41:34 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id JAA02061; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:39:53 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardyet? Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:49:04 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c096a6$09e4c8e0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: X-WSS-ID: 16946AB7778436-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Michael A. Rolenz Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:01 PM > Actually, I don't think the DVD case and Napster are very similiar at all. > DVD is about fair use and curtailment of first amendment rights under a > recently enacted law -the DMCA . Napster is really about copyright > infringement and contribulatory infringement. I've been skeptical of the > napster arguments from the beginning. Tactically, putting them together > would be a mistake. The Napster case is actually very import to the DeCSS case. It shows that self-help is unneccessary as the courts and the traditional legal protective measures are in place and functional to protect the "exclusive rights" of the authors. Further the need for judicial review to allow or disallow certain use as "fair" reenforces the concept that "fair use" cannot be a matter left to a mechanistic TPM. Their is potentially much good to be mined from the Napster case. "Always look on the bright side of life." -- Life of Brian Just as after every crime in which numerous laws were broken, there is commonly a call for more laws stopping the same thing that was already illegal, the congress might feel the need to look like they're doing something. Even though the Napster case shows that current copyright law has sufficient teeth. Anybody know to what IP legislate Sen Leahy was referring at the Rich pardon hearings this AM? John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 11:43:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04344 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:43:23 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA04341 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:43:22 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA11564; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:47:57 GMT Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:47:57 GMT Subject: [dvd-discuss] What can we learn from Napster? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It might be useful to list all the points made against Napster in their recent loss in court, and check if the 2600 vs. MPAA appeal overlaps any of them. Most specifically we might want to note all the differences between us and them so as to defend against the almost certain chance that MPAA will try and claim that deCSS will lead to a Napsterisation(?) of movies. ( OK, so I hear what others have said on other threads about higher courts' tradition of not allowing personal attacks to sway them, but forewarned is forearmed anyway.... ) Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org (from the "playing the Free Speech card" thread...): > Yes I am distubed too by the distinction the court made between a computer > and a digital recording device Because the marketing hype for Windows2000 > improvements made it seem more like a cheesy multimedia playstation.... > The 2600 case is only about linking, isn't it? So distinctions about what constitutes a computer vs. a digital recording device should be irrelevant to us? > But putting alll else aside, Bryan is right napster got caught "aiding and > abetting" copyright infringement. > The only link between "copyright infringement" and the 2600 case is indirect. Sure, deCSS could be used by piratical people to get source-data with which to make DiVX copies of movies. But they could get the same or similar results from intercepting the output of a Windoze DVD player (quite a popular technique I hear) or video-grabbing an analogue TV signal with a digitiser board. So 2600 are somewhat distant from any misuse of deCSS, and any sensible judge ought to see that. Certainly Napster were far too close to the misuse - a useful distinction between them and 2600. Also, MPAA stated in the lower court that CSS wasn't an anti-pirating technology - extra reason to push 2600's case away from the Napster case. -------- Anyone fancy posting other "2600 case is nothing like Napster" points? -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 11:58:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04524 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:58:22 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA04521 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:58:11 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:02:28 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:02:26 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/14/2001 09:02:28 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Good Points. Law makers just can't resist the urge to make ONE MORE LAW even when they are not needed...The system works so people stop screwing with it! It's been bandied about in the discussion before but you bring up the point that TPMs ARE self-help in advance of any possible infringement. I've always believed that the law frowned upon self help and always tries to discourage it. "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speechcardyet? 02/14/01 08:47 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Michael A. Rolenz Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:01 PM > Actually, I don't think the DVD case and Napster are very similiar at all. > DVD is about fair use and curtailment of first amendment rights under a > recently enacted law -the DMCA . Napster is really about copyright > infringement and contribulatory infringement. I've been skeptical of the > napster arguments from the beginning. Tactically, putting them together > would be a mistake. The Napster case is actually very import to the DeCSS case. It shows that self-help is unneccessary as the courts and the traditional legal protective measures are in place and functional to protect the "exclusive rights" of the authors. Further the need for judicial review to allow or disallow certain use as "fair" reenforces the concept that "fair use" cannot be a matter left to a mechanistic TPM. Their is potentially much good to be mined from the Napster case. "Always look on the bright side of life." -- Life of Brian Just as after every crime in which numerous laws were broken, there is commonly a call for more laws stopping the same thing that was already illegal, the congress might feel the need to look like they're doing something. Even though the Napster case shows that current copyright law has sufficient teeth. Anybody know to what IP legislate Sen Leahy was referring at the Rich pardon hearings this AM? John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 12:00:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA04673 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:00:54 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA04666 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:00:48 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:05:17 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:05:15 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/14/2001 09:05:17 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I don't know if I would go so far as calling them evil. That's Jacky Boot's ploy.....but I will conceed that the "road to Hell, is paved with good intentions"...in this case less than good intentions..greed. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? 02/14/01 08:40 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 08:21:23AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > But putting alll else aside, Bryan is right napster got caught "aiding and > abetting" copyright infringement. On the bright side, BMG is dumping money > into it so not all of the big companies are totally stupid. none of them are. evil, yes. shortsighted, yes. ignorant - definitely. but not stupid. my best guess is that BMG believes it makes more money by cooperating with napster while the other ones think they can make more by first extorting the IPO money from napster through the courts and then destroying it. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 12:00:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA04625 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:00:20 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA04622 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:00:18 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:04:31 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] What can we learn from Napster? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:04:29 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/14/2001 09:04:31 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes. MPAA is sure to try and play the napster card. The way to counter that move is to pointout the dissimilarities. "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] What can we learn from arvard.edu Napster? 02/14/01 08:50 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss It might be useful to list all the points made against Napster in their recent loss in court, and check if the 2600 vs. MPAA appeal overlaps any of them. Most specifically we might want to note all the differences between us and them so as to defend against the almost certain chance that MPAA will try and claim that deCSS will lead to a Napsterisation(?) of movies. ( OK, so I hear what others have said on other threads about higher courts' tradition of not allowing personal attacks to sway them, but forewarned is forearmed anyway.... ) Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org (from the "playing the Free Speech card" thread...): > Yes I am distubed too by the distinction the court made between a computer > and a digital recording device Because the marketing hype for Windows2000 > improvements made it seem more like a cheesy multimedia playstation.... > The 2600 case is only about linking, isn't it? So distinctions about what constitutes a computer vs. a digital recording device should be irrelevant to us? > But putting alll else aside, Bryan is right napster got caught "aiding and > abetting" copyright infringement. > The only link between "copyright infringement" and the 2600 case is indirect. Sure, deCSS could be used by piratical people to get source-data with which to make DiVX copies of movies. But they could get the same or similar results from intercepting the output of a Windoze DVD player (quite a popular technique I hear) or video-grabbing an analogue TV signal with a digitiser board. So 2600 are somewhat distant from any misuse of deCSS, and any sensible judge ought to see that. Certainly Napster were far too close to the misuse - a useful distinction between them and 2600. Also, MPAA stated in the lower court that CSS wasn't an anti-pirating technology - extra reason to push 2600's case away from the Napster case. -------- Anyone fancy posting other "2600 case is nothing like Napster" points? -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 12:06:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA04823 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:06:06 -0500 Received: from thoughtpolice.bigbrother.net (patchi.organic.com [208.241.222.3] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA04820 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:06:04 -0500 Received: from bigbrother.net (IDENT:sterno@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thoughtpolice.bigbrother.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00995; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:06:24 -0600 Message-ID: <3A8ABB10.6010709@bigbrother.net> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:06:24 -0600 From: Steve Stearns User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686; en-US; 0.7) Gecko/20010105 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] What can we learn from Napster? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Hosgood wrote: > The only link between "copyright infringement" and the 2600 case is indirect. > Sure, deCSS could be used by piratical people to get source-data with which to > make DiVX copies of movies. But they could get the same or similar results from > intercepting the output of a Windoze DVD player (quite a popular technique > I hear) or video-grabbing an analogue TV signal with a digitiser board. So 2600 > are somewhat distant from any misuse of deCSS, and any sensible judge ought > to see that. Certainly Napster were far too close to the misuse - a useful > distinction between them and 2600. Also, MPAA stated in the lower court that > CSS wasn't an anti-pirating technology - extra reason to push 2600's case away > from the Napster case. The thing that's so incredibly funky about this case is that it isn't even at issue whether DeCSS has been or could be used to pirate DVD's. The issue here is that, according to the MPAA, DeCSS is in violation of the DMCA because it circumvents an access control (and 2600 is in court for "trafficing" in them). So, it seems to me that this has little if anything to do with Napster because that situation is about copyright infringement and this isn't. You could suggest that DeCSS facilitates copyright infringmenet, but that's not what this lawsuit is about. ---Steve --- IANAL - I Am Not A Lama From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 12:10:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA04907 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:10:07 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA04904 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:10:06 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30S4X>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:15:14 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardye t? Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:15:05 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com] ... > The Napster case is actually very import to the DeCSS case. > It shows that > self-help is unneccessary as the courts and the traditional > legal protective > measures are in place and functional to protect the > "exclusive rights" of > the authors. Further the need for judicial review to allow > or disallow > certain use as "fair" reenforces the concept that "fair use" > cannot be a > matter left to a mechanistic TPM. > Now _there_ is a good point. The use of the Napster case is not in the similarities (of which there are few to none) but rather the differences. There was an allegation of copyright violation, it is being pursued in the courts (as is proper). Done and done. No need for TPMs. Next! -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 12:25:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA05207 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:25:00 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA05204 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:24:56 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd9500633.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.51]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A11027AF0 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:24:18 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DC468175195; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:26:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:26:50 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] What can we learn from Napster? Message-ID: <20010214182650.A16240@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from steve@i2it.co.uk on Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 04:47:57PM +0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 04:47:57PM +0000, Steve Hosgood wrote: > It might be useful to list all the points made against Napster in their recent > loss in court, and check if the 2600 vs. MPAA appeal overlaps any of them. > Most specifically we might want to note all the differences between us and > them so as to defend against the almost certain chance that MPAA will try and > claim that deCSS will lead to a Napsterisation(?) of movies. in the shortest form I can come up with right now: decss is not a service that provides movies for download, or even links to those. it's only contribution to copying of movies is one that has already been found legal in the betamax case: it makes it possible. in fact, your honour, if the plaintiffs WERE attacking a "movie-napster" instead of wasting their, our and the court's time on attacking the manufacturer of a gun that MIGHT kill someone, they would have our full support. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 14:05:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA06553 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:05:31 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f33.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.33]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA06550 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:05:27 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:09:31 -0800 Received: from 12.109.34.93 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:09:31 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.109.34.93] From: "Richard Bowers" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] What can we learn from Napster? Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:09:31 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Feb 2001 19:09:31.0957 (UTC) FILETIME=[A9482E50:01C096B9] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >From: "Steve Hosgood" >It might be useful to list all the points made against Napster in their >recent >loss in court, and check if the 2600 vs. MPAA appeal overlaps any of them. >Most specifically we might want to note all the differences between us and >them so as to defend against the almost certain chance that MPAA will try >and >claim that deCSS will lead to a Napsterisation(?) of movies. > >( OK, so I hear what others have said on other threads about higher courts' >tradition of not allowing personal attacks to sway them, but forewarned is >forearmed anyway.... ) > >Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org (from the "playing the Free Speech card" >thread...): > > Yes I am distubed too by the distinction the court made between a >computer > > and a digital recording device Because the marketing hype for >Windows2000 > > improvements made it seem more like a cheesy multimedia playstation.... > > > >The 2600 case is only about linking, isn't it? So distinctions about what >constitutes a computer vs. a digital recording device should be irrelevant >to >us? > A good point. Did any of the national media or other MPAA related sites link to Napster during this last few weeks? I know Napster is allegedly committing contributory copyright infringment, not allegedly supplying a circumvention device, so there's not a direct legal correlation between the two, but there is something at a visceral level (something that comes about during the public hand-waving, even if the judges don't think its worth talking about). If Napster, which has been shown to facilitating direct copyright infringment, can be linked to, why can't links to source code also be provided? (OK, its because the DMCA doesn't mention providing one type of info, and does mention the other - like I said, it isn't a legal argument, just a public one.) Answering my own question, google found links to www.napster.com from the following corporate sites (Listing MPAA/RIAA associated ones first): Time (Best clicks of 2000), CNN.com, abcnews.go.com The New Republic, Salon, Fortune, USAToday, PCWorld, Apple, Wired, Zdnet, lotus.com, ibm.com _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 15:34:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA08351 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:34:00 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA08348 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:33:58 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:38:24 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] What can we learn from Napster? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:38:19 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/14/2001 12:38:24 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Quite right and that's why it would be tactical blunder to bring in napster and JackyBoots has been doing so publically. It was brought up in the trial. Steve Stearns To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] What can we learn arvard.edu from Napster? 02/14/01 09:13 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Steve Hosgood wrote: > The only link between "copyright infringement" and the 2600 case is indirect. > Sure, deCSS could be used by piratical people to get source-data with which to > make DiVX copies of movies. But they could get the same or similar results from > intercepting the output of a Windoze DVD player (quite a popular technique > I hear) or video-grabbing an analogue TV signal with a digitiser board. So 2600 > are somewhat distant from any misuse of deCSS, and any sensible judge ought > to see that. Certainly Napster were far too close to the misuse - a useful > distinction between them and 2600. Also, MPAA stated in the lower court that > CSS wasn't an anti-pirating technology - extra reason to push 2600's case away > from the Napster case. The thing that's so incredibly funky about this case is that it isn't even at issue whether DeCSS has been or could be used to pirate DVD's. The issue here is that, according to the MPAA, DeCSS is in violation of the DMCA because it circumvents an access control (and 2600 is in court for "trafficing" in them). So, it seems to me that this has little if anything to do with Napster because that situation is about copyright infringement and this isn't. You could suggest that DeCSS facilitates copyright infringmenet, but that's not what this lawsuit is about. ---Steve --- IANAL - I Am Not A Lama From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 16:19:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA08842 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:19:38 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA08839 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:19:37 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd9500633.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.51]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7982527AF8 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:18:58 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 731A0175195; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:21:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:21:30 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] What can we learn from Napster? Message-ID: <20010214222129.B17552@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 12:38:19PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 12:38:19PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Quite right and that's why it would be tactical blunder to bring in napster > and JackyBoots has been doing so publically. It was brought up in the > trial. nope, it's not blunder. jack knows that even what's not "officially" in the trial will influence the judge if he whines loud enough about it. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 17:47:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA09780 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:47:11 -0500 Received: from inconnu.isu.edu (root@inconnu.isu.edu [134.50.8.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA09777 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:47:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00731 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:51:44 -0700 Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:51:43 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] What can we learn from Napster? In-Reply-To: <20010214222129.B17552@lemuria.org> Message-ID: Copies-to: galt@inconnu.isu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It is a blunder for Garbus et al to bring it in until the last minute. In fact they should object stringently when the MPAA does. The MPAA failed rather spectacularly to prove actual damage in the trial, and they're not allowed to introduce new evidence in at this point. Once the MPAA breaches it, however, the door is open and then everything the MPAA's said about Napster should be used if it can be weaved into a usable context. NB: when they do, monopoly mightn't be a bad thing to discuss... On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Tom wrote: >On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 12:38:19PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >> Quite right and that's why it would be tactical blunder to bring in napster >> and JackyBoots has been doing so publically. It was brought up in the >> trial. > >nope, it's not blunder. jack knows that even what's not "officially" in >the trial will influence the judge if he whines loud enough about it. > > > -- Who is John Galt? Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product. -- Ferenc Mantfeld From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 18:30:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA10288 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:30:17 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA10285 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:30:14 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:34:42 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] What can we learn from Napster? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:34:41 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/14/2001 03:34:42 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes...it's no blunder of Jacky Boots that he links Napster and DeCSS. It's a blunder if you are defending DeCSS and you link napster to it. Better to have a good counter argument handy ("you honor, the comments on Napster are totally irrelevant to the discussions here. After you strip away all the technology, it really comes down to aiding and abetting copyright infringment with is an old old story. DeCSS is something totally different....") Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] What can we learn from Napster? 02/14/01 01:27 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 12:38:19PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Quite right and that's why it would be tactical blunder to bring in napster > and JackyBoots has been doing so publically. It was brought up in the > trial. nope, it's not blunder. jack knows that even what's not "officially" in the trial will influence the judge if he whines loud enough about it. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 18:50:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA10559 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:50:37 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA10555 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:50:33 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30TB1>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:09:49 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:09:44 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,41614,00.html The article is about a digital rights management system for audio files that Microsoft is calling SAP (Secure Audio Path). Presumably developed as a response to Napster-type file shareing. But, just like CSS it addresses the device used to play the audio file, not the authorization state of the user.
"Where the consumer would know something is going on is if they don't use a trusted soundcard," said Gary Schare, a group product manager in Microsoft's digital media division.
What is a "trusted" soundcard? If Turtle Beach doesn't pony up the cash to Microsoft, they aren't trusted? WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHAT KIND OF SOUND CARD I PLAY THE DAMNED AUDIO FILE ON?!?!?? WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE RIGHTS TO THE MATERIAL?!?!??! (*pant* *pant*) Sorry. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 20:08:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA11690 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 20:08:18 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA11686 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 20:08:14 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3ee2d5e5.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.229]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9CF27AFF for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:07:35 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 222C9175195; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:10:08 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:10:08 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! Message-ID: <20010215021007.G17603@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from hartman@onetouch.com on Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 02:09:44PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 02:09:44PM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > What is a "trusted" soundcard? If Turtle Beach doesn't pony up the cash to > Microsoft, they aren't trusted? correct. oh, and there'll be some CSS-esque license that prohibits them certain things. digital output, I'm sure. > WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHAT > KIND OF SOUND CARD I PLAY THE DAMNED AUDIO FILE ON?!?!?? WHAT DOES THAT > HAVE TO DO WITH THE RIGHTS TO THE MATERIAL?!?!??! well, your soundcard may allow you to make high-quality copies (i.e. lossless digital output). now we can't allow that, can we? personally, I think someone out there has his head on backwards. the question is not whether windos or micro$oft or the music mafia trust MY soundcard. the only question of relevance should be whether *I* do. if there's some firmware in it that steals my rights, I definitely don't. so "trusted soundcard" is a PERFECT example for newspeak - it means the exact opposite of what it appears to mean. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 22:50:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA13559 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:50:59 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA13550 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:50:58 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30SWJ>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:41:04 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:40:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Why not? They're patenting gene sequences as they are being discovered rather than as their purpose is determined ... what other "device" can you possibly patent without any idea of what the darned thing does? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > > > OK. I want to copyright all possible sequence of notes.... > ... > > > as a followup to the earlier discussion on copyrighting > jazz, see the new scientist 7 feb 2001 article at > http://www.newscientist.com/dailynews/news.jsp?id=ns9999400 > > soon anyone who creates a jazz riff will be able to > play the creation into a pc and have a search engine > find out who actually 'owns' that sequence of notes so > the person can pay the copyright owner. no doubt this > will be applied by law to live music so that copyright > owners will be able to use computer power to collect > automatically royalties on public performances of 'their' > music. or it could prevent or censor the expression in > realtime if compulsory licensing is not allowed. > > surely this will allow computers and the internet to > make possible new 'freedoms' in creating music such > as jazz. a like technology for automatic payment for > quoting copyrighted or trademarked words and like > expressions awaits entrepreneurship. > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 22:51:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA13565 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:51:01 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA13529 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:50:55 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30S42>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:11:24 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:11:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The two cases are not similar in the least. Nobody really believes that trading copyright material is not a copyright violation, they just thing that it is justifiable somehow and/or have overlooked compensation for the creators. Otoh, although the opponents on the DeCSS case have argued that (copying and distribution of copyright material) is exactly the purpose for which DeCSS was created, that is not true. Yes, it _can_ be used for that purpose ... but it can _also_ be used for a perfectly legitimate purpose: enabling the viewing of material for which the viewer has legitimate rights to view on the system of the viewer's own choice. I have heard no similar "legitimate use" defense for Napster. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip V. Neves [mailto:pneves@aicompro.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 11:36 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card > yet? > > > From what I've been seeing on this group and on the news > reports is that the > dvd case and the napster case are very similar. Lawyers for > these two groups > haven't tried proving that software is indeed speech. I > think that the > biggest obstical to these cases is that most judges and the > general public > look at software as some sort of device and not as a creative > work that the > author wrote. > > Demonstrating to the judge that yes indeed software is speech > would prompt > the use of the first amendment. How I would do it is by > showing that a > computer program has all the characteristics of speech. Then > illustrating > that a computer just follows a set of instruction layed out > by the programmer > to perform a specified task. I suggest using DECSS for this > demonstation. > This would relate the problem at hand to the judge and > eventually get him to > agree. > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 22:50:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA13554 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:50:59 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA13539 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:50:56 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30SWC>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:37:24 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:37:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom [mailto:tom@lemuria.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 8:39 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free > speech card > yet? > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 08:13:37AM -0800, > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > programmers, servers, peer-to-peer or whatever. What do we have for > > Napster? contributory copyright infringement (and it's > really hard to argue > > otherwise....or Napster wouldn't be even trying to play a > first amendement > > free speech card.) For the DeCSS, No copyright infringment > was demonstrated > > at the trial. No clear and present danger (Sorry I keep > bringing up "old > > fashioned" law notions). NADA. > > there is one similiarity between the cases: the question of how far it > is the court's job to protect big cartels from obsolence by emerging > technology. Tom, Tom ... it's not the technology that matters, it's the ACTIONS. You could post notes on the grocery store bulletin board announcing that you'll let everyone come and copy your "Metallica" album next saturday at 3 if they bring an album to copy. When you were taken to court it would be on the _same_ copyright infringment issue that Napster was there for. The technology was irrelevant, what was important was what was being done. The protection afforded to the music industry by the law was the same protection that they have had all along ... it's just the nature of the way in which the violation had occurred that was new and different. That doesn't make the violation itself different -- not worth making new law over, certainly. Otoh the MPAA _has_ resorted to making new law because the aren't satisfied with the protection afforded by the existing law. They don't really care about the copyright violations ... remember, those are already covered by the existing law. They are after the market for the machines by which their material can be viewed and needed new legislation to prevent people from creating viewing machines if they weren't part of the "in crowd". These cases are _completely_ different except that they both involve computer technology at some point. That is not, and should not, be sufficient to consider the cases at all similar. "Means" is the _least_ significant aspect of any such (alleged) violation. Hey ... forget Sony v. Betamax ... how about the old case where the studios owned the theatres, preventing fair competition in an open marketplace? Among the three functions of production, distribution and presentation wasn't the outcome that any one company could be involved in any two out of the three, but had to strictly stay away from the third? (Does this ring a bell for anybody who could dredge up the details ??) -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 22:50:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA13542 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:50:57 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA13534 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:50:56 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30SVM>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:24:34 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:24:30 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I really don't think you'll get far with that ... it is essentially playing on semantics. Software _does_ things. It _is_ a device, albiet a "virtual" device. There are certainly crossover issues with free speech, but those would have to be determined on a case by case basis. DeCSS is a device for obtaining access to encrypted, copyright, material. The issue is whether such access is legitimate; or conversely whether the government has the authority to create legislation banning this type of device because it _might_ be used to commit a copyright violation. Among the other issues that this brings up that are frequently discussed here is "prior restraint" (an avenue that I don't think we've followed up nearly enough). The speech issues have to do with sharing the ideas (algorithms) behind the DeCSS code and/or sharing the source code itself. Napster is a device for enabling individual users to find and share copyright material. It is not distributed as source, and there are not really new ideas to be discussed about it's implementation. The free speech issues don't pertain. Nor for that matter does the prior restraint issues -- MPAA is attempting to stop people from creating circumventing devices. The music industry is attempting to stop people from copying music. The focus is on the use to which the device is being put rather than the device itself. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISINCTION. If somebody uses DeCSS to copy and distrubute "The Matrix" on the web, sure go ahead and prosecute 'em for copyright violation & piracy. But you can't stop people from using DeCSS just to view privately the movies they bought (licensed?) for private viewing. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip V. Neves [mailto:pneves@aicompro.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:46 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free > speech card > yet? > > > > But in both cases the DMCA would be irrelevent because of the first > amendment. There is no doubt in my mind as a programmer that > software is > speech. The fact is a program is a collection of statements > that tell a > computer how to perform a task. The software by itself > doesn't do anything so > you can't call it a device either. In their source form > DECSS and the > Napster client are even made up of letters and numbers. This > in my mind make > them speech. If you look at the case against hustler magazine > the court > couldn't ban hustler and those were pictures made up of > colorful dots. > Software at least uses the basic elements that make up speech. > > > > On Wednesday 14 February 2001 03:01, you wrote: > > Actually, I don't think the DVD case and Napster are very > similiar at all. > > DVD is about fair use and curtailment of first amendment > rights under a > > recently enacted law -the DMCA . Napster is really about copyright > > infringement and contribulatory infringement. I've been > skeptical of the > > napster arguments from the beginning. Tactically, putting > them together > > would be a mistake. > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 22:50:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA13541 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:50:57 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA13532 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:50:55 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30S43>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:12:44 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MPAA going after the "Gallery of CSS Descramble rs" Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:12:35 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Besides which, even if a library has special dispensation to make use of DeCSS (for example) ... somebody had to develop the darned thing to begin with, and all avenues to development, including free discussion of the principles involved, are being stifled by the remainder of the law. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert S. Thau [mailto:rst@ai.mit.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 8:46 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA going after the "Gallery of CSS > Descramblers" > > > tjolley@swbell.net writes: > > > And we eliminated any possibility that nonprofit libraries > > and archives or educational institutions can be held > > criminally liable for any violation of sections 1201 or > > 1202, even when such violations are willful. > > I think that applies only to criminal, and not civil liability; > libraries do have special privileges under 1201 (although whether they > make any practical difference is another question), but the language > granting those privileges, in 1201(d), makes it clear that they don't > have a blanket exemption. See particularly 1201(d)(3) and (4), the > latter of which says that repeated, willful violation forfeits the > privilege completely. > > rst > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 14 23:06:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA13914 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:06:40 -0500 Received: from bur-jud-175-135 (bur-jud-175-135.rh.uchicago.edu [128.135.175.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA13911 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:06:38 -0500 Received: by bur-jud-175-135 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 31F6711C; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:13:25 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:13:25 -0600 From: Sam TH To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Message-ID: <20010214221325.B19773@uchicago.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: ; from hartman@onetouch.com on Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 09:37:17AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 09:37:17AM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > Hey ... forget Sony v. Betamax ... how about the old case where the > studios owned the theatres, preventing fair competition in an open > marketplace? Among the three functions of production, distribution and > presentation wasn't the outcome that any one company could be involved > in any two out of the three, but had to strictly stay away from the > third? (Does this ring a bell for anybody who could dredge up the > details ??) I've written a number of very long posts on the details of antitrust caselaw as applied to the DVD cartel. Search the archives for "Morton Salt", or "Paramount" (the theaters case) or "Why I Love Justice Blackmun" (the most significant post, on the most recent caselaw). =20 I think the issues are pretty clear. But read my posts. =20 =20 sam th =20 sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ GnuPG Key: =20 http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key --8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6i1dlt+kM0Mq9M/wRAgoYAKDVXVGpJAJguVEcwfwj4u15pUMNLQCg0Qvf +IqguHhfY10p3qTcYRHPzck= =HYUz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 03:19:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA28256 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 03:19:35 -0500 Received: from mail01.expresstech.net ([12.30.178.63]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA28253 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 03:19:33 -0500 Received: from orak (unverified [64.108.201.110]) by mail01.expresstech.net (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.5.4) with SMTP id for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 03:22:20 -0500 From: "Reginald Joiner" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] Does DMCA violate the constitution? Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:29:12 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I am not a lawyer, but according to this link... the constitution provides a limited time period wherein a work may remain the exclusive property of an entity; thereafter the material becomes part of the public domain. The provisions of the DMCA effectively allow the copyright holder the exclusive right to the material FOREVER. Isn't that inherently a violation of the constitutional requirement that the material become part of the public domain after a limited time period. NOTE: That limited time period thing is ugly...But it does not say forever. My personal conclusion is that the law is illegal since makes the material forever out of the public domain by the statuary construction of the DMCA. My two cents... http://www.cssfaq.org/dvd-discuss-faq.html#ss2.4.1 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 03:24:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA28380 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 03:24:50 -0500 Received: from mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA28375 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 03:24:46 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010215082917.KFGF27353.mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:29:17 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:43:09 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021501430900.14410@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id DAA28376 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Then in that case we can also say that a book on how to bake a cake is also a device. The chief can read the book and bake the cake but the instructions don't bake it for the chief. The same goes for a computer program. The computer reads the program and then performs a set of tasks. This doesn't make the program a device just like a recipe in a cook book is not a device. There is no difference. The windows that you see on the screen are the result of the computer reading in a set of instructions and then performing them. They aren't the result of some special device that is designed to put a window on the screen. This is something that even the Canadian government recognizes. Software in Canada is protected by copywrite not patents. The industry has also accepted this as the way to protect software from unauthorized reproduction. Even Microsoft respects that. The problem is there is a lack of understanding in the US court system as to what software is. They think like you do that software is some sort of device. But software is made up of characters, numbers, symbols, and statements. Its not made up of nuts bolts or anything tangible. Software is just an expression of someones idea and therefore a form of speech. On Wednesday 14 February 2001 17:24, you wrote: > I really don't think you'll get far with that ... it is > essentially playing on semantics. Software _does_ things. > It _is_ a device, albiet a "virtual" device. There are > certainly crossover issues with free speech, but those > would have to be determined on a case by case basis. > > DeCSS is a device for obtaining access to encrypted, copyright, > material. The issue is whether such access is legitimate; > or conversely whether the government has the authority to > create legislation banning this type of device because > it _might_ be used to commit a copyright violation. Among > the other issues that this brings up that are frequently > discussed here is "prior restraint" (an avenue that I don't > think we've followed up nearly enough). The speech issues > have to do with sharing the ideas (algorithms) behind the > DeCSS code and/or sharing the source code itself. > > Napster is a device for enabling individual users to > find and share copyright material. It is not distributed > as source, and there are not really new ideas to be > discussed about it's implementation. The free speech > issues don't pertain. Nor for that matter does the > prior restraint issues -- MPAA is attempting to stop > people from creating circumventing devices. The music > industry is attempting to stop people from copying > music. The focus is on the use to which the device is > being put rather than the device itself. THIS IS AN > IMPORTANT DISINCTION. If somebody uses DeCSS to copy > and distrubute "The Matrix" on the web, sure go ahead > and prosecute 'em for copyright violation & piracy. But > you can't stop people from using DeCSS just to view privately > the movies they bought (licensed?) for private viewing. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 07:13:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA29894 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:13:37 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA29890 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:13:31 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12255; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:18:05 GMT Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:18:05 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] What can we learn from Napster? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu (Subject: line changed to match that of a possibly more relevant thread) Richard Hartman writes: > > there is one similiarity between the cases: the question of how far it > > is the court's job to protect big cartels from obsolence by emerging > > technology. > > Tom, Tom ... it's not the technology that matters, it's the ACTIONS. > I suspect Tom knows that :-) Convincing a *judge* is the important bit. Richard goes on to make IMHO a useful point about how Napster is nothing like the 2600 case, yet pointing out that MPAA ought to have nothing to fear from deCSS: > You could post notes on the grocery store bulletin board announcing > that you'll let everyone come and copy your "Metallica" album next > saturday at 3 if they bring an album to copy. When you were taken > to court it would be on the _same_ copyright infringment issue that > Napster was there for. The technology was irrelevant, what was > important was what was being done. The protection afforded to the > music industry by the law was the same protection that they have > had all along ... it's just the nature of the way in which the violation > had occurred that was new and different. That doesn't make the violation > itself different -- not worth making new law over, certainly. > Surely we can't miss out on the chance to run something like this past the judge(s) in the appeal? Any excuse will do - the MPAA are *bound* to try and raise FUD in the judges minds by claiming similarity between this case and Napster. Yet as Richard points out: 1) The Napster case featured the great bogeyman of MPAA's claim: i.e that pirate digital copies of their works could be circulated and destroy them. The Napster case proves that *isn't true*. Existing law would protect the likes of the MPAA. 2) If anyone tried to do a movie version of Napster in the future (with or without deCSS technology) then the Napster case (assuming it isn't successfully appealed) sets a legal precedent in the MPAA's favour. and directly in our favour: 3) CDs are not protected by any TPM. The lack such a TPM didn't stop Napster getting clobbered. The existence (or not) of a TPM on DVDs won't stop the future prosecution of a "movie Napster" if it is ever tried. and just in case the judges didn't already know: 4) Movies are produced in places other than Hollywood. I can't speak for Bombay (home of the biggest movie producers in the world apparently) but Europe is home to a fair number of small/medium movie production companies. They produce DVDs of course. Many are not "protected" with CSS(*). These companies know that they can rely on normal anti-piracy laws to protect their rights. (*) There's a browseable list on WWW somewhere listing the ones that aren't CSS-ed. I forget the URL. The various Linux DVD experimenters were limited to only these titles in the early days before deCSS came along. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 07:36:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA30131 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:36:24 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA30127 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:36:22 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 5FA7C27B06; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:35:44 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:35:44 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Message-ID: <20010215133544.E13507@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from hartman@onetouch.com on Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 09:11:14AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 09:11:14AM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > Otoh, although the opponents on the DeCSS case have argued > that (copying and distribution of copyright material) is > exactly the purpose for which DeCSS was created, that is > not true. Yes, it _can_ be used for that purpose ... but > it can _also_ be used for a perfectly legitimate purpose: > enabling the viewing of material for which the viewer has > legitimate rights to view on the system of the viewer's own > choice. that's why I mentioned the vlc here recently. it works, it can be demonstrated in court, and it DOES use decss. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 07:35:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA30111 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:35:29 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA30108 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:35:25 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 07A7527B06; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:34:36 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:34:36 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Message-ID: <20010215133435.D13507@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from hartman@onetouch.com on Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 09:37:17AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 09:37:17AM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > > there is one similiarity between the cases: the question of how far it > > is the court's job to protect big cartels from obsolence by emerging > > technology. > > Tom, Tom ... it's not the technology that matters, it's the ACTIONS. not quite. don't think the RIAA would jump on your example: > You could post notes on the grocery store bulletin board announcing > that you'll let everyone come and copy your "Metallica" album next > saturday at 3 if they bring an album to copy. I bet they wouldn't care. however, napster has the potential to make them obsolete. it's not even the amount of copying that's going on, I don't buy that line. CD sales were at a record high last year, so where is the "ruin" that they claim napster is bringing to them? fact is that if napster remains, more and different napster-like services will appear, some of them with subscription or other payment models to obsolete the current movie mafia controlled distribution channels. that's the real danger, and I'd be very surprised if the RIAA dons weren't smart enough to see that. > Napster was there for. The technology was irrelevant, what was > important was what was being done. The protection afforded to the > music industry by the law was the same protection that they have > had all along ... correct. still I'm willing to bet that their real purpose was a delay or shutdown of napster and similiar services in order to give them more time to develop something similiar on their own. > Otoh the MPAA _has_ resorted to making new law because the aren't > satisfied with the protection afforded by the existing law. agree > They don't really care about the copyright violations ... correct > Hey ... forget Sony v. Betamax ... how about the old case where the > studios owned the theatres, preventing fair competition in an open > marketplace? Among the three functions of production, distribution and > presentation wasn't the outcome that any one company could be involved > in any two out of the three, but had to strictly stay away from the > third? (Does this ring a bell for anybody who could dredge up the > details ??) it took them surprisingly long to come up with a "solution" for this, didn't it? but one bright morning, someone said "hey, we don't have to OWN the playback device manufacturers, if only we can bind them so closely that in effect we're in control anyways". -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 07:41:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA30287 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:41:10 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA30284 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:41:07 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id D49F927B06; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:29 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:29 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] What can we learn from Napster? Message-ID: <20010215134029.F13507@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from steve@i2it.co.uk on Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 12:18:05PM +0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 12:18:05PM +0000, Steve Hosgood wrote: > > Tom, Tom ... it's not the technology that matters, it's the ACTIONS. > > I suspect Tom knows that :-) as a matter of fact, one of my first postings to this list was exactly about that, i.e. the MPAA's failure to produce even a single actual copyright violation, i.e. action. > Surely we can't miss out on the chance to run something like this past the > judge(s) in the appeal? Any excuse will do - the MPAA are *bound* to try and > raise FUD in the judges minds by claiming similarity between this case and > Napster. definitely. and we should ideally have a 3-sentence reply that leaves absolutely nothing of that "argument". short, to the point, and as flawless as it can be. > 3) CDs are not protected by any TPM. The lack such a TPM didn't stop Napster > getting clobbered. The existence (or not) of a TPM on DVDs won't stop > the future prosecution of a "movie Napster" if it is ever tried. very good point. > (*) There's a browseable list on WWW somewhere listing the ones that aren't > CSS-ed. I forget the URL. The various Linux DVD experimenters were limited > to only these titles in the early days before deCSS came along. the list is somewhere on the vlc webpage, http://www.videolan.org I also have a direct link to it on my decss page. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 09:19:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA30914 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:19:39 -0500 Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA30911 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:19:36 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-34-126.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.34.126]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA31594 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:24:13 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:24:23 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: [dvd-discuss] dvd article in premiere magazine Message-ID: <3A8B9237.19219.34ABAF@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu There's an article in the March issue of Premiere magazine on the dvd matter, "Hack to the Future". Sports a huge picture of Jon opposite the start of the article (p 79), and overall makes him out as a nice chap who is motivated by anti-corporate feeling and the desire to watch DVDs on Linux. However, beyond sound bite quotes of Robin Gross and Dave Touretzky, and despite a small photograph of two hacker-looking types standing at a police barrier with placards calling for free speech and open source legality, the article doesn't go into any real detail about the position of the defense. Mainly they go on about how scary it is for the studios to be facing this technology which (unquestionably) will destroy all their profits. (Even though in the article Jack is quoted as saying that 99% of people will never steal. Hm, that means, let's see, get out the calculator.. carry the 8.453 .. 99% of your profits remain intact! Gee Jack, if you are so certain about the moral upstanditude of the people, why the encryption? OH, you mean steal = break our encryption. So without encryption people are bad, but with it people are good. I get it.) I don't suppose anyone knows of an article that actually addresses the dvd events in terms of old and new business models? I wish Mike Royko was still around. Someone like that on our side.. sparky From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 09:47:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA31187 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:47:31 -0500 Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA31184 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:47:28 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20607 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:45:58 -0700 (MST) Received: from 64-212-31-7.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.31.7), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpdAAA_Aa4jO; Thu Feb 15 07:45:47 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA25297 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:51:16 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:51:16 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021507511600.26224@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wednesday 14 February 2001 10:24, you wrote: # I really don't think you'll get far with that ... it is # essentially playing on semantics. Software _does_ things. # It _is_ a device, albiet a "virtual" device. There are # certainly crossover issues with free speech, but those # would have to be determined on a case by case basis. You're playing with semantic confusion. First you use "software" in reference to the writings of a human being, then in reference to the sequence of actions taken by a computer. By trading on the dual meaning of the word, you then apply to the former conclusions that apply only to the latter. Consider this: for a while before the term "content" became popular, people in the idustry were calling music, movies, etc. "software." Which they are -- they're not hardware, just information. When you put a CD into a player, all you're doing is loading a sequence of instructions that the player executes. (Put this value on the left channel, this on the right; next; put this on the left, this on the right; next; etc.) DVD is even more to the point, since the control block EXPLICITLY contains executable instructions, even down to conditional branches. Which means, BTW, that every mass-market DVD contains software whose only significant commercial purpose is to circumvent the encryption of the data blocks. (It's circumvention, since just like DeCSS, it makes no distinction between authorized and unauthorized access.) -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 10:34:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA31902 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:34:07 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA31897 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:33:59 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA00625 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:38:37 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:38:37 -0500 (EST) From: Ole Craig To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] LiViD releases OMS Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hope I'm not stealing anyone's list-thunder, but LiViD has announced an official release of the Open Media System. http://www.linuxvideo.org/oms/ I particularly liked the screenshot at http://www.linuxvideo.org/oms/oms-matrixbig.jpeg :-) David Wagner -- if you're still reading here -- congrats on another fine job with the WEP info. Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 10:56:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA32168 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:56:00 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA32165 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:55:54 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:00:25 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:00:22 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/15/2001 08:00:25 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Well put....go back to the 1917 case on film projectors and it gets even better. Substitute DVD player for film projector and it gets really interesting. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? 02/14/01 07:56 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom [mailto:tom@lemuria.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 8:39 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free > speech card > yet? > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 08:13:37AM -0800, > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > programmers, servers, peer-to-peer or whatever. What do we have for > > Napster? contributory copyright infringement (and it's > really hard to argue > > otherwise....or Napster wouldn't be even trying to play a > first amendement > > free speech card.) For the DeCSS, No copyright infringment > was demonstrated > > at the trial. No clear and present danger (Sorry I keep > bringing up "old > > fashioned" law notions). NADA. > > there is one similiarity between the cases: the question of how far it > is the court's job to protect big cartels from obsolence by emerging > technology. Tom, Tom ... it's not the technology that matters, it's the ACTIONS. You could post notes on the grocery store bulletin board announcing that you'll let everyone come and copy your "Metallica" album next saturday at 3 if they bring an album to copy. When you were taken to court it would be on the _same_ copyright infringment issue that Napster was there for. The technology was irrelevant, what was important was what was being done. The protection afforded to the music industry by the law was the same protection that they have had all along ... it's just the nature of the way in which the violation had occurred that was new and different. That doesn't make the violation itself different -- not worth making new law over, certainly. Otoh the MPAA _has_ resorted to making new law because the aren't satisfied with the protection afforded by the existing law. They don't really care about the copyright violations ... remember, those are already covered by the existing law. They are after the market for the machines by which their material can be viewed and needed new legislation to prevent people from creating viewing machines if they weren't part of the "in crowd". These cases are _completely_ different except that they both involve computer technology at some point. That is not, and should not, be sufficient to consider the cases at all similar. "Means" is the _least_ significant aspect of any such (alleged) violation. Hey ... forget Sony v. Betamax ... how about the old case where the studios owned the theatres, preventing fair competition in an open marketplace? Among the three functions of production, distribution and presentation wasn't the outcome that any one company could be involved in any two out of the three, but had to strictly stay away from the third? (Does this ring a bell for anybody who could dredge up the details ??) -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 11:06:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA32514 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:06:16 -0500 Received: from web10014.mail.yahoo.com (web10014.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.172.125]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA32509 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:06:14 -0500 Message-ID: <20010215161051.68431.qmail@web10014.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [166.90.246.162] by web10014.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:10:51 PST Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:10:51 -0800 (PST) From: Larry Blunk Subject: [dvd-discuss] Inside article about DivX and DeCSS To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Inside is running an article about DivX and DeCSS. It talks about how DivX possesses little threat to DVD's, but may become popular for distributing old TV episodes. It takes a few good shots at Jack Valenti. The article can be found here: http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=23175 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 11:11:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA32663 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:11:34 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA32659 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:11:31 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:16:02 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:16:00 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/15/2001 08:16:02 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Reductio ad absurdum... BTW- The patent system is in even worse shape these days than the copyright system. A gene sequence is knowledge and nothing more. One could not patent knowledge until recently....after seeing hyperlightspeed antennas, and cat exercisers using invisible light it's hard to be surprised at the total nonsense going on at the USPO . Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz 02/14/01 07:56 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Why not? They're patenting gene sequences as they are being discovered rather than as their purpose is determined ... what other "device" can you possibly patent without any idea of what the darned thing does? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > > > OK. I want to copyright all possible sequence of notes.... > ... > > > as a followup to the earlier discussion on copyrighting > jazz, see the new scientist 7 feb 2001 article at > http://www.newscientist.com/dailynews/news.jsp?id=ns9999400 > > soon anyone who creates a jazz riff will be able to > play the creation into a pc and have a search engine > find out who actually 'owns' that sequence of notes so > the person can pay the copyright owner. no doubt this > will be applied by law to live music so that copyright > owners will be able to use computer power to collect > automatically royalties on public performances of 'their' > music. or it could prevent or censor the expression in > realtime if compulsory licensing is not allowed. > > surely this will allow computers and the internet to > make possible new 'freedoms' in creating music such > as jazz. a like technology for automatic payment for > quoting copyrighted or trademarked words and like > expressions awaits entrepreneurship. > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 11:28:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00467 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:28:12 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00464 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:28:08 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:32:42 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:32:41 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/15/2001 08:32:42 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think you've got a point there. Much of this problem seems to be because people in the USA have messed up patent and copyrights wrt to software. 15yrs ago people laughed when you said "software patent". Today, I don't laugh anymore, I just get angry. "Philip V. Neves" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speech card y et? 02/15/01 12:32 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Then in that case we can also say that a book on how to bake a cake is also a device. The chief can read the book and bake the cake but the instructions don't bake it for the chief. The same goes for a computer program. The computer reads the program and then performs a set of tasks. This doesn't make the program a device just like a recipe in a cook book is not a device. There is no difference. The windows that you see on the screen are the result of the computer reading in a set of instructions and then performing them. They aren't the result of some special device that is designed to put a window on the screen. This is something that even the Canadian government recognizes. Software in Canada is protected by copywrite not patents. The industry has also accepted this as the way to protect software from unauthorized reproduction. Even Microsoft respects that. The problem is there is a lack of understanding in the US court system as to what software is. They think like you do that software is some sort of device. But software is made up of characters, numbers, symbols, and statements. Its not made up of nuts bolts or anything tangible. Software is just an expression of someones idea and therefore a form of speech. On Wednesday 14 February 2001 17:24, you wrote: > I really don't think you'll get far with that ... it is > essentially playing on semantics. Software _does_ things. > It _is_ a device, albiet a "virtual" device. There are > certainly crossover issues with free speech, but those > would have to be determined on a case by case basis. > > DeCSS is a device for obtaining access to encrypted, copyright, > material. The issue is whether such access is legitimate; > or conversely whether the government has the authority to > create legislation banning this type of device because > it _might_ be used to commit a copyright violation. Among > the other issues that this brings up that are frequently > discussed here is "prior restraint" (an avenue that I don't > think we've followed up nearly enough). The speech issues > have to do with sharing the ideas (algorithms) behind the > DeCSS code and/or sharing the source code itself. > > Napster is a device for enabling individual users to > find and share copyright material. It is not distributed > as source, and there are not really new ideas to be > discussed about it's implementation. The free speech > issues don't pertain. Nor for that matter does the > prior restraint issues -- MPAA is attempting to stop > people from creating circumventing devices. The music > industry is attempting to stop people from copying > music. The focus is on the use to which the device is > being put rather than the device itself. THIS IS AN > IMPORTANT DISINCTION. If somebody uses DeCSS to copy > and distrubute "The Matrix" on the web, sure go ahead > and prosecute 'em for copyright violation & piracy. But > you can't stop people from using DeCSS just to view privately > the movies they bought (licensed?) for private viewing. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 11:35:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00635 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:35:40 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00632 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:35:38 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:40:09 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:40:07 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/15/2001 08:40:09 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu it's not the technology that matters, it's the ACTIONS.....ABSOLUTELY. That's what needs to be focused on by the lawmakers. It's what Kaplan DIDN"T focus on. Technology merely allows actions to take place or not to take place or how easily or often they can take place. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? 02/14/01 07:56 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom [mailto:tom@lemuria.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 8:39 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free > speech card > yet? > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 08:13:37AM -0800, > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > programmers, servers, peer-to-peer or whatever. What do we have for > > Napster? contributory copyright infringement (and it's > really hard to argue > > otherwise....or Napster wouldn't be even trying to play a > first amendement > > free speech card.) For the DeCSS, No copyright infringment > was demonstrated > > at the trial. No clear and present danger (Sorry I keep > bringing up "old > > fashioned" law notions). NADA. > > there is one similiarity between the cases: the question of how far it > is the court's job to protect big cartels from obsolence by emerging > technology. Tom, Tom ... it's not the technology that matters, it's the ACTIONS. You could post notes on the grocery store bulletin board announcing that you'll let everyone come and copy your "Metallica" album next saturday at 3 if they bring an album to copy. When you were taken to court it would be on the _same_ copyright infringment issue that Napster was there for. The technology was irrelevant, what was important was what was being done. The protection afforded to the music industry by the law was the same protection that they have had all along ... it's just the nature of the way in which the violation had occurred that was new and different. That doesn't make the violation itself different -- not worth making new law over, certainly. Otoh the MPAA _has_ resorted to making new law because the aren't satisfied with the protection afforded by the existing law. They don't really care about the copyright violations ... remember, those are already covered by the existing law. They are after the market for the machines by which their material can be viewed and needed new legislation to prevent people from creating viewing machines if they weren't part of the "in crowd". These cases are _completely_ different except that they both involve computer technology at some point. That is not, and should not, be sufficient to consider the cases at all similar. "Means" is the _least_ significant aspect of any such (alleged) violation. Hey ... forget Sony v. Betamax ... how about the old case where the studios owned the theatres, preventing fair competition in an open marketplace? Among the three functions of production, distribution and presentation wasn't the outcome that any one company could be involved in any two out of the three, but had to strictly stay away from the third? (Does this ring a bell for anybody who could dredge up the details ??) -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 11:38:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00687 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:38:12 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00380 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:20:26 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:24:55 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Does DMCA violate the constitution? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:24:53 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/15/2001 08:24:55 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That's been the argument Eric and several others have been making for some time....I don't think you have to be a lawyer to make it....only to obfuscate its simplicity with precedents and legal phraseology. It's what any change to the copyright and patent system must address before that change is made. It's what hasn't been addressed with the SonnyBono copyright extension act and the DMCA. The former has created a virtual forever since the period is longer than the lifetimes of creators and ability of society and the governement [gov= WE THE PEOPLE here] to administer it (that pragmatic aspect is somethign that Mary Bono and Jack Valenti don't see. Their pitifully small minds only see the gold flowing into their greedly little hands.). The DMCA can create an actual forever. The reading or Egyption hieroglyphs as a lost art for thousands of years until they were decipered in the early 19th century and then only because of a tablet that had the same thing in three languages on it. Strong encryption will preclude that. "Reginald Joiner" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Does DMCA violate the arvard.edu constitution? 02/15/01 12:27 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss I am not a lawyer, but according to this link... the constitution provides a limited time period wherein a work may remain the exclusive property of an entity; thereafter the material becomes part of the public domain. The provisions of the DMCA effectively allow the copyright holder the exclusive right to the material FOREVER. Isn't that inherently a violation of the constitutional requirement that the material become part of the public domain after a limited time period. NOTE: That limited time period thing is ugly...But it does not say forever. My personal conclusion is that the law is illegal since makes the material forever out of the public domain by the statuary construction of the DMCA. My two cents... http://www.cssfaq.org/dvd-discuss-faq.html#ss2.4.1 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 13:16:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA01683 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:16:03 -0500 Received: from mercury.clearway.com ([199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA01680 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:16:01 -0500 Received: by MERCURY with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <15D4SNQK>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:20:09 -0500 Message-ID: From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:20:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Philip V. Neves: >The problem is there is a lack of understanding in >the US court system as to what software is. They think like you do that >software is some sort of device. But software is made up of characters, >numbers, symbols, and statements. Its not made up of nuts bolts or anything >tangible. Software is just an expression of someone's idea and therefore a >form of speech. That software is a device is well settled under US law. The only way to change that will be by an act of Congress. As for how software can be protected, copyrights and patents have a different function. Patents protect the idea, and copyrights protect the expression of the idea. Ideas are an application of creativity to knowledge. The question is how much creativity is required. In the nineteenth century, people used to patent truss arrangements on bridges. If you were living then, you would probably have the same objection to them as to software patents. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 14:04:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02157 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:04:27 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA02154 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:04:25 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30T0F>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:23:50 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:23:49 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom [mailto:tom@lemuria.org] ... > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 02:09:44PM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > > What is a "trusted" soundcard? If Turtle Beach doesn't > pony up the cash to > > Microsoft, they aren't trusted? > > correct. Should we be looking at RICO again? > > > WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHAT > > KIND OF SOUND CARD I PLAY THE DAMNED AUDIO FILE ON?!?!?? > WHAT DOES THAT > > HAVE TO DO WITH THE RIGHTS TO THE MATERIAL?!?!??! > > well, your soundcard may allow you to make high-quality copies (i.e. > lossless digital output). now we can't allow that, can we? > C:\> COPY VALUABLESOUND.WAV COPIEDSOUND.WAV What does the soundcard have to do with that? > > personally, I think someone out there has his head on backwards. Yeah, it started w/ Valenti and it seems to becomming a new fashion statement ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 14:18:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02461 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:18:20 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA02458 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:18:16 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id OAA04329 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:22:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id OAA22018; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:22:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:22:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102151922.OAA22018@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Schneier on CPRM (Feb. crypto-gram) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bruce Schneier's crypto-gram newsletter for Feb. is out --- it starts off with a writeup of the "rights management" features which seem to be cropping up in new hard drive standards, ending: So, what do we have here? We have a serious threat to civil liberties: large entertainment companies are allying themselves with the computer industry to dictate what can and can't happen on your hard drive. (CPRM is only supposed to be for flash memory. This is a lie, of course. Already it is planned for IBM's tiny hard drive, and larger drives aren't far behind.) We have a technology that will, in some circumstances, make backups impossible. Compatibility problems between disk drives that have CPRM and those that don't will force networks to completely upgrade their mass storage. We have a technology that forces users to buy proprietary decoding software forever. We have a technology that won't really work unless it extends to computer output devices; you may find yourself forced to upgrade your monitor as well to watch movies on your computer. And we have an increased reliance on legal harassment by media companies. It's that last bit that scares me the most. Pointers to other sources are included. Schneier, of course, is a prominent cryptographer and computer security expert, and one of the amici in the appeal of the 2600 case. Full story (including links to other resources, such as the 4C entity's web site) at: http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0102.html rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 14:35:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02784 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:35:40 -0500 Received: from mta10.onebox.com (mta10.onebox.com [216.35.104.110]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA02720 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:29:00 -0500 Received: from onebox.com ([216.33.158.150]) by mta10.onebox.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010215193308.UCPD314.mta10.onebox.com@onebox.com>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:33:08 -0800 Received: from [128.200.71.103] by onebox.com with HTTP; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:33:08 -0800 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:33:08 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? From: "Karee Swift" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu CC: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20010215193308.UCPD314.mta10.onebox.com@onebox.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hi all, Felt like I'd jump in :) >MPAA is attempting to stop > people from creating circumventing devices. The music > industry is attempting to stop people from copying > music. The focus is on the use to which the device is > being put rather than the device itself. THIS IS AN > IMPORTANT DISINCTION. If somebody uses DeCSS to copy > and distrubute "The Matrix" on the web, sure go ahead > and prosecute 'em for copyright violation & piracy. But > you can't stop people from using DeCSS just to view privately > the movies they bought (licensed?) for private viewing. > > -- To begin with, as far as the Universal case goes, they're not going after people for specifically trying to copy and disseminate copyrighted material. THey're going after the idea that it -can- happen, and therefore they (the MPAA) should stop the whole thing before it can happen. Its important to realize, that they have no proof (outside of their expert) which uses DeCSS to disseminate the copyrighted information. THey're not working with an actual case of infringement, but along the idea of imminent danger -- that BECAUSE it exists, regardless of its many uses, IT will ONLY be used for copyright infringement, and it will only be used to hurt revenue. As far as your arguement of 'you can't stop people from using DeCSS' -- Well, thats the point isn't it? Judge Kaplan specifically went after 2600, to stop many of those entities who were using it. IF they control how much information gets out, and kill the information source, the argument (il)logically goes that they control the use. THe MPAA, much as the record industry realized, can't go after everyone. But if they can scare enough people through laws, and quell enough speech by making all code 'functional' (==Not protected) then the idea is that the behavior will stop. The problem, is this makes precedent, and keeps legitimate users worried, without really controlling the questionable behavior. Carey Lening ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 15:38:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA03462 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:38:27 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA03458 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:38:24 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id MAA20965 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:42:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma020716; Thu, 15 Feb 01 12:42:13 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:43:53 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00621; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:42:09 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] RE: [DVD-discuss] HDCP vs 5C Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:51:22 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c09791$0daa71a0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-WSS-ID: 1692E00D1063865-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Steve > Benedict > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 1:43 PM > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > Subject: [dvd-discuss] RE: [DVD-discuss] HDCP vs 5C > > > As long as we are analyzing arguments from the other side, take a look at > the Macrovision white paper on the "digital threat" of CD-ROM pirating in > the SOHO market. > > http://www.macrovision.com/images/CD-ROM_Copying_Trends.pdf > > This seems to get quoted to scare publishers and is analogized to the > potential for DVD pirating. > > Any comments or rebuttals? > I wrote a lengthy reply earlier, but I like the one from Crypto-Gram quite well http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9811.html#copy There are solutions, but they involve recognizing the realities of copy protection and working with them. 1. Sometimes pirates are your friend. Business software companies realized this. People would use pirated software, learn it, get used to it, and eventually get jobs where their employers would buy them a legal copy. Microsoft has said that they are going to ignore pirating in China. Eventually the Chinese will pay for software, and Microsoft wants them all to have already standardized on their products. 2. Sometimes pirates are not your market. It is the rare software pirate that would pay $500 for a high-end graphics program if he could not get a pirated copy. Often, if a pirate can't get it free, he'll do without. 3. Sometimes you can ignore the software and sell the service. Charge for tech support, so pirates are encouraged to buy legitimate copies. Have other goodies for legitimate owners only. Maybe the game can be hacked, but in order to play on-line you need to be a registered owner. 4. Sometimes the hardware saves you. The discussion above really only applies to programs running on general-purpose hardware. If you're building a set-top box, for example, things are a lot easier. There are no casual pirates; anyone who is going to hack your system is going to need a lab and test equipment. Just make sure he can't resell his solution. Nobody cares if a hacker spends a month in his basement and comes up with a pirate satellite TV decoder. Let him watch all he can. But if he can post an easy-to-run computer program that lets everyone get free satellite television -- that's a problem. For most software products, copy protection irritates legitimate users more than it prevents pirating. But for some products it makes sense. It raises the bar high enough to keep the honest honest. Nothing will keep the expert hackers out, so the only workable solution is to design your systems with this in mind. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 16:53:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04316 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:53:58 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA04313 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:53:56 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3ee2d5e4.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.228]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27E527B11 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:53:17 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D39A8175195; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:55:51 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:55:51 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Message-ID: <20010215225551.E19145@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Ray@clearway.com on Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:20:00PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:20:00PM -0500, Leland Ray wrote: > As for how software can be protected, copyrights and patents have a > different function. Patents protect the idea, and copyrights protect > the expression of the idea. Ideas are an application of creativity to > knowledge. The question is how much creativity is required. hm... can anyone think of a non-software thing that enjoys BOTH protections, as some softwares do? (namely those covered by a patent, since they also get copyright protection) -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 16:55:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04331 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:55:11 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA04328 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:55:10 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3ee2d5e4.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.228]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B153D27B11 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:54:31 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 50CBF175195; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:57:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:57:06 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! Message-ID: <20010215225705.F19145@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from hartman@onetouch.com on Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:23:49AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:23:49AM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > > well, your soundcard may allow you to make high-quality copies (i.e. > > lossless digital output). now we can't allow that, can we? > > C:\> COPY VALUABLESOUND.WAV COPIEDSOUND.WAV > > What does the soundcard have to do with that? oh, nothing. a different layer of the OS will make sure that you (soon) can't do that, either - you filthy music pirate. ;-/ -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 17:29:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04978 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:29:47 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA04975 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:29:46 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:34:19 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:34:14 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/15/2001 02:34:19 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Not entirely true. Patents do not patent IDEAs - not then and not now. A patent is enbodiment of an idea. I should caveat that was the case until the laws were loosened and people got good at writing BS that sounds like a device. In practice many patents are just that (e.g., AGI's software patents) but I view that as a broken system that needs to be fixed rather than a defectively designed system. One cannot patent the idea of a stickable closure for holding things together. One can patent vecro as a means of doing that. One cannot patent a paper with a sticky glue on it that leaves no residue but one can patent paper with the following chemicals mixed together in this manner on it - 3M sticky pads. Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? 02/15/01 10:22 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss >Philip V. Neves: >The problem is there is a lack of understanding in >the US court system as to what software is. They think like you do that >software is some sort of device. But software is made up of characters, >numbers, symbols, and statements. Its not made up of nuts bolts or anything >tangible. Software is just an expression of someone's idea and therefore a >form of speech. That software is a device is well settled under US law. The only way to change that will be by an act of Congress. As for how software can be protected, copyrights and patents have a different function. Patents protect the idea, and copyrights protect the expression of the idea. Ideas are an application of creativity to knowledge. The question is how much creativity is required. In the nineteenth century, people used to patent truss arrangements on bridges. If you were living then, you would probably have the same objection to them as to software patents. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 17:31:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05058 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:31:48 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA05053 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:31:46 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:36:18 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:36:15 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/15/2001 02:36:18 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Valenti has his head on backward? ... I thought he kept it warm in another part of his anatomy. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! 02/15/01 11:11 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom [mailto:tom@lemuria.org] ... > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 02:09:44PM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > > What is a "trusted" soundcard? If Turtle Beach doesn't > pony up the cash to > > Microsoft, they aren't trusted? > > correct. Should we be looking at RICO again? > > > WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHAT > > KIND OF SOUND CARD I PLAY THE DAMNED AUDIO FILE ON?!?!?? > WHAT DOES THAT > > HAVE TO DO WITH THE RIGHTS TO THE MATERIAL?!?!??! > > well, your soundcard may allow you to make high-quality copies (i.e. > lossless digital output). now we can't allow that, can we? > C:\> COPY VALUABLESOUND.WAV COPIEDSOUND.WAV What does the soundcard have to do with that? > > personally, I think someone out there has his head on backwards. Yeah, it started w/ Valenti and it seems to becomming a new fashion statement ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 17:58:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05276 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:58:38 -0500 Received: from mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA05273 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:58:36 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010215230308.BKQZ6607.mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:03:08 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:16:56 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021516165600.17103@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id RAA05274 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Just because a piece of software is not distributed into source code is irrelevent in the end software is just translated into a language that is easier for the computer to understand. We use computer languages such a C/C++ because they are easier for people to understand. The whole process of compiling a program is to translate it from what ever languages that we use to the langauge that the computer uses. This language could be english the only reason we don't use english is that its too difficult to translate to machine language. However some languages like basic are very much like english. Their is also another point that I would like to make. The movie on the DVD's that the MPAA can also be considered software. The only difference between a DVD-player that plays a DVD and the computer that runs a program is the kind of software it understands. The reason why DeCSS works is that we can tell the computer to translate the information on the DVD to a language that the computer understands. Therefore, if software is a device so are movies on DVDS and music on CD's. That means that recording artists and movie makers have no case because they failed to protect their material properly. On Thursday 15 February 2001 16:32, you wrote: > > On Wednesday 14 February 2001 17:24, you wrote: > > I really don't think you'll get far with that ... it is > > essentially playing on semantics. Software _does_ things. > > It _is_ a device, albiet a "virtual" device. There are > > certainly crossover issues with free speech, but those > > would have to be determined on a case by case basis. > > > > DeCSS is a device for obtaining access to encrypted, copyright, > > material. The issue is whether such access is legitimate; > > or conversely whether the government has the authority to > > create legislation banning this type of device because > > it _might_ be used to commit a copyright violation. Among > > the other issues that this brings up that are frequently > > discussed here is "prior restraint" (an avenue that I don't > > think we've followed up nearly enough). The speech issues > > have to do with sharing the ideas (algorithms) behind the > > DeCSS code and/or sharing the source code itself. > > > > Napster is a device for enabling individual users to > > find and share copyright material. It is not distributed > > as source, and there are not really new ideas to be > > discussed about it's implementation. The free speech > > issues don't pertain. Nor for that matter does the > > prior restraint issues -- MPAA is attempting to stop > > people from creating circumventing devices. The music > > industry is attempting to stop people from copying > > music. The focus is on the use to which the device is > > being put rather than the device itself. THIS IS AN > > IMPORTANT DISINCTION. If somebody uses DeCSS to copy > > and distrubute "The Matrix" on the web, sure go ahead > > and prosecute 'em for copyright violation & piracy. But > > you can't stop people from using DeCSS just to view privately > > the movies they bought (licensed?) for private viewing. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 18:05:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA05424 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:05:35 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA05421 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:05:29 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:09:46 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:09:45 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/15/2001 03:09:46 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yep.....we control the horizontal...we control the vertical..we can deluge you with a thousand channls or bring one into crystal clarity...sit back and watch for you are about to enter THE....OUTER .....LIMITS..... "Karee Swift" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? 02/15/01 11:42 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Hi all, Felt like I'd jump in :) >MPAA is attempting to stop > people from creating circumventing devices. The music > industry is attempting to stop people from copying > music. The focus is on the use to which the device is > being put rather than the device itself. THIS IS AN > IMPORTANT DISINCTION. If somebody uses DeCSS to copy > and distrubute "The Matrix" on the web, sure go ahead > and prosecute 'em for copyright violation & piracy. But > you can't stop people from using DeCSS just to view privately > the movies they bought (licensed?) for private viewing. > > -- To begin with, as far as the Universal case goes, they're not going after people for specifically trying to copy and disseminate copyrighted material. THey're going after the idea that it -can- happen, and therefore they (the MPAA) should stop the whole thing before it can happen. Its important to realize, that they have no proof (outside of their expert) which uses DeCSS to disseminate the copyrighted information. THey're not working with an actual case of infringement, but along the idea of imminent danger -- that BECAUSE it exists, regardless of its many uses, IT will ONLY be used for copyright infringement, and it will only be used to hurt revenue. As far as your arguement of 'you can't stop people from using DeCSS' -- Well, thats the point isn't it? Judge Kaplan specifically went after 2600, to stop many of those entities who were using it. IF they control how much information gets out, and kill the information source, the argument (il)logically goes that they control the use. THe MPAA, much as the record industry realized, can't go after everyone. But if they can scare enough people through laws, and quell enough speech by making all code 'functional' (==Not protected) then the idea is that the behavior will stop. The problem, is this makes precedent, and keeps legitimate users worried, without really controlling the questionable behavior. Carey Lening ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 18:22:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA05652 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:22:42 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA05649 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:22:36 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:26:42 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:26:40 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/15/2001 03:26:42 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That was the whole point of the way patents and copyright were set up. Things were one but not the other. Also, it was probably the reason the term on copyright was extended and patent has not been. There's more benefit to society for inventions to enter the public domain sooner than there really is copyrighted works...before getting flamed let me clarify...for copyrighted works there are (or were) many alternatives. If you want to read something, you have many alternatives. If you can't afford to buy the latest Tom Clancy try Jules Verne. Also, the desire for most copyrighted material dies off at time goes one. Inventions are another matter. The best of them get licensed and sold and then at the end of term become so common place that we don't even remember that they were once patented(paper clips, zippers, velcro, ball point pens). Also in many instances the inventors really do have a monopoly (e.g., the intermittant windshield wiper. If Detroit could have invented something that they could have gotten patented, don't you think they would have instead of spending 20 yrs of legal fees? WHich is something the court system should NEVER have allowed.) What has happened is that a group of people have realized that they have valuable copyrighted material that is still of considerable value and they are willing to go to great lengths and expenses to keep it. The Gershwin estate lobbied to get the term extended - Rhapsody in Blue makes $500,000 a year for them from United Airlines. Disney studios wants to keep their beloved Mickey (and when was the last time Disney Studios produces a beloved cartoon character?). Warner Bros wants to keep Casablanca. So between the Sonny Bono (is it true he was using a cell phone at the time?) Copyright extension act, the DMCA, and the push for TPMs EVERYWHERE, the issue has become "Is ANYTHING ever going to enter the public domain?" OF course Jacky Boots and Mary Bono's solution goes back 400 yrs - just let the annointed few do it. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? 02/15/01 02:00 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:20:00PM -0500, Leland Ray wrote: > As for how software can be protected, copyrights and patents have a > different function. Patents protect the idea, and copyrights protect > the expression of the idea. Ideas are an application of creativity to > knowledge. The question is how much creativity is required. hm... can anyone think of a non-software thing that enjoys BOTH protections, as some softwares do? (namely those covered by a patent, since they also get copyright protection) -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 18:27:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA05777 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:27:33 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA05774 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:27:31 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:32:03 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:32:01 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/15/2001 03:32:03 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu And then Windows bloats to 2GB and runs worse than DOS 2.0 on an 8088 because there are so many things it needs to check. c:\rename valuablesound.wav junk.wav [OS operations : what is valuable sound.wav, who made it, is it copy protected.......etc] c: \ copy junk.wav j: [OS operaitons: what was junk.wav.what is valuable sound.wav, who made it, is it copy protected.......etc] NOT ALLOWED. Junk.wave was valuablesound.wav which has a riff in it that is owned by the P&GH music firm with a copyrihgt that will expire on 6 July 2058 and it's only 2004. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! 02/15/01 02:01 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:23:49AM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > > well, your soundcard may allow you to make high-quality copies (i.e. > > lossless digital output). now we can't allow that, can we? > > C:\> COPY VALUABLESOUND.WAV COPIEDSOUND.WAV > > What does the soundcard have to do with that? oh, nothing. a different layer of the OS will make sure that you (soon) can't do that, either - you filthy music pirate. ;-/ -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 19:07:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA06104 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:07:18 -0500 Received: from mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA06101 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:07:15 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010216001147.CACQ6607.mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:11:47 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:25:31 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" References: <01021507511600.26224@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> In-Reply-To: <01021507511600.26224@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021517253101.17103@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id TAA06102 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think you are a little confused as to what computer software really is. It is a writing of a human being. I write computer software all the time so I should know. The code I write certainly isn't writen by a computer. It is written by me. Just because a computer reads it doesn't mean that I didn't write it to begin with. On Thursday 15 February 2001 14:51, you wrote: > On Wednesday 14 February 2001 10:24, you wrote: > # I really don't think you'll get far with that ... it is > # essentially playing on semantics. Software _does_ things. > # It _is_ a device, albiet a "virtual" device. There are > # certainly crossover issues with free speech, but those > # would have to be determined on a case by case basis. > > You're playing with semantic confusion. First you use > "software" in reference to the writings of a human being, then > in reference to the sequence of actions taken by a computer. > By trading on the dual meaning of the word, you then apply > to the former conclusions that apply only to the latter. > > Consider this: for a while before the term "content" became popular, > people in the idustry were calling music, movies, etc. "software." > Which they are -- they're not hardware, just information. > > When you put a CD into a player, all you're doing is loading a > sequence of instructions that the player executes. (Put this > value on the left channel, this on the right; next; put this on the > left, this on the right; next; etc.) > > DVD is even more to the point, since the control block EXPLICITLY > contains executable instructions, even down to conditional branches. > Which means, BTW, that every mass-market DVD contains software > whose only significant commercial purpose is to circumvent the > encryption of the data blocks. (It's circumvention, since just like DeCSS, > it makes no distinction between authorized and unauthorized access.) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 19:42:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA06497 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:42:45 -0500 Received: from web509.mail.yahoo.com (web509.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.224]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA06494 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:42:44 -0500 Message-ID: <20010216004722.17146.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.81.113.151] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:47:22 PST Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:47:22 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LiViD releases OMS To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Ole Craig wrote: > Hope I'm not stealing anyone's list-thunder, but LiViD has > announced an official release of the Open Media System. > > http://www.linuxvideo.org/oms/ I couldn't immediately tell what their approach to CSS protected DVD's is. Does anybody know? Are they using css-cat, css-auth, etc..., or do they have replacements. I'm rather surprised that the reverse engineering exception wasn't really argued heavily (if at all) on appeal. After all, here is the product. It decrypts to interoperate, it proves 1201(f), end of story. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 20:19:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA06776 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:19:55 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA06773 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:19:53 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA20460 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:24:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:24:32 -0500 (EST) From: Ole Craig To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LiViD releases OMS In-Reply-To: <20010216004722.17146.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 02/15/01 at 16:47, 'twas brillig and Bryan Taylor scrobe: > > --- Ole Craig wrote: > > Hope I'm not stealing anyone's list-thunder, but LiViD has > > announced an official release of the Open Media System. > > > > http://www.linuxvideo.org/oms/ > > I couldn't immediately tell what their approach to CSS protected DVD's is. Does > anybody know? Are they using css-cat, css-auth, etc..., or do they have > replacements. > > I'm rather surprised that the reverse engineering exception wasn't really > argued heavily (if at all) on appeal. After all, here is the product. It > decrypts to interoperate, it proves 1201(f), end of story. I haven't grabbed it yet (still at !*&(^# work, the system w/dvd drive is at home) to examine the contents of the tarball, but one of the components is "libcss: required to access many of the DVDs that you paid for on a DVD drive that you paid for." I'm definitely going to be playing with it this weekend.. If someone else doesn't answer that question I will. Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 21:15:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA07251 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:15:39 -0500 Received: from mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.28]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA07248 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:15:37 -0500 Received: from swbell.net ([208.190.215.192]) by mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0G8T005YPVSEJW@mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:19:27 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:14:37 -0600 From: Jolley Subject: [dvd-discuss] Senate updating IP laws To: dvd-discuss Message-id: <3A8C8D0D.14E19D@swbell.net> Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-SBI-NC472 (Win98; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I was reading Senator Leahy's statement on the Judiciary Hearing On Presidential Pardons and he made a remark about the Senate considering another bipartisan measure updating our intellectual propery laws. Does anyone know anything about this? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 21:34:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA07496 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:34:23 -0500 Received: from funk.iinet.net.au (funk.iinet.net.au [203.59.24.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA07493 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:34:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 20344 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2001 02:38:52 -0000 Received: from i176-216.nv.iinet.net.au (HELO GIMILI) (@203.59.176.216) by www.echidna.id.au with SMTP; 16 Feb 2001 02:38:52 -0000 Message-ID: <009f01c097c0$f31616c0$0101020a@GIMILI> From: "BaerWulf" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:34:12 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu -----Original Message----- From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Friday, 16 February 2001 7:34 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! > >And then Windows bloats to 2GB and runs worse than DOS 2.0 on an 8088 >because there are so many things it needs to check. > >c:\rename valuablesound.wav junk.wav >[OS operations : what is valuable sound.wav, who made it, is it copy >protected.......etc] > >c: \ copy junk.wav j: >[OS operaitons: what was junk.wav.what is valuable sound.wav, who made it, >is it copy protected.......etc] >NOT ALLOWED. Junk.wave was valuablesound.wav which has a riff in it that is >owned by the P&GH music firm with a copyrihgt that will expire on 6 July >2058 and it's only 2004. > $ cp ~/valueablesound.wav junk.wav $ xmms junk.wav From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 21:41:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA07630 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:41:34 -0500 Received: from mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA07627 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:41:33 -0500 Received: from swbell.net ([208.190.215.192]) by mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0G8T002NGWUZOT@mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:42:36 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:39:42 -0600 From: Jolley Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Senate updating IP laws To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <3A8C92EE.C6D8E361@swbell.net> Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-SBI-NC472 (Win98; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en References: <3A8C8D0D.14E19D@swbell.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Looks like some "techincal corrections." Too bad they didn't strike out 1201 and say they really didn't mean it. Jolley wrote: > > I was reading Senator Leahy's statement on the Judiciary Hearing On > Presidential Pardons and he made a remark about the Senate considering > another bipartisan measure updating our intellectual propery laws. > > Does anyone know anything about this? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 21:53:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA07798 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:53:13 -0500 Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA07795 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:53:12 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02006 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:52:54 -0700 (MST) Received: from 64-212-31-107.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.31.107), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAFeaq2d; Thu Feb 15 19:52:48 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA27893 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:56:40 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:56:40 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20010215225551.E19145@lemuria.org> In-Reply-To: <20010215225551.E19145@lemuria.org> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021519564001.26751@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thursday 15 February 2001 14:55, you wrote: # On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:20:00PM -0500, Leland Ray wrote: # > As for how software can be protected, copyrights and patents have a # > different function. Patents protect the idea, and copyrights protect # > the expression of the idea. Ideas are an application of creativity to # > knowledge. The question is how much creativity is required. # # hm... can anyone think of a non-software thing that enjoys BOTH # protections, as some softwares do? (namely those covered by a patent, # since they also get copyright protection) Sure -- a book printed on a new, improved, kind of paper. (Or with a super-cool binding, like O'Reilly's but better.) -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 21:57:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA07905 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:57:51 -0500 Received: from mail1.registeredsite.com (root@mail1.registeredsite.com [64.224.9.10]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA07902 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:57:50 -0500 Received: from mail.nearside.com (mail.nearside.com [216.25.52.95]) by mail1.registeredsite.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1G32QU30401 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:02:26 -0500 Received: from [24.14.203.65] [24.14.203.65] by mail.nearside.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.04) id A83DC15C013C; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:02:21 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.2509 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:02:21 -0500 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Senate updating IP laws From: Jed Borod To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3A8C8D0D.14E19D@swbell.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id VAA07903 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > I was reading Senator Leahy's statement on the Judiciary Hearing On > Presidential Pardons and he made a remark about the Senate considering > another bipartisan measure updating our intellectual propery laws. > > Does anyone know anything about this? I couldn't find anything on Leahy's website regarding the proposed changes, but he's one of the best Senators when it comes to understanding technological issues. His statement on Napster is interesting: http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200007/000711.html "Too often the discussion over how to protect intellectual property rights has devolved into a debate over whether such protection will stop technological innovation. That should not be the case. Protection of intellectual property provides incentives to promote scientific and artistic advancement. But as demonstrated in the current debate over new file-sharing software -- such as Napster, and new online music services, such as MP3.com ­ the interests of intellectual property protection and technological innovation sometimes appear to collide." -- Jed Borod From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 15 22:15:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA08059 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:15:05 -0500 Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA08056 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:14:59 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp03.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24283 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:16:35 -0700 (MST) Received: from 64-212-31-107.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.31.107), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpdAAA1VaWwV; Thu Feb 15 20:16:28 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA27990 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:19:26 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:19:26 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <01021507511600.26224@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> <01021517253101.17103@rasputan> In-Reply-To: <01021517253101.17103@rasputan> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021520192602.26751@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thursday 15 February 2001 10:25, Philip V. Neves wrote: # I think you are a little confused as to what computer software really is. It One would hope that after the CS degree I would have some glimmering. # is a writing of a human being. I write computer software all the time so I # should know. The code I write certainly isn't writen by a computer. It is # written by me. Just because a computer reads it doesn't mean that I didn't # write it to begin with. The _term_ software is used in several different ways, with subtly varying meanings. On the one hand, it means a literary work produced by a human being. On the other, it means the _operation_ of a mechanism, when said operation is defined by a collection of bits (usually) in memory. Thus we talk both about "writing software" and "the software crashed." Literary works don't crash, machines do. You don't write a machine, you write language. Similarly, I can draw a schematic (a literary work) describing a machine, but the drawing is not the machine. The classic semanic fallacy is confusing the map with the territory. Automated, nearly effortless landscaping machinery (which reads maps and builds the territory) just encourages the confusion. # On Thursday 15 February 2001 14:51, you wrote: # > On Wednesday 14 February 2001 10:24, you wrote: # > # I really don't think you'll get far with that ... it is # > # essentially playing on semantics. Software _does_ things. # > # It _is_ a device, albiet a "virtual" device. There are # > # certainly crossover issues with free speech, but those # > # would have to be determined on a case by case basis. # > # > You're playing with semantic confusion. First you use # > "software" in reference to the writings of a human being, then # > in reference to the sequence of actions taken by a computer. # > By trading on the dual meaning of the word, you then apply # > to the former conclusions that apply only to the latter. # > # > Consider this: for a while before the term "content" became popular, # > people in the idustry were calling music, movies, etc. "software." # > Which they are -- they're not hardware, just information. # > # > When you put a CD into a player, all you're doing is loading a # > sequence of instructions that the player executes. (Put this # > value on the left channel, this on the right; next; put this on the # > left, this on the right; next; etc.) # > # > DVD is even more to the point, since the control block EXPLICITLY # > contains executable instructions, even down to conditional branches. # > Which means, BTW, that every mass-market DVD contains software # > whose only significant commercial purpose is to circumvent the # > encryption of the data blocks. (It's circumvention, since just like DeCSS, # > it makes no distinction between authorized and unauthorized access.) -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 02:31:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA09806 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:31:59 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA09803 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:31:57 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd9500626.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.38]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2424C27AF4 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:31:13 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 13D6C175195; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:33:46 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:33:46 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! Message-ID: <20010216083345.D19726@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:32:01PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:32:01PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > And then Windows bloats to 2GB and runs worse than DOS 2.0 on an 8088 > because there are so many things it needs to check. yes, but who cares? they'll just step up the minimum requirements. I mean, you don't seriously believe it CURRENTLY needs all that power for some crappy window dressings, do you? -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 07:05:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA11395 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:05:43 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA11391 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:05:41 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30T06>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:37:33 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:37:32 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The truth is (and I said this in the first msg) that software is neither fish nor fowl. A cookbook does _not_ "do" anything, software -- in the proper environment (a computer) -- does. Therfore it is not just writing. However, looking at it solely from the invention point of view is just as wrong. There _are_ ... potentially ... free speech issues involved. (A good example is the whole encryption thing.) BUT ... being neandertal and attempting to force software completely into one or the other of the two existing legal categories is just -wrong-. It is something new. It shares aspects of both categories. It must be dealt with for what it is, not for what you can fast-talk a judge w/ no technical background into believing. That said, the _primary_ purpose of (most) software is to _do_ something, not to _say_ something. Therefore I believe that the best match given current law is that of "invention" ... as long as the speech issues are acknowledged and accounted for. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 8:33 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free > speech card > y et? > > > > I think you've got a point there. Much of this problem seems > to be because > people in the USA have messed up patent and copyrights wrt to > software. > 15yrs ago people laughed when you said "software patent". > Today, I don't > laugh anymore, I just get angry. > > > > > "Philip V. Neves" > > To: > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone > arvard.edu played > the free speech card y et? > > > > > 02/15/01 12:32 AM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > Then in that case we can also say that a book on how to bake > a cake is also > a > device. The chief can read the book and bake the cake but the > instructions > don't bake it for the chief. The same goes for a computer program. The > computer reads the program and then performs a set of tasks. > This doesn't > make the program a device just like a recipe in a cook book is not a > device. > There is no difference. The windows that you see on the screen are the > result > of the computer reading in a set of instructions and then > performing them. > They aren't the result of some special device that is > designed to put a > window on the screen. > > This is something that even the Canadian government > recognizes. Software in > > Canada is protected by copywrite not patents. The industry has also > accepted > this as the way to protect software from unauthorized > reproduction. Even > Microsoft respects that. The problem is there is a lack of > understanding > in > the US court system as to what software is. They think like > you do that > software is some sort of device. But software is made up of > characters, > numbers, symbols, and statements. Its not made up of nuts > bolts or anything > > tangible. Software is just an expression of someones idea and > therefore a > form of speech. > > > > On Wednesday 14 February 2001 17:24, you wrote: > > I really don't think you'll get far with that ... it is > > essentially playing on semantics. Software _does_ things. > > It _is_ a device, albiet a "virtual" device. There are > > certainly crossover issues with free speech, but those > > would have to be determined on a case by case basis. > > > > DeCSS is a device for obtaining access to encrypted, copyright, > > material. The issue is whether such access is legitimate; > > or conversely whether the government has the authority to > > create legislation banning this type of device because > > it _might_ be used to commit a copyright violation. Among > > the other issues that this brings up that are frequently > > discussed here is "prior restraint" (an avenue that I don't > > think we've followed up nearly enough). The speech issues > > have to do with sharing the ideas (algorithms) behind the > > DeCSS code and/or sharing the source code itself. > > > > Napster is a device for enabling individual users to > > find and share copyright material. It is not distributed > > as source, and there are not really new ideas to be > > discussed about it's implementation. The free speech > > issues don't pertain. Nor for that matter does the > > prior restraint issues -- MPAA is attempting to stop > > people from creating circumventing devices. The music > > industry is attempting to stop people from copying > > music. The focus is on the use to which the device is > > being put rather than the device itself. THIS IS AN > > IMPORTANT DISINCTION. If somebody uses DeCSS to copy > > and distrubute "The Matrix" on the web, sure go ahead > > and prosecute 'em for copyright violation & piracy. But > > you can't stop people from using DeCSS just to view privately > > the movies they bought (licensed?) for private viewing. > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 07:05:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA11394 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:05:43 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA11388 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:05:40 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30T0R>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:27:51 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:27:50 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu No, it's worse than that. A gene sequence is not "knowledge", it's "fact". It is something which is _discovered_, not invented or even thought up. It exists prior to and independant of it's discovery by humans. It would be like being able to patent a shoreline if you managed to come across some previously unmapped bay w/ a particularly nice view ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 8:16 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz > > > > Reductio ad absurdum... > > BTW- The patent system is in even worse shape these days than > the copyright > system. A gene sequence is knowledge and nothing more. One > could not patent > knowledge until recently....after seeing hyperlightspeed > antennas, and cat > exercisers using invisible light it's hard to be surprised at > the total > nonsense going on at the USPO . > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz > > > > > 02/14/01 07:56 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > Why not? They're patenting gene sequences as they > are being discovered rather than as their purpose > is determined ... what other "device" can you possibly > patent without any idea of what the darned thing does? > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > > > > > > OK. I want to copyright all possible sequence of notes.... > > > ... > > > > > > as a followup to the earlier discussion on copyrighting > > jazz, see the new scientist 7 feb 2001 article at > > http://www.newscientist.com/dailynews/news.jsp?id=ns9999400 > > > > soon anyone who creates a jazz riff will be able to > > play the creation into a pc and have a search engine > > find out who actually 'owns' that sequence of notes so > > the person can pay the copyright owner. no doubt this > > will be applied by law to live music so that copyright > > owners will be able to use computer power to collect > > automatically royalties on public performances of 'their' > > music. or it could prevent or censor the expression in > > realtime if compulsory licensing is not allowed. > > > > surely this will allow computers and the internet to > > make possible new 'freedoms' in creating music such > > as jazz. a like technology for automatic payment for > > quoting copyrighted or trademarked words and like > > expressions awaits entrepreneurship. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 07:29:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA11710 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:29:37 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA11707 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:29:35 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22764; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:49:56 GMT Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:49:56 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <01021516165600.17103@rasputan> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Philip V. Neves" wrote: > [...] Therefore, if software is a device so are movies on > DVDS and music on CD's. That means that recording artists and movie makers > have no case because they failed to protect their material properly. > Sadly, this isn't so. The DMCA (as interpreted by Kaplan at least) makes no comment about 'strength' of a TPM. The fact that it is there at all makes the work "protected" from the point of DMCA. Rot-13 would be sufficient to make the work "protected" by the look of it. The defence against this situation is at least partly "Free Speech" based. If DVDs really were protected by rot-13, then the MPAA are trying to ban 2600 magazine from linking to a page that says "DVDs are protected by rot-13". That seems to be an infringement of free speech. Hmm - as a point of interest, though DVDs are really protected by something a bit more complex than rot-13, does my rot-13 analogy above form a complete enough "reductio ad absurdia(sp?)" to be usable in the court case? The current claim that linking to deCSS does or does not constitute free speech seems to be somewhat subjective, what with all the arguments about "functional" and "non functional" speech etc. But the rot-13 analogy seems rather more clear cut. Can it be used? -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 09:08:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA12544 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:08:41 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA12541 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:08:39 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA30524; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:12:29 -0500 Message-Id: <200102161412.JAA30524@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:20:00 EST." Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:11:59 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Leland Ray writes: : That software is a device is well settled under US law. The only way to : change that will be by an act of Congress. What is your authority for this remarkable proposition, even if you are just talking about patents? -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 09:51:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA12986 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:51:18 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA12983 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:51:16 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA30699; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:55:06 -0500 Message-Id: <200102161455.JAA30699@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:19:26 MST." <01021520192602.26751@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:54:36 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "D. C. Sessions" writes: : The _term_ software is used in several different ways, with subtly varying : meanings. On the one hand, it means a literary work produced by a human : being. On the other, it means the _operation_ of a mechanism, when said : operation is defined by a collection of bits (usually) in memory. Thus we : talk both about "writing software" and "the software crashed." The ``operation of a mechanism'' is not a mechanism (i.e., is not a machine), any more than a map is a territory. It is not the software that crashes, it is the machine running the software (i.e., the machine that is operating in accordance with the specification of the software) that crashes. : Literary works don't crash, machines do. You don't write a machine, you : write language. Similarly, I can draw a schematic (a literary work) : describing a machine, but the drawing is not the machine. And the operation of the machine in accordance with a schematic (which probably is not a literary work) is not the machine either. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 10:21:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA13366 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:21:47 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA13363 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:21:45 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:26:23 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:26:20 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 07:26:23 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sigh.....25yrs ago I would have called a machine with 1GB of RAM at 1GIPS a Cray being used to crack codes, simulate nuclear collisions, today things like that sit on desktops and plays CDs or DVDs using windows and respond dog slow at times. "BaerWulf" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it arvard.edu again! 02/15/01 06:42 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss -----Original Message----- From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Friday, 16 February 2001 7:34 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! > >And then Windows bloats to 2GB and runs worse than DOS 2.0 on an 8088 >because there are so many things it needs to check. > >c:\rename valuablesound.wav junk.wav >[OS operations : what is valuable sound.wav, who made it, is it copy >protected.......etc] > >c: \ copy junk.wav j: >[OS operaitons: what was junk.wav.what is valuable sound.wav, who made it, >is it copy protected.......etc] >NOT ALLOWED. Junk.wave was valuablesound.wav which has a riff in it that is >owned by the P&GH music firm with a copyrihgt that will expire on 6 July >2058 and it's only 2004. > $ cp ~/valueablesound.wav junk.wav $ xmms junk.wav From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 10:27:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA13514 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:27:05 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA13511 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:27:04 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:31:39 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:31:37 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 07:31:38 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu New and improved paper on which it is printed may be patented and the contents of the book are copyrighted. Copying the book onto old newprint and reselling it would be a violation of copyright not patent. If I manufacture new and improved paper without licensing their patent that would be a patent violation no matter what I had printed on it but the purchasers of my patent infringing paper would not be guilty of patent or copyright infringment. Until the lamentable notion of "software patent" was created, there was a big distinction. "D. C. Sessions" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speech card y et? 02/15/01 07:00 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thursday 15 February 2001 14:55, you wrote: # On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:20:00PM -0500, Leland Ray wrote: # > As for how software can be protected, copyrights and patents have a # > different function. Patents protect the idea, and copyrights protect # > the expression of the idea. Ideas are an application of creativity to # > knowledge. The question is how much creativity is required. # # hm... can anyone think of a non-software thing that enjoys BOTH # protections, as some softwares do? (namely those covered by a patent, # since they also get copyright protection) Sure -- a book printed on a new, improved, kind of paper. (Or with a super-cool binding, like O'Reilly's but better.) -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 10:35:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA13669 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:35:53 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA13666 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:35:51 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:40:17 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:40:14 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 07:40:16 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Nope... and with more computing power, it only gives microstupid the incentive to do more mischievious things. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! 02/15/01 11:39 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:32:01PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > And then Windows bloats to 2GB and runs worse than DOS 2.0 on an 8088 > because there are so many things it needs to check. yes, but who cares? they'll just step up the minimum requirements. I mean, you don't seriously believe it CURRENTLY needs all that power for some crappy window dressings, do you? -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 11:00:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA13879 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:00:07 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA13876 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:00:05 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:04:36 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:04:33 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 08:04:35 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The fact that software is more easily run on a computer than a recipe created in a kitchen is irrelevant to what it is. Walking over to my car getting in and turning the ignition switch takes a lot less time than going out to the barn bringing out the horses, putting on their harnesses, hooking them to the buggy, etc. BOTH are ways of getting somewhere. Software is writing. One invents nothing when one writes software. Most people speak of "creating"software not inventing it. (Similarly some people speak of inventing a new algorithm. The USSC has stated on many occasions that algorithms are not patentable.). Patents do not apply. Attempting to apply them merely creates a confusing situation where "you can fast-talk a judge w/ no technical background into believing". From a pragmatic viewpoint, the unequivocal statement that software is copyrightable but not patentable solves that dilemma quite nicely. Ditto for expressive versus functional speech. I know I've harped on this several times, but any system of patents and copyrights must be implementable. While it may be a pedantically pleasing to pursue every minutia, there is the pragmatic aspect of administration. Trying to determine just how much something is a patent and how much something is a copyright leads to endless hairsplitting and reinterpretation - time and energy wasted rather than furthering the science and the arts by creating MORE things in that time. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? 02/16/01 04:12 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss The truth is (and I said this in the first msg) that software is neither fish nor fowl. A cookbook does _not_ "do" anything, software -- in the proper environment (a computer) -- does. Therfore it is not just writing. However, looking at it solely from the invention point of view is just as wrong. There _are_ ... potentially ... free speech issues involved. (A good example is the whole encryption thing.) BUT ... being neandertal and attempting to force software completely into one or the other of the two existing legal categories is just -wrong-. It is something new. It shares aspects of both categories. It must be dealt with for what it is, not for what you can fast-talk a judge w/ no technical background into believing. That said, the _primary_ purpose of (most) software is to _do_ something, not to _say_ something. Therefore I believe that the best match given current law is that of "invention" ... as long as the speech issues are acknowledged and accounted for. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 8:33 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free > speech card > y et? > > > > I think you've got a point there. Much of this problem seems > to be because > people in the USA have messed up patent and copyrights wrt to > software. > 15yrs ago people laughed when you said "software patent". > Today, I don't > laugh anymore, I just get angry. > > > > > "Philip V. Neves" > > To: > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone > arvard.edu played > the free speech card y et? > > > > > 02/15/01 12:32 AM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > Then in that case we can also say that a book on how to bake > a cake is also > a > device. The chief can read the book and bake the cake but the > instructions > don't bake it for the chief. The same goes for a computer program. The > computer reads the program and then performs a set of tasks. > This doesn't > make the program a device just like a recipe in a cook book is not a > device. > There is no difference. The windows that you see on the screen are the > result > of the computer reading in a set of instructions and then > performing them. > They aren't the result of some special device that is > designed to put a > window on the screen. > > This is something that even the Canadian government > recognizes. Software in > > Canada is protected by copywrite not patents. The industry has also > accepted > this as the way to protect software from unauthorized > reproduction. Even > Microsoft respects that. The problem is there is a lack of > understanding > in > the US court system as to what software is. They think like > you do that > software is some sort of device. But software is made up of > characters, > numbers, symbols, and statements. Its not made up of nuts > bolts or anything > > tangible. Software is just an expression of someones idea and > therefore a > form of speech. > > > > On Wednesday 14 February 2001 17:24, you wrote: > > I really don't think you'll get far with that ... it is > > essentially playing on semantics. Software _does_ things. > > It _is_ a device, albiet a "virtual" device. There are > > certainly crossover issues with free speech, but those > > would have to be determined on a case by case basis. > > > > DeCSS is a device for obtaining access to encrypted, copyright, > > material. The issue is whether such access is legitimate; > > or conversely whether the government has the authority to > > create legislation banning this type of device because > > it _might_ be used to commit a copyright violation. Among > > the other issues that this brings up that are frequently > > discussed here is "prior restraint" (an avenue that I don't > > think we've followed up nearly enough). The speech issues > > have to do with sharing the ideas (algorithms) behind the > > DeCSS code and/or sharing the source code itself. > > > > Napster is a device for enabling individual users to > > find and share copyright material. It is not distributed > > as source, and there are not really new ideas to be > > discussed about it's implementation. The free speech > > issues don't pertain. Nor for that matter does the > > prior restraint issues -- MPAA is attempting to stop > > people from creating circumventing devices. The music > > industry is attempting to stop people from copying > > music. The focus is on the use to which the device is > > being put rather than the device itself. THIS IS AN > > IMPORTANT DISINCTION. If somebody uses DeCSS to copy > > and distrubute "The Matrix" on the web, sure go ahead > > and prosecute 'em for copyright violation & piracy. But > > you can't stop people from using DeCSS just to view privately > > the movies they bought (licensed?) for private viewing. > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 11:05:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14019 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:05:08 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14014 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:05:00 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:09:35 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:09:33 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 08:09:35 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes. You are correct. I used Knowledge when fact is a more correct word for what it is. It is just a MERE fact that is discovered and anybody with the correct tools, training, and time can also discover. That they spent a lot of time on it is irrelevant (genome = telephone book of DNA). It won't change in time...."It exists prior to and independant of it's discovery by humans. " Also...there is something supremely arrogant about the notion that one can patent something like that. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz 02/16/01 04:12 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss No, it's worse than that. A gene sequence is not "knowledge", it's "fact". It is something which is _discovered_, not invented or even thought up. It exists prior to and independant of it's discovery by humans. It would be like being able to patent a shoreline if you managed to come across some previously unmapped bay w/ a particularly nice view ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 8:16 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz > > > > Reductio ad absurdum... > > BTW- The patent system is in even worse shape these days than > the copyright > system. A gene sequence is knowledge and nothing more. One > could not patent > knowledge until recently....after seeing hyperlightspeed > antennas, and cat > exercisers using invisible light it's hard to be surprised at > the total > nonsense going on at the USPO . > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz > > > > > 02/14/01 07:56 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > Why not? They're patenting gene sequences as they > are being discovered rather than as their purpose > is determined ... what other "device" can you possibly > patent without any idea of what the darned thing does? > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > > > > > > OK. I want to copyright all possible sequence of notes.... > > > ... > > > > > > as a followup to the earlier discussion on copyrighting > > jazz, see the new scientist 7 feb 2001 article at > > http://www.newscientist.com/dailynews/news.jsp?id=ns9999400 > > > > soon anyone who creates a jazz riff will be able to > > play the creation into a pc and have a search engine > > find out who actually 'owns' that sequence of notes so > > the person can pay the copyright owner. no doubt this > > will be applied by law to live music so that copyright > > owners will be able to use computer power to collect > > automatically royalties on public performances of 'their' > > music. or it could prevent or censor the expression in > > realtime if compulsory licensing is not allowed. > > > > surely this will allow computers and the internet to > > make possible new 'freedoms' in creating music such > > as jazz. a like technology for automatic payment for > > quoting copyrighted or trademarked words and like > > expressions awaits entrepreneurship. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 11:07:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14089 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:07:12 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14082 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:07:10 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:11:47 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:11:44 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 08:11:46 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu How about XOR with "Jack Valenti Sucks"? It's too bad the lawmakers didn't get some TECHNICAL advice instead of Jack's lobbying. "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speech card y et? 02/16/01 04:36 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss "Philip V. Neves" wrote: > [...] Therefore, if software is a device so are movies on > DVDS and music on CD's. That means that recording artists and movie makers > have no case because they failed to protect their material properly. > Sadly, this isn't so. The DMCA (as interpreted by Kaplan at least) makes no comment about 'strength' of a TPM. The fact that it is there at all makes the work "protected" from the point of DMCA. Rot-13 would be sufficient to make the work "protected" by the look of it. The defence against this situation is at least partly "Free Speech" based. If DVDs really were protected by rot-13, then the MPAA are trying to ban 2600 magazine from linking to a page that says "DVDs are protected by rot-13". That seems to be an infringement of free speech. Hmm - as a point of interest, though DVDs are really protected by something a bit more complex than rot-13, does my rot-13 analogy above form a complete enough "reductio ad absurdia(sp?)" to be usable in the court case? The current claim that linking to deCSS does or does not constitute free speech seems to be somewhat subjective, what with all the arguments about "functional" and "non functional" speech etc. But the rot-13 analogy seems rather more clear cut. Can it be used? -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 11:39:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14532 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:39:27 -0500 Received: from postal.fcci-group.com (postal.fcci-group.com [4.23.102.37]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14529 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:39:26 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:48:43 -0500 Message-ID: <8E4908BE2E48C64490E574C800DF52D170CC71@postal.fcci-group.com> Thread-Topic: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz Thread-Index: AcCYNBf1uv7dlV8wRxaroxce7IsO5wAAgfYg From: "Dean Sanchez" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id LAA14530 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It appalls me that facts can be patented, especially in the case of the human genome. It never crossed my mind that simply discovering a fact gave you ownership of it. However, before I made any comment, I wanted to make sure that I had my thoughts in order. I went back and read the original language in the Constitution. Imagine my surprise when I read this about the powers given to Congress in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, (http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm ) : "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". I assume that until relatively recently, the term "Discoveries" were interpreted differently. Is that correct? Dean Sanchez dsanche@fcci-group.com -----Original Message----- From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 11:10 AM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz Yes. You are correct. I used Knowledge when fact is a more correct word for what it is. It is just a MERE fact that is discovered and anybody with the correct tools, training, and time can also discover. That they spent a lot of time on it is irrelevant (genome = telephone book of DNA). It won't change in time...."It exists prior to and independant of it's discovery by humans. " Also...there is something supremely arrogant about the notion that one can patent something like that. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz 02/16/01 04:12 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss No, it's worse than that. A gene sequence is not "knowledge", it's "fact". It is something which is _discovered_, not invented or even thought up. It exists prior to and independant of it's discovery by humans. It would be like being able to patent a shoreline if you managed to come across some previously unmapped bay w/ a particularly nice view ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 8:16 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz > > > > Reductio ad absurdum... > > BTW- The patent system is in even worse shape these days than > the copyright > system. A gene sequence is knowledge and nothing more. One > could not patent > knowledge until recently....after seeing hyperlightspeed > antennas, and cat > exercisers using invisible light it's hard to be surprised at > the total > nonsense going on at the USPO . > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz > > > > > 02/14/01 07:56 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > Why not? They're patenting gene sequences as they > are being discovered rather than as their purpose > is determined ... what other "device" can you possibly > patent without any idea of what the darned thing does? > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > > > > > > OK. I want to copyright all possible sequence of notes.... > > > ... > > > > > > as a followup to the earlier discussion on copyrighting > > jazz, see the new scientist 7 feb 2001 article at > > http://www.newscientist.com/dailynews/news.jsp?id=ns9999400 > > > > soon anyone who creates a jazz riff will be able to > > play the creation into a pc and have a search engine > > find out who actually 'owns' that sequence of notes so > > the person can pay the copyright owner. no doubt this > > will be applied by law to live music so that copyright > > owners will be able to use computer power to collect > > automatically royalties on public performances of 'their' > > music. or it could prevent or censor the expression in > > realtime if compulsory licensing is not allowed. > > > > surely this will allow computers and the internet to > > make possible new 'freedoms' in creating music such > > as jazz. a like technology for automatic payment for > > quoting copyrighted or trademarked words and like > > expressions awaits entrepreneurship. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 12:06:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA14941 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:06:13 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA14936 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:06:11 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:10:44 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:10:43 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 09:10:43 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". The key word to interpreting that is "respective" Authors [create] writings Invertors [make] discoveries Only by Taking discoveries can one get a different interpretation "Dean Sanchez" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz arvard.edu 02/16/01 08:46 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss It appalls me that facts can be patented, especially in the case of the human genome. It never crossed my mind that simply discovering a fact gave you ownership of it. However, before I made any comment, I wanted to make sure that I had my thoughts in order. I went back and read the original language in the Constitution. Imagine my surprise when I read this about the powers given to Congress in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, (http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm ) : "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". I assume that until relatively recently, the term "Discoveries" were interpreted differently. Is that correct? Dean Sanchez dsanche@fcci-group.com -----Original Message----- From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 11:10 AM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz Yes. You are correct. I used Knowledge when fact is a more correct word for what it is. It is just a MERE fact that is discovered and anybody with the correct tools, training, and time can also discover. That they spent a lot of time on it is irrelevant (genome = telephone book of DNA). It won't change in time...."It exists prior to and independant of it's discovery by humans. " Also...there is something supremely arrogant about the notion that one can patent something like that. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz 02/16/01 04:12 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss No, it's worse than that. A gene sequence is not "knowledge", it's "fact". It is something which is _discovered_, not invented or even thought up. It exists prior to and independant of it's discovery by humans. It would be like being able to patent a shoreline if you managed to come across some previously unmapped bay w/ a particularly nice view ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 8:16 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz > > > > Reductio ad absurdum... > > BTW- The patent system is in even worse shape these days than > the copyright > system. A gene sequence is knowledge and nothing more. One > could not patent > knowledge until recently....after seeing hyperlightspeed > antennas, and cat > exercisers using invisible light it's hard to be surprised at > the total > nonsense going on at the USPO . > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz > > > > > 02/14/01 07:56 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > Why not? They're patenting gene sequences as they > are being discovered rather than as their purpose > is determined ... what other "device" can you possibly > patent without any idea of what the darned thing does? > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > > > > > > OK. I want to copyright all possible sequence of notes.... > > > ... > > > > > > as a followup to the earlier discussion on copyrighting > > jazz, see the new scientist 7 feb 2001 article at > > http://www.newscientist.com/dailynews/news.jsp?id=ns9999400 > > > > soon anyone who creates a jazz riff will be able to > > play the creation into a pc and have a search engine > > find out who actually 'owns' that sequence of notes so > > the person can pay the copyright owner. no doubt this > > will be applied by law to live music so that copyright > > owners will be able to use computer power to collect > > automatically royalties on public performances of 'their' > > music. or it could prevent or censor the expression in > > realtime if compulsory licensing is not allowed. > > > > surely this will allow computers and the internet to > > make possible new 'freedoms' in creating music such > > as jazz. a like technology for automatic payment for > > quoting copyrighted or trademarked words and like > > expressions awaits entrepreneurship. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 12:29:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA15466 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:29:00 -0500 Received: from mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (ny-gw1.imagine-sw.com [64.52.36.146]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA15463 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:28:53 -0500 Received: from metermaid.imagine_ny.com (metermaid [192.9.201.29]) by mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26706 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:32:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from imagine-sw.com by metermaid.imagine_ny.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA29093; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:32:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A8D643B.FF69642D@imagine-sw.com> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:32:43 -0500 From: Francisco Figueirido Organization: Imagine Software, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Hartman wrote: > > The truth is (and I said this in the first msg) that software > is neither fish nor fowl. A cookbook does _not_ "do" anything, > software -- in the proper environment (a computer) -- does. > Therfore it is not just writing. > I beg to differ. I might be naive, but Software seems to be `just' a bunch of instructions. The instructions can't DO anything; somebody or something following the instructions CAN do. From your example, a cookbook IN THE PROPER ENVIRONMENT (A COOK) looks no different than software IN THE PROPER ENVIRONMENT. -- Francisco Figueirido, Ph.D. Phone: (212)317-7680 Quantitative Analyst Fax: (212)317-7601 Imagine Software, Inc. e-mail: francisco@imagine-sw.com 233 Broadway 17th Floor New York, NY 10279 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 12:42:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA15887 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:42:54 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA15883 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:42:51 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from lahub01-a3.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:47:27 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:47:25 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on lahub01/AerospaceNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 09:47:26 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Agreed. What's the logical difference? That the tools and items are different is irrelevant. The ease with which it can be done is irrelevant? By this analogy, software is to computer as TV dinner is to cookbook. Francisco Figueirido To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speech card yet? 02/16/01 09:35 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Richard Hartman wrote: > > The truth is (and I said this in the first msg) that software > is neither fish nor fowl. A cookbook does _not_ "do" anything, > software -- in the proper environment (a computer) -- does. > Therfore it is not just writing. > I beg to differ. I might be naive, but Software seems to be `just' a bunch of instructions. The instructions can't DO anything; somebody or something following the instructions CAN do. From your example, a cookbook IN THE PROPER ENVIRONMENT (A COOK) looks no different than software IN THE PROPER ENVIRONMENT. -- Francisco Figueirido, Ph.D. Phone: (212)317-7680 Quantitative Analyst Fax: (212)317-7601 Imagine Software, Inc. e-mail: francisco@imagine-sw.com 233 Broadway 17th Floor New York, NY 10279 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 12:50:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA16076 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:50:03 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA16073 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:50:02 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA31256; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:53:52 -0500 Message-Id: <200102161753.MAA31256@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] It is not illegal to give instructions on how to make a key Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:53:22 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu My memory, which isn't very good, tells me that recently, most likely on this list, posted a citation to a case holding that it is not a crime to publish instructions on how to make a master key (although Valenti seems to claim that it is.) Can anyone give me a better reference to the case, besides that supplied by my failing memory? Thanks, Peter -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 13:44:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA16866 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:44:38 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA16863 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:44:36 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30VBZ>; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:04:28 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:04:27 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu First off you would have to explain "ROT-13" to the judge. Then, since it only applies to text messaging you'd have to explain that there are similarly weak processes that could work on binary. I'd just start w/ one of those. The simplest is logical inversion (comperable to ROT-13 in spirit). That is (in C) output = ~input; All bits of the input are inverted, 0-->1 & 1-->0. Use that as your straw-TPM and continue ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Hosgood [mailto:steve@i2it.co.uk] > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 3:50 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free > speech card > y et? > > > "Philip V. Neves" wrote: > > [...] Therefore, if software is a device so are movies on > > DVDS and music on CD's. That means that recording artists > and movie makers > > have no case because they failed to protect their material properly. > > > > Sadly, this isn't so. The DMCA (as interpreted by Kaplan at > least) makes no > comment about 'strength' of a TPM. The fact that it is there > at all makes > the work "protected" from the point of DMCA. > > Rot-13 would be sufficient to make the work "protected" by > the look of it. > > The defence against this situation is at least partly "Free > Speech" based. > If DVDs really were protected by rot-13, then the MPAA are > trying to ban > 2600 magazine from linking to a page that says "DVDs are > protected by rot-13". > That seems to be an infringement of free speech. > > Hmm - as a point of interest, though DVDs are really > protected by something > a bit more complex than rot-13, does my rot-13 analogy above > form a complete > enough "reductio ad absurdia(sp?)" to be usable in the court > case? The current > claim that linking to deCSS does or does not constitute free > speech seems to > be somewhat subjective, what with all the arguments about > "functional" and > "non functional" speech etc. > > But the rot-13 analogy seems rather more clear cut. Can it be used? > > -- > > Steve | > S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan > today is better > Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a > perfect plan tomorrow" > Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - > Conrad Brean > --------------------------------------------+ > http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the > film "Wag the Dog" ) > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 13:50:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA17007 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:50:49 -0500 Received: from thoughtpolice.bigbrother.net (patchi.organic.com [208.241.222.3] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA17004 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:50:48 -0500 Received: from bigbrother.net (IDENT:sterno@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thoughtpolice.bigbrother.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01293; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:51:00 -0600 Message-ID: <3A8D7693.2070108@bigbrother.net> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:50:59 -0600 From: Steve Stearns User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686; en-US; 0.8) Gecko/20010215 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? References: <3A8D643B.FF69642D@imagine-sw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Francisco Figueirido wrote: > I beg to differ. I might be naive, but Software seems to be `just' a bunch > of instructions. The instructions can't DO anything; somebody or something > following the instructions CAN do. From your example, a cookbook IN THE > PROPER ENVIRONMENT (A COOK) looks no different than software IN THE PROPER > ENVIRONMENT Software is just a bunch of instructions, but the nature of software is that that bunch of instructions can be used to perform some act with little needed input from the person who receives it. To illustrate, let's assume for a moment that you decide to release a book on how to build a bomb. It's excruciatingly detailed, but it still requires somebody to go through significant effort to implement it. They need parts, time, skill, etc, to put together the bomb. Selling this book is not illegal (although certainly some would frown upon it regardless). Now, let's take this a step further. You build a bomb and try to sell it. Now, the government comes and shoots you because you've crossed the line between expressing ideas to implementing them. What's the difference. Both approaches are expressing an idea, but one reduces the barrier to somebody using it in a mischeivous way. Now, to apply this to software. I think that you could reasonably argue that pseudo-code is more clearly a matter of free expression than compilable code. There it really is just instructions, instead of something that can very readily be used for mischief. With compilable code, the barrier is significantly reduced between abstract concept and working tool of destruction. ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 14:05:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA17264 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:05:03 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA17261 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:05:01 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb7e.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.126]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E931A27ABB for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:04:21 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2FC6F175195; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:06:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:06:54 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Message-ID: <20010216200653.B20982@lemuria.org> References: <3A8D643B.FF69642D@imagine-sw.com> <3A8D7693.2070108@bigbrother.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A8D7693.2070108@bigbrother.net>; from sterno@bigbrother.net on Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:50:59PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:50:59PM -0600, Steve Stearns wrote: > Now, to apply this to software. I think that you could reasonably argue > that pseudo-code is more clearly a matter of free expression than > compilable code. compil-ED, not compil-ABLE. why? because your own words apply just fine to source code: one has to get a compiler and invest some time in compiling, configuring and installing the software. granted, with tools like automake that is easy, but it's still usually too much for the newbie. compiled code is the bomb, instructions on how to write a specific program is the book, but source-code really IS is somewhere inbetween. maybe a bomb-construction-kit. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 14:16:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA17546 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:16:18 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f134.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.134]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA17543 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:16:16 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:20:27 -0800 Received: from 208.41.124.41 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:20:26 GMT X-Originating-IP: [208.41.124.41] From: "Richard Ramos" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:20:26 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2001 19:20:27.0187 (UTC) FILETIME=[84A7D830:01C0984D] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is true, but then that line gets blurred when you figure in scripts. These are pseudo-code but at the same time compilable code. Its just as easy to run a script as it is to run a compiled program. Case in point here, the recent virii that have been spread. Richard Ramos ----Original Message Follows---- From: Steve Stearns Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:50:59 -0600 Francisco Figueirido wrote: >I beg to differ. I might be naive, but Software seems to be `just' a bunch >of instructions. The instructions can't DO anything; somebody or something >following the instructions CAN do. From your example, a cookbook IN THE >PROPER ENVIRONMENT (A COOK) looks no different than software IN THE PROPER >ENVIRONMENT Software is just a bunch of instructions, but the nature of software is that that bunch of instructions can be used to perform some act with little needed input from the person who receives it. To illustrate, let's assume for a moment that you decide to release a book on how to build a bomb. It's excruciatingly detailed, but it still requires somebody to go through significant effort to implement it. They need parts, time, skill, etc, to put together the bomb. Selling this book is not illegal (although certainly some would frown upon it regardless). Now, let's take this a step further. You build a bomb and try to sell it. Now, the government comes and shoots you because you've crossed the line between expressing ideas to implementing them. What's the difference. Both approaches are expressing an idea, but one reduces the barrier to somebody using it in a mischeivous way. Now, to apply this to software. I think that you could reasonably argue that pseudo-code is more clearly a matter of free expression than compilable code. There it really is just instructions, instead of something that can very readily be used for mischief. With compilable code, the barrier is significantly reduced between abstract concept and working tool of destruction. ---Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 14:31:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA18232 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:31:05 -0500 Received: from thoughtpolice.bigbrother.net (patchi.organic.com [208.241.222.3] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA18229 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:31:04 -0500 Received: from bigbrother.net (IDENT:sterno@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thoughtpolice.bigbrother.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01325; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:31:16 -0600 Message-ID: <3A8D8004.70508@bigbrother.net> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:31:16 -0600 From: Steve Stearns User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686; en-US; 0.8) Gecko/20010215 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Ramos wrote: > This is true, but then that line gets blurred when you figure in > scripts. These are pseudo-code but at the same time compilable > code. Its just as easy to run a script as it is to run a compiled > program. Case in point here, the recent virii that have been spread. There is a difference between script and pseudo-code. Scripts are not compiled but they are written in a specific way to be processed by an interpreter which then effectively makes them executable. Pseudo-code is not conformant to particular rules necessarily, nor is it generally intended to be run through a compiler or interpreter. So pseduo code might be: if something then call my method where as say javascript might be: if (something) { myMethod(); } I can take one of these run it through some interpreter and have it execute. One of these would require some additional interpretation into executable code. Now of course I suppose somebody could write something to interpret and execute my pseudo-code, but I didn't really write it with that intention. Hmmmm... is intention important? ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 14:34:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA18462 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:34:05 -0500 Received: from thoughtpolice.bigbrother.net (patchi.organic.com [208.241.222.3] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA18458 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:34:04 -0500 Received: from bigbrother.net (IDENT:sterno@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thoughtpolice.bigbrother.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01332; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:34:16 -0600 Message-ID: <3A8D80B8.9020904@bigbrother.net> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:34:16 -0600 From: Steve Stearns User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686; en-US; 0.8) Gecko/20010215 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? References: <3A8D643B.FF69642D@imagine-sw.com> <3A8D7693.2070108@bigbrother.net> <20010216200653.B20982@lemuria.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > compil-ED, not compil-ABLE. why? because your own words apply just fine > to source code: > > one has to get a compiler and invest some time in compiling, > configuring and installing the software. granted, with tools like > automake that is easy, but it's still usually too much for the newbie. Hmmmmm.... I'll have to think about this one. I also suppose somebody could also write a pseudo-code interpreter to convert it into compilable code, and then with a nice automake it could be just as easy. > compiled code is the bomb, instructions on how to write a specific program > is the book, but source-code really IS is somewhere inbetween. maybe a > bomb-construction-kit So perhaps: pseudo-code = bomb instructions? compilable code = bomb instructions and all the parts? binaries = the bomb? ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 14:50:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA20221 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:50:23 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA20218 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:50:21 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00823 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:54:32 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:54:31 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? In-Reply-To: <3A8D7693.2070108@bigbrother.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu What happens when someone releases a run-time interpreter that accepts precisely written English? It's not even a matter of if, it surely will happen. There are already quite a few that are like that. (Applescript for instance) Can we constitutionally ban this class of works, and the possibility of legally authoring programs that are in proper but normal English syntax under the aegis of promoting progress? If anything is to be illegal it would have to be some form of use of a program. Not the writing or translation (which is all that compilation is) or distribution. What pisses off the MPAA in this case though is that it's a royal pain in the ass to catch users. They want to nip it in the bud. Why should they care that doing so would cause immense harm down the line? They're not in that business, and it's always easy for people to pollute if it's someone else's problem. On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Steve Stearns wrote: > Francisco Figueirido wrote: > > > I beg to differ. I might be naive, but Software seems to be `just' a bunch > > of instructions. The instructions can't DO anything; somebody or something > > following the instructions CAN do. From your example, a cookbook IN THE > > PROPER ENVIRONMENT (A COOK) looks no different than software IN THE PROPER > > ENVIRONMENT > > Software is just a bunch of instructions, but the nature of software is > that that bunch of instructions can be used to perform some act with > little needed input from the person who receives it. To illustrate, > let's assume for a moment that you decide to release a book on how to > build a bomb. It's excruciatingly detailed, but it still requires > somebody to go through significant effort to implement it. They need > parts, time, skill, etc, to put together the bomb. Selling this book is > not illegal (although certainly some would frown upon it regardless). > > Now, let's take this a step further. You build a bomb and try to sell > it. Now, the government comes and shoots you because you've crossed the > line between expressing ideas to implementing them. What's the > difference. Both approaches are expressing an idea, but one reduces the > barrier to somebody using it in a mischeivous way. > > Now, to apply this to software. I think that you could reasonably argue > that pseudo-code is more clearly a matter of free expression than > compilable code. There it really is just instructions, instead of > something that can very readily be used for mischief. With compilable > code, the barrier is significantly reduced between abstract concept and > working tool of destruction. > > ---Steve > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 14:53:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA20639 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:53:50 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA20635 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:53:48 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00847 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:57:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:57:59 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come down In-Reply-To: <20010216200653.B20982@lemuria.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200102/99-5430a.txt reading it now, but i hear it's not all that good From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 14:57:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA20918 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:57:06 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA20912 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:57:05 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:01:40 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:01:37 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 12:01:39 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "....little needed input from the person who receives it". Gee... I always thought that's what progress was all about. Making things easier for people to do things....So if we accept your argument obviously premixed paint is not the same thing as paint. So we should all start regulating things not for what they do but because of the ease that people can do them? I understand that PVC pipe isn't code in San Francisco because the plumbers union doesn't want it there. Your arguement is exactly the one Kaplan and others are pushing with their "functional speech". Accepting that making something easier to do is reasons for supressing speech means lets just stop progressing and start stagnating. Stagnation doesn't happen for long before entropy starts. The Ease withwhich something is done is irrelevant to WHAT is done. Steve Stearns To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speech card yet? 02/16/01 10:57 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Francisco Figueirido wrote: > I beg to differ. I might be naive, but Software seems to be `just' a bunch > of instructions. The instructions can't DO anything; somebody or something > following the instructions CAN do. From your example, a cookbook IN THE > PROPER ENVIRONMENT (A COOK) looks no different than software IN THE PROPER > ENVIRONMENT Software is just a bunch of instructions, but the nature of software is that that bunch of instructions can be used to perform some act with little needed input from the person who receives it. To illustrate, let's assume for a moment that you decide to release a book on how to build a bomb. It's excruciatingly detailed, but it still requires somebody to go through significant effort to implement it. They need parts, time, skill, etc, to put together the bomb. Selling this book is not illegal (although certainly some would frown upon it regardless). Now, let's take this a step further. You build a bomb and try to sell it. Now, the government comes and shoots you because you've crossed the line between expressing ideas to implementing them. What's the difference. Both approaches are expressing an idea, but one reduces the barrier to somebody using it in a mischeivous way. Now, to apply this to software. I think that you could reasonably argue that pseudo-code is more clearly a matter of free expression than compilable code. There it really is just instructions, instead of something that can very readily be used for mischief. With compilable code, the barrier is significantly reduced between abstract concept and working tool of destruction. ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 15:01:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA21384 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:01:45 -0500 Received: from mail22.bigmailbox.com (mail22.bigmailbox.com [209.132.220.199]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA21381 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:01:44 -0500 Received: by mail22.bigmailbox.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01411; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:06:21 -0800 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:06:21 -0800 Message-Id: <200102162006.MAA01411@mail22.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-Ip: [207.158.65.151] From: "B J" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu steve - good point. the plans to a bomb don't kill someone or cause any problems. everyone knows that you can build a psuedo hydrogen bomb from drano, foil, water and a 3L coke bottle. that does not mean that anyone will build one and duct tape it to their neighbor's forehead, now does it. intent. intent. intent. ------------------------------------------------------------ Do you hate clowns? Get Free Email & Free Websites at http://www.ihateclowns.com Buy Anti-Clown, Mugs, and Mousepads at http://www.cafepress.com/ihateclowns From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 15:01:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA21331 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:01:11 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA21315 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:01:09 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:05:48 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:05:45 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 12:05:47 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I really wish we would not keep using BOMBs as the analogy. It's exactly what Jacky Boots, Kaplan and others just LOVE. Cookbooks are less perjorative. Even so, explosives have uses other thanjust blowing up people or buildings. It's not the THING that is the problem it is how it is used. Steve Stearns To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speech card yet? 02/16/01 11:41 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss > compil-ED, not compil-ABLE. why? because your own words apply just fine > to source code: > > one has to get a compiler and invest some time in compiling, > configuring and installing the software. granted, with tools like > automake that is easy, but it's still usually too much for the newbie. Hmmmmm.... I'll have to think about this one. I also suppose somebody could also write a pseudo-code interpreter to convert it into compilable code, and then with a nice automake it could be just as easy. > compiled code is the bomb, instructions on how to write a specific program > is the book, but source-code really IS is somewhere inbetween. maybe a > bomb-construction-kit So perhaps: pseudo-code = bomb instructions? compilable code = bomb instructions and all the parts? binaries = the bomb? ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 15:06:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA22439 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:06:27 -0500 Received: from mail22.bigmailbox.com (mail22.bigmailbox.com [209.132.220.199]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA22436 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:06:25 -0500 Received: by mail22.bigmailbox.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01941; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:10:36 -0800 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:10:36 -0800 Message-Id: <200102162010.MAA01941@mail22.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-Ip: [207.158.65.151] From: "B J" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu how about the analogy to home-brewing which is sort of a victimless crime. you can find recepies everywher, but you don't have to brew it. ______________________________________________ EEEEEE III MM MM EEEEEE III EE I MM M MM EE I EEEE I MM MM EEEE I EE I MM MM EE I EEEEEE III MM MM EEEEEE III ______________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------ Do you hate clowns? Get Free Email & Free Websites at http://www.ihateclowns.com Buy Anti-Clown, Mugs, and Mousepads at http://www.cafepress.com/ihateclowns From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 15:18:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23239 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:18:14 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA23236 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:18:11 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb7e.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.126]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC5D27ABB for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:17:32 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 98F38175195; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:20:08 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:20:08 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Message-ID: <20010216212007.A21322@lemuria.org> References: <3A8D8004.70508@bigbrother.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A8D8004.70508@bigbrother.net>; from sterno@bigbrother.net on Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:31:16PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:31:16PM -0600, Steve Stearns wrote: > There is a difference between script and pseudo-code. Scripts are not > compiled but they are written in a specific way to be processed by an > interpreter which then effectively makes them executable. Pseudo-code > is not conformant to particular rules necessarily, nor is it generally > intended to be run through a compiler or interpreter. that doesn't count. poems, or even some forms of prose conform to sometimes VERY strict rules as well. hexameter and all that. conforming to particular rules is not a special of programming languages. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 15:20:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23621 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:20:51 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA23618 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:20:48 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb7e.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.126]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F1027ABB for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:20:07 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E52A4175195; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:22:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:22:43 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Message-ID: <20010216212242.B21322@lemuria.org> References: <3A8D643B.FF69642D@imagine-sw.com> <3A8D7693.2070108@bigbrother.net> <20010216200653.B20982@lemuria.org> <3A8D80B8.9020904@bigbrother.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A8D80B8.9020904@bigbrother.net>; from sterno@bigbrother.net on Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:34:16PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:34:16PM -0600, Steve Stearns wrote: > Hmmmmm.... I'll have to think about this one. I also suppose somebody > could also write a pseudo-code interpreter to convert it into compilable > code, and then with a nice automake it could be just as easy. it should be possible (in theory) to write a pseudo-code interpreter. ever seen a COBOL program? it looks more like highly structured english than like a programming language. > > compiled code is the bomb, instructions on how to write a specific program > > is the book, but source-code really IS is somewhere inbetween. maybe a > > bomb-construction-kit > > So perhaps: > > pseudo-code = bomb instructions? > compilable code = bomb instructions and all the parts? > binaries = the bomb? yes. I like the term "bomb construction kit". -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 15:27:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA24064 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:27:51 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA24061 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:27:49 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:32:24 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come down To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:32:23 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 12:32:23 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Not it doesn't. Check out the conclusion. Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come arvard.edu down 02/16/01 12:00 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200102/99-5430a.txt reading it now, but i hear it's not all that good From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 15:43:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA24996 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:43:42 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA24965 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:43:24 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb7e.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.126]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731AC27ABB for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:42:34 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BDA99175195; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:45:10 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:45:10 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come down Message-ID: <20010216214509.C21322@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:32:23PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:32:23PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Not it doesn't. Check out the conclusion. there is one thing in it that immediatly sprung into my eyes: "harmonization" (of copyright) is it just me or do we see exactly what we've seen in the cold war, just this time with "harmonization" of copyright? i.e. the US says "geez, we must harmonize with europe" and bounce US laws up to EU and, just to be on the safe side, a little more, say EU+1. a little while later the EU says "hm, we should harmonize with the US" and, just to be sure, move to US+1. repeat ad nauseum. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 15:44:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA25119 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:44:54 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA25116 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:44:49 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:49:16 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come down To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:49:15 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 12:49:15 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Skip the decision and read the dissent " The majority acknowledges that "[i]f the Congress were to make copyright protection permanent, then it surely would exceed the power conferred upon it by the Copyright Clause." Maj. Op. at 10. However, there is no apparent substantive distinction be- tween permanent protection and permanently available au- thority to extend originally limited protection. The Congress that can extend the protection of an existing work from 100 years to 120 years; can extend that protection from 120 years to 140; and from 140 to 200; and from 200 to 300; and in effect can accomplish precisely what the majority admits it cannot do directly. This, in my view, exceeds the proper understanding of enumerated powers reflected in the Lopez principle of requiring some definable stopping point." Wonderful argument! It's the old adherence to the letter of the law and violation of its spirit. "Extending existing copy-rights is not promoting useful arts, nor is it securing exclusiv- ity for a limited time." TO THE POINT! Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come arvard.edu down 02/16/01 12:00 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200102/99-5430a.txt reading it now, but i hear it's not all that good From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 15:48:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA25450 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:48:56 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA25446 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:48:55 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id MAA08267 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:53:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma006264; Fri, 16 Feb 01 12:49:33 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:51:14 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA11813; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:49:30 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardyet? Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:58:41 -0700 Message-ID: <000601c0985b$3dfcd6c0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <3A8D7693.2070108@bigbrother.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 16934D4B864-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu If we allow that speech becomes "functionality" as soon as a machine can directly interpret it, then becomes vital that "functionality" not reduce the First Amendent protections or we need stop the AI researchers before there's nothing protected left to say! ;-) Steve Stearns Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 11:51 AM > > Software is just a bunch of instructions, but the nature of software is > that that bunch of instructions can be used to perform some act with > little needed input from the person who receives it. Note that it is "little" input, not none. If I right an X-10 software to control light bulb -- who **really** in the causitive sense turns the light off or on. Either through direct (UI interaction) or indirect (setting some automation parameters) the **user** is the cause. Where deCSS a virus, that without user intervention secretly decoded and posted to the internet every DVD a user inserted in a PC -- I could see this sense of "function" -- but only when the virus is in a running, infective state. But even then the need to stop this "piracy virus" would be the need to stop the intent of the person who wrote and started the virus and there would be a better case for "real and present danger"). Certainly a .zip file of the non-running virus could not be considered an immediate threat. Conversely, the best way to stop this virus isn't banning the possession of the software, but by distributing it in a non-running state to as broad an audience as possible ("every bug is shallow to someone --Eric Raymond) so that anti-virus and security step could be taken. Yes the script-kiddies will take another whack at it, but the awareness and defenses against it will have improved (not the far reduce impact of "Melissa" wannabes). > > Now, let's take this a step further. You build a bomb and try to sell > it. Right, but supplying software is not supplying a built bomb. Aside from virii, USERS must start the software to do some action. This is an important difference. If instead of building the bomb, I were to send you the machine path instructions for a CNC milling machine for the various parts. Am I guilty of building a bomb? No. Are the machine paths the functional equivalent of a bomb? No. Are the machine paths software -- well it is a set of instructions to a known virtual machine (the interface to the CNC). Let's take this a step further. If robots are built which are able to under english descriptions of bomb making, and able to use metal shop equipment** -- does the english language description become software and "functional." ** Hopefully these robots have an off-switch or the "meek" and metallic "will inherit the earth." (and the cockroaches had their hearts set on their radio-tolerance handing it to them...) Touretzky has put it **very** clearly. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/%7Edst/DeCSS/Gallery/index.html Their is NO brightline distinction between what form of software can be considered "functional" or not in Judge Kaplan's sense. The only reason that a sung form of the deCSS code is not "functional" today is the limitation of computers understanding "natural language." If we say that speech become functional based on the ability of a machine to act upon it, then sphere of what is pure speech and protected will shrink markedly as technology improves. If we allow that speech becomes "functionality" as soon as a machine can directly interpret it, then becomes far more vital that "functionality" not reduce the First Amendent protections (or stop all the AI researcher before there's nothing left protected ;-) > > Now, to apply this to software. I think that you could reasonably argue > that pseudo-code is more clearly a matter of free expression than > compilable code. There it really is just instructions, instead of > something that can very readily be used for mischief. With compilable > code, the barrier is significantly reduced between abstract concept and > working tool of destruction. so, if I own a "Clapper" the sound of clapping is not longer protected. All the words my ViaVoice speach recoginizer are also no longer protected. I guess I can do with out "File" and "Open" and "Close" .... John From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 15:57:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA26197 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:57:14 -0500 Received: from zork.zork.net (user44496@[208.41.174.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA26194 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:57:13 -0500 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14Ts0n-0003oF-00; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:01:53 -0800 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:01:53 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] It is not illegal to give instructions on how to make a key Message-ID: <20010216130153.G672@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: Seth David Schoen , dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200102161753.MAA31256@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200102161753.MAA31256@samsara.law.cwru.edu>; from junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu on Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:53:22PM -0500 X-Accept-Language: en,la,eo Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Peter D. Junger writes: > My memory, which isn't very good, tells me that recently, most likely on > this list, posted a citation to a case holding that it is not a crime > to publish instructions on how to make a master key (although Valenti > seems to claim that it is.) Can anyone give me a better reference to > the case, besides that supplied by my failing memory? One case that was cited in the California trade secret litigation on this theme is _Chicago Lock Co. v. Fanberg_, 676 F.2d 400 (9th Circuit 1982). http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/chicagolock_v_fanberg_decision.html -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 16:00:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA26373 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:00:12 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA26370 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:00:08 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb7e.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.126]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB8627AD5 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:59:30 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7ED9D175195; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:02:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:02:06 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardyet? Message-ID: <20010216220205.F21322@lemuria.org> References: <3A8D7693.2070108@bigbrother.net> <000601c0985b$3dfcd6c0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <000601c0985b$3dfcd6c0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com>; from johnzu@ia.nsc.com on Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:58:41PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:58:41PM -0700, John Zulauf wrote: > > Now, let's take this a step further. You build a bomb and try to sell > > it. > > Right, but supplying software is not supplying a built bomb. Aside from > virii, USERS must start the software to do some action. users must also activate the bomb. sorry, I don't think this argument works. > Touretzky has put it **very** clearly. yes, he did. his gallery is a piece of art. it shows clearly how fluid the continuum between expression and conduct is when it comes to software. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 16:05:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA26552 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:05:43 -0500 Received: from thoughtpolice.bigbrother.net (patchi.organic.com [208.241.222.3] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA26549 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:05:42 -0500 Received: from bigbrother.net (IDENT:sterno@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thoughtpolice.bigbrother.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01493; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:05:55 -0600 Message-ID: <3A8D9632.7000903@bigbrother.net> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:05:54 -0600 From: Steve Stearns User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686; en-US; 0.8) Gecko/20010215 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Your arguement is exactly the one Kaplan and others are pushing with their > "functional speech". Accepting that making something easier to do is > reasons for supressing speech means lets just stop progressing and start > stagnating. Stagnation doesn't happen for long before entropy starts. The > Ease withwhich something is done is irrelevant to WHAT is done. Then what is the conceptual difference between publishing bomb making instructions and manufacturing bombs? Is the bomb a form of expression? What is different between that and the difference between source code and object code? ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 16:09:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA26627 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:09:39 -0500 Received: from thoughtpolice.bigbrother.net (patchi.organic.com [208.241.222.3] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA26624 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:09:37 -0500 Received: from bigbrother.net (IDENT:sterno@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thoughtpolice.bigbrother.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01500; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:09:50 -0600 Message-ID: <3A8D971D.70500@bigbrother.net> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:09:49 -0600 From: Steve Stearns User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686; en-US; 0.8) Gecko/20010215 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? References: <3A8D643B.FF69642D@imagine-sw.com> <3A8D7693.2070108@bigbrother.net> <20010216200653.B20982@lemuria.org> <3A8D80B8.9020904@bigbrother.net> <20010216212242.B21322@lemuria.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom wrote: > it should be possible (in theory) to write a pseudo-code interpreter. > > ever seen a COBOL program? it looks more like highly structured english > than like a programming language. Actually this lead me to a very wierd thought. What if somebody was to write a compiler that happened to compile the Constitution into DeCSS? The constitution would effectively be the source code for DeCSS. Is there anybody who's into writing compilers and has A LOT of free time want to take a stab at it? :) ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 16:12:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA26755 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:12:07 -0500 Received: from mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (ny-gw1.imagine-sw.com [64.52.36.146]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA26752 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:12:03 -0500 Received: from metermaid.imagine_ny.com (metermaid [192.9.201.29]) by mail-ny.imagine-sw.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA00842 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:16:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from imagine-sw.com by metermaid.imagine_ny.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id QAA03640; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:16:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A8D9892.1B82FBF5@imagine-sw.com> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:16:02 -0500 From: Francisco Figueirido Organization: Imagine Software, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? References: <3A8D643B.FF69642D@imagine-sw.com> <3A8D7693.2070108@bigbrother.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Let me see if I understand ... You seem to be implicitly assuming that `bunches of instructions' can be classified according to the degree of difficulty in implementing them. This seems to me to depend CRUCIALLY on the context and it is not therefore a property of the `bunch of instructions' per se. Moreover, isn't there a distinction between the `bunch of instructions' (software, program) and the process executing them? It looks to me that it is the latter, in any case, the one that would `require little needed input from the person'. Software is inactive, after all. You need a process to make it active. Steve Stearns wrote: > > Francisco Figueirido wrote: > > > I beg to differ. I might be naive, but Software seems to be `just' a bunch > > of instructions. The instructions can't DO anything; somebody or something > > following the instructions CAN do. From your example, a cookbook IN THE > > PROPER ENVIRONMENT (A COOK) looks no different than software IN THE PROPER > > ENVIRONMENT > > Software is just a bunch of instructions, but the nature of software is > that that bunch of instructions can be used to perform some act with > little needed input from the person who receives it. To illustrate, > let's assume for a moment that you decide to release a book on how to > build a bomb. It's excruciatingly detailed, but it still requires > somebody to go through significant effort to implement it. They need > parts, time, skill, etc, to put together the bomb. Selling this book is > not illegal (although certainly some would frown upon it regardless). > > Now, let's take this a step further. You build a bomb and try to sell > it. Now, the government comes and shoots you because you've crossed the > line between expressing ideas to implementing them. What's the > difference. Both approaches are expressing an idea, but one reduces the > barrier to somebody using it in a mischeivous way. > > Now, to apply this to software. I think that you could reasonably argue > that pseudo-code is more clearly a matter of free expression than > compilable code. There it really is just instructions, instead of > something that can very readily be used for mischief. With compilable > code, the barrier is significantly reduced between abstract concept and > working tool of destruction. > > ---Steve -- Francisco Figueirido, Ph.D. Phone: (212)317-7680 Quantitative Analyst Fax: (212)317-7601 Imagine Software, Inc. e-mail: francisco@imagine-sw.com 233 Broadway 17th Floor New York, NY 10279 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 16:43:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA27754 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:43:48 -0500 Received: from zork.zork.net (user27664@[208.41.174.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA27750 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:43:44 -0500 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14Tsjn-0004Ju-00; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:48:23 -0800 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:48:23 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Message-ID: <20010216134823.K672@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: Seth David Schoen , dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <3A8D9632.7000903@bigbrother.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A8D9632.7000903@bigbrother.net>; from sterno@bigbrother.net on Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:05:54PM -0600 X-Accept-Language: en,la,eo Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Stearns writes: > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > > Your arguement is exactly the one Kaplan and others are pushing with their > > "functional speech". Accepting that making something easier to do is > > reasons for supressing speech means lets just stop progressing and start > > stagnating. Stagnation doesn't happen for long before entropy starts. The > > Ease withwhich something is done is irrelevant to WHAT is done. > > Then what is the conceptual difference between publishing bomb making > instructions and manufacturing bombs? Is the bomb a form of > expression? What is different between that and the difference between > source code and object code? To use Robin's test, you can print object code on a shirt (although fewer people would understand it than would understand my shirts in Latin). You _can_ run much source code and you _don't have to_ run any object code. And when you do choose to run some code, you can also normally decide what you will ask it to do. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 16:58:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA28607 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:58:03 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA28594 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:57:47 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:02:19 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:02:17 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 02:02:18 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Touretzky has put it **very** clearly. yes, he did. his gallery is a piece of art. it shows clearly how fluid the continuum between expression and conduct is when it comes to software. And if you can't make a CLEAR distinction it is best to make NO distinction because there isn't any. The only distinction is how it is used and that's a different problem. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardyet? 02/16/01 01:06 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:58:41PM -0700, John Zulauf wrote: > > Now, let's take this a step further. You build a bomb and try to sell > > it. > > Right, but supplying software is not supplying a built bomb. Aside from > virii, USERS must start the software to do some action. users must also activate the bomb. sorry, I don't think this argument works. > Touretzky has put it **very** clearly. yes, he did. his gallery is a piece of art. it shows clearly how fluid the continuum between expression and conduct is when it comes to software. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 17:09:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA29063 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:09:06 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA29060 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:09:00 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:13:34 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:13:33 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 02:13:33 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That's an easy one. There is no conceptual difference between making bombs and publishing prints for bombs. You can believe that one is there if you want but it isn't. The conceptual difference that IS there and cannot be argued otherwise is whether I use the bomb to blow up a building in Oklahoma with people in it or if I use it to blow up a empty statium in Pittsburgh. Is the bomb a form of expression? - It's an expression of some ideas from somebody's mind What is different between that and the difference between source code and object code? - As you can see I am not making one. NO lines between bombs and bomb plans. No lines between source code and object code. Least anyone believe I advocate anarchy, except on weekends, society has a good reason to regulate bomb makers. I don't want my next door neighbor making them since there is a clear and present danger that If he goofs, my house is likely to be destroyed as well and my life over. Do you think that software should also have such regulation? What's the clear and present danger here? Steve Stearns To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speech card yet? 02/16/01 01:12 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Your arguement is exactly the one Kaplan and others are pushing with their > "functional speech". Accepting that making something easier to do is > reasons for supressing speech means lets just stop progressing and start > stagnating. Stagnation doesn't happen for long before entropy starts. The > Ease withwhich something is done is irrelevant to WHAT is done. Then what is the conceptual difference between publishing bomb making instructions and manufacturing bombs? Is the bomb a form of expression? What is different between that and the difference between source code and object code? ---Steve From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 17:33:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA30565 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:33:38 -0500 Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA30562 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:33:37 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.9d.115a8a0c (1759) for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:37:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9d.115a8a0c.27bf05b5@cs.com> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:37:41 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 112 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In a message dated 2/16/01 5:16:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: << Do you think that software should also have such regulation? What's the clear and present danger here? >> The danger is to property: namely files you own that reside on your system, and the data contained within them. A program that connects to my company's SQL server and erases records of transactions causes just as much material damage as an incendiary device would in a room full of paper records. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 17:40:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA30825 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:40:37 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA30822 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:40:36 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id RAA04094 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:45:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id RAA03326; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:45:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:45:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102162245.RAA03326@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? In-Reply-To: <20010216212242.B21322@lemuria.org> References: <3A8D643B.FF69642D@imagine-sw.com> <3A8D7693.2070108@bigbrother.net> <20010216200653.B20982@lemuria.org> <3A8D80B8.9020904@bigbrother.net> <20010216212242.B21322@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu tom@lemuria.org writes: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:34:16PM -0600, Steve Stearns wrote: > > Hmmmmm.... I'll have to think about this one. I also suppose somebody > > could also write a pseudo-code interpreter to convert it into compilable > > code, and then with a nice automake it could be just as easy. > > it should be possible (in theory) to write a pseudo-code interpreter. > > ever seen a COBOL program? it looks more like highly structured english > than like a programming language. IIRC, one of the design goals for Cobol was actually that technically untrained managers were supposed to be able to read the code their programmers were writing. It didn't work out. On a less serious level, see http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~damian/papers/HTML/Perligata.html which documents Lingua::Romana::Perligata, the filter which replaces the '@', '$' and '%' syntactic machinery with Latin inflections. For a taste, here's sample code to print all prime numbers from 2 to a set maximum using the Sieve of Eratosthenes: da duo tum maximum conscribementa meis listis. dum listis decapitamentum damentum nexto fac sic nextum tum novumversum scribe egresso. lista sic hoc recidementum nextum cis vannementa da listis. cis. This corresponds to the ordinary Perl: my (@list) = (2..$maxim); while ($next = shift @list) { print STDOUT $next, "\n"; @list = grep {$_ % $next} @list; } and is about equally obscure to those unfamiliar with the relevant syntax. (I love Perl. I use it daily). On an even less serious level, see http://www.ioccc.org/1990/westley.c an executable C program which starts off: char*lie; double time, me= !0XFACE, not; int rested, get, out; main(ly, die) char ly, **die ;{ signed char lotte, dear; (char)lotte--; for(get= !me;; not){ 1 - out & out ;lie;{ char lotte, my= dear, **let= !!me *!not+ ++die; (char*)(lie= "The gloves are OFF this time, I detest you, snot\n\0sed GEEK!"); do {not= *lie++ & 0xF00L* !me; #define love (char*)lie - love 1s *!(not= atoi(let [get -me? (char)lotte- ... and continues in this vein for as long as the hapless Charlie can stand it. The program itself, though, doesn't do a whole lot (at least not compared to, say, Carl Banks' awesome best-of-show from 1998, a flight simulator for X Windows, laid out in the shape of a Cessna seen from the top, and within a tight length limit). rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 17:49:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA31162 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:49:58 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA31159 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:49:57 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id RAA05042; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:54:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id RAA03407; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:54:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:54:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102162254.RAA03407@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] It is not illegal to give instructions on how to make a key In-Reply-To: <200102161753.MAA31256@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: <200102161753.MAA31256@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Peter D. Junger writes: > My memory, which isn't very good, tells me that recently, most likely on > this list, posted a citation to a case holding that it is not a crime > to publish instructions on how to make a master key (although Valenti > seems to claim that it is.) Can anyone give me a better reference to > the case, besides that supplied by my failing memory? See http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg10320.html in which Sam TH quoted the EFF brief's citation of Chicago Lock v. Fanberg, 676 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1982) to that effect. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 17:52:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA31313 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:52:59 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA31307 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:52:53 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:57:22 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:57:20 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 02:57:21 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu So don't let anybody connect to your computer from the internet that has all your important records on it! You don't put your file cabinets out on the street do you? Again, I repeat. What's the clear and present danger ? NONE. Consilgere@cs.com Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? 02/16/01 02:40 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss In a message dated 2/16/01 5:16:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: << Do you think that software should also have such regulation? What's the clear and present danger here? >> The danger is to property: namely files you own that reside on your system, and the data contained within them. A program that connects to my company's SQL server and erases records of transactions causes just as much material damage as an incendiary device would in a room full of paper records. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 17:54:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA31440 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:54:30 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA31433 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:54:29 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb24.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.36]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A51827ABB for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:53:49 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D1FC4175195; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:56:24 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:56:24 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Message-ID: <20010216235623.A479@lemuria.org> References: <3A8D643B.FF69642D@imagine-sw.com> <3A8D7693.2070108@bigbrother.net> <20010216200653.B20982@lemuria.org> <3A8D80B8.9020904@bigbrother.net> <20010216212242.B21322@lemuria.org> <3A8D971D.70500@bigbrother.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A8D971D.70500@bigbrother.net>; from sterno@bigbrother.net on Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:09:49PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:09:49PM -0600, Steve Stearns wrote: > Actually this lead me to a very wierd thought. What if somebody was to > write a compiler that happened to compile the Constitution into DeCSS? > The constitution would effectively be the source code for DeCSS. no news. about a year ago, I wrote just such a thing. maybe I still have the code around somewhere. > Is there anybody who's into writing compilers and has A LOT of free time > want to take a stab at it? :) it's very simple. it doesn't solve the legal problem. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 17:56:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA31532 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:56:06 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA31528 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:56:05 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:00:25 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:00:24 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 03:00:25 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Cobol didn't work because what people didn't realize is that reading the instructions is not the same thing as understanding an algorithm or a data structure is or does. Interesting example using the sieve...maybe latin should be judged functional speech ;-) ..oops it was. Gauss and most mathemeticians wrote in latin in the pre 19th century. "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speech card yet? 02/16/01 02:47 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss tom@lemuria.org writes: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:34:16PM -0600, Steve Stearns wrote: > > Hmmmmm.... I'll have to think about this one. I also suppose somebody > > could also write a pseudo-code interpreter to convert it into compilable > > code, and then with a nice automake it could be just as easy. > > it should be possible (in theory) to write a pseudo-code interpreter. > > ever seen a COBOL program? it looks more like highly structured english > than like a programming language. IIRC, one of the design goals for Cobol was actually that technically untrained managers were supposed to be able to read the code their programmers were writing. It didn't work out. On a less serious level, see http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~damian/papers/HTML/Perligata.html which documents Lingua::Romana::Perligata, the filter which replaces the '@', '$' and '%' syntactic machinery with Latin inflections. For a taste, here's sample code to print all prime numbers from 2 to a set maximum using the Sieve of Eratosthenes: da duo tum maximum conscribementa meis listis. dum listis decapitamentum damentum nexto fac sic nextum tum novumversum scribe egresso. lista sic hoc recidementum nextum cis vannementa da listis. cis. This corresponds to the ordinary Perl: my (@list) = (2..$maxim); while ($next = shift @list) { print STDOUT $next, "\n"; @list = grep {$_ % $next} @list; } and is about equally obscure to those unfamiliar with the relevant syntax. (I love Perl. I use it daily). On an even less serious level, see http://www.ioccc.org/1990/westley.c an executable C program which starts off: char*lie; double time, me= !0XFACE, not; int rested, get, out; main(ly, die) char ly, **die ;{ signed char lotte, dear; (char)lotte--; for(get= !me;; not){ 1 - out & out ;lie;{ char lotte, my= dear, **let= !!me *!not+ ++die; (char*)(lie= "The gloves are OFF this time, I detest you, snot\n\0sed GEEK!"); do {not= *lie++ & 0xF00L* !me; #define love (char*)lie - love 1s *!(not= atoi(let [get -me? (char)lotte- ... and continues in this vein for as long as the hapless Charlie can stand it. The program itself, though, doesn't do a whole lot (at least not compared to, say, Carl Banks' awesome best-of-show from 1998, a flight simulator for X Windows, laid out in the shape of a Cessna seen from the top, and within a tight length limit). rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 18:49:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA32479 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:49:56 -0500 Received: from web513.mail.yahoo.com (web513.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA32473 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:49:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20010216235434.11212.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.81.113.151] by web513.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:54:34 PST Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:54:34 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come down To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The dissent understands the mathematical concept of proof by induction. The majority does not. "Retroactive Extention is allowed" is MATHEMATICALLY equivalent to "unlimited duration is allowed". --- Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > Skip the decision and read the dissent > > " The majority acknowledges that "[i]f the Congress were to make copyright > protection permanent, then it surely would exceed the power > conferred upon it by the Copyright Clause." Maj. Op. at 10. > However, there is no apparent substantive distinction be- > tween permanent protection and permanently available au- > thority to extend originally limited protection. The Congress > that can extend the protection of an existing work from 100 > years to 120 years; can extend that protection from 120 years > to 140; and from 140 to 200; and from 200 to 300; and in > effect can accomplish precisely what the majority admits it > cannot do directly. This, in my view, exceeds the proper > understanding of enumerated powers reflected in the Lopez > principle of requiring some definable stopping point." > > Wonderful argument! It's the old adherence to the letter of the law and > violation of its spirit. > > "Extending existing copy-rights is not promoting useful arts, nor is it > securing exclusiv- > ity for a limited time." > > TO THE POINT! > > > > > > > Joshua Stratton > > To: > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: > [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come > arvard.edu down > > > > > > 02/16/01 12:00 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200102/99-5430a.txt > > reading it now, but i hear it's not all that good > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 20:11:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA01981 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:11:14 -0500 Received: from imo-r15.mx.aol.com (imo-r15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA01978 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:11:13 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-r15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.c9.d50e025 (3987) for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:15:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:15:21 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 112 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In a message dated 2/16/01 5:59:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: << So don't let anybody connect to your computer from the internet that has all your important records on it! You don't put your file cabinets out on the street do you? If I leave my car in my drive way with the keys on the drivers seat and someone takes it, it's my fault. I grant you that. But that doesn't make the car legally any less stolen. to translate: if I leave an important database on a machine, and someone comes by and erases it, we can assign blame all we want. That doesn't change the fact that a crime has been committed. Property has been damaged. There's your "clear and present danger. " From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 21:45:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04041 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:45:00 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA04030 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:44:58 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA304KN>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:43:44 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:43:44 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom [mailto:tom@lemuria.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 1:57 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:23:49AM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > > > well, your soundcard may allow you to make high-quality > copies (i.e. > > > lossless digital output). now we can't allow that, can we? > > > > C:\> COPY VALUABLESOUND.WAV COPIEDSOUND.WAV > > > > What does the soundcard have to do with that? > > oh, nothing. a different layer of the OS will make sure that > you (soon) > can't do that, either - you filthy music pirate. ;-/ > Wunnerful. An OS that refuses to do what you tell it to do, even if it might be legal because it might be illegal in _some_ circumstances. This _is_ CSS all over again. Anything we can do to head this one off at the pass? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 21:45:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04056 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:45:01 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA04039 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:45:00 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30VCF>; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:10:36 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:10:36 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] ... > From a pragmatic > viewpoint, the unequivocal statement that software is > copyrightable but not > patentable solves that dilemma quite nicely. Too bad that is not the statement that has been made by the US Gov't, which _has_ issued many software patents. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 21:45:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04058 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:45:02 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA04047 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:45:00 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30VC3>; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:13:57 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:13:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Well, well, well ... I shoulda gone to original sources. Since "discoveries" apparently come under the domain of patents, then I guess patenting gene sequences _is_ supportable. I _still_ don't think that they should be able to patent the sequence with no idea of it's purpose though. I could write a computer program to spit out random sequences of amino acids & file patents on 'em as they came out if I don't have to make some sort of claim as to their purpose ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Dean Sanchez [mailto:DSanchez@fcci-group.com] > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 8:49 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz > > > It appalls me that facts can be patented, especially in the > case of the > human genome. It never crossed my mind that simply discovering a fact > gave you ownership of it. However, before I made any > comment, I wanted > to make sure that I had my thoughts in order. I went back and read the > original language in the Constitution. Imagine my surprise > when I read > this about the powers given to Congress in Article 1 Section > 8 of the US > Constitution, (http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm ) : > "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for > limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their > respective Writings and Discoveries;". > I assume that until relatively recently, the term "Discoveries" were > interpreted differently. Is that correct? > > Dean Sanchez > dsanche@fcci-group.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 11:10 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz > > > > Yes. You are correct. I used Knowledge when fact is a more > correct word > for > what it is. It is just a MERE fact that is discovered and > anybody with > the > correct tools, training, and time can also discover. That they spent a > lot > of time on it is irrelevant (genome = telephone book of DNA). It won't > change in time...."It exists prior to and independant of it's > discovery > by > humans. " Also...there is something supremely arrogant about > the notion > that one can patent something like that. > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: > [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz > > > > > 02/16/01 04:12 AM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > No, it's worse than that. A gene sequence is not "knowledge", it's > "fact". > It is something which is _discovered_, not invented or even > thought up. > It > exists prior to and independant of it's discovery by humans. > > It would be like being able to patent a shoreline if you > managed to come > across some previously unmapped bay w/ a particularly nice view ... > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 8:16 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz > > > > > > > > Reductio ad absurdum... > > > > BTW- The patent system is in even worse shape these days than > > the copyright > > system. A gene sequence is knowledge and nothing more. One > > could not patent > > knowledge until recently....after seeing hyperlightspeed > > antennas, and cat > > exercisers using invisible light it's hard to be surprised at > > the total > > nonsense going on at the USPO . > > > > > > > > > > Richard Hartman > > > > To: > > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > > Sent by: > > > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > > > arvard.edu > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] copyrighting jazz > > > > > > > > > > 02/14/01 07:56 PM > > > > Please respond to > > > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not? They're patenting gene sequences as they > > are being discovered rather than as their purpose > > is determined ... what other "device" can you possibly > > patent without any idea of what the darned thing does? > > > > -- > > -Richard M. Hartman > > hartman@onetouch.com > > > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > > > > > > > > > OK. I want to copyright all possible sequence of notes.... > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > as a followup to the earlier discussion on copyrighting > > > jazz, see the new scientist 7 feb 2001 article at > > > http://www.newscientist.com/dailynews/news.jsp?id=ns9999400 > > > > > > soon anyone who creates a jazz riff will be able to > > > play the creation into a pc and have a search engine > > > find out who actually 'owns' that sequence of notes so > > > the person can pay the copyright owner. no doubt this > > > will be applied by law to live music so that copyright > > > owners will be able to use computer power to collect > > > automatically royalties on public performances of 'their' > > > music. or it could prevent or censor the expression in > > > realtime if compulsory licensing is not allowed. > > > > > > surely this will allow computers and the internet to > > > make possible new 'freedoms' in creating music such > > > as jazz. a like technology for automatic payment for > > > quoting copyrighted or trademarked words and like > > > expressions awaits entrepreneurship. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 21:45:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04049 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:45:01 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA04036 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:44:59 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30VB7>; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:05:17 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:05:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter D. Junger [mailto:junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu] ... > > Leland Ray writes: > > : That software is a device is well settled under US law. The > only way to > : change that will be by an act of Congress. > > What is your authority for this remarkable proposition, even > if you are > just talking about patents? > Well ... for one thing, is it not the case that patents only apply to devices? And since there have been software patents issued ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 21:44:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04031 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:44:59 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA04027 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:44:57 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA304KJ>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:41:07 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:41:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Karee Swift [mailto:clening@zdnetmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 11:33 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Cc: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu' > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free > speech card > yet? > > > Hi all, Felt like I'd jump in :) > > > >MPAA is attempting to stop > > people from creating circumventing devices. The music > > industry is attempting to stop people from copying > > music. The focus is on the use to which the device is > > being put rather than the device itself. THIS IS AN > > IMPORTANT DISINCTION. If somebody uses DeCSS to copy > > and distrubute "The Matrix" on the web, sure go ahead > > and prosecute 'em for copyright violation & piracy. But > > you can't stop people from using DeCSS just to view privately > > the movies they bought (licensed?) for private viewing. > > > > -- > To begin with, as far as the Universal case goes, they're not > going after > people for specifically trying to copy and disseminate > copyrighted material. > THey're going after the idea that it -can- happen, and therefore they > (the MPAA) should stop the whole thing before it can happen. This approach is, as far as I can determine, something known as "prior restraint" and is not permitted under the law ... no? > Its important > to realize, that they have no proof (outside of their expert) > which uses > DeCSS to disseminate the copyrighted information. THey're not working > with an actual case of infringement, but along the idea of > imminent danger > -- that BECAUSE it exists, regardless of its many uses, IT will ONLY That "ONLY" is important. Yes, it is almost certain that it will be used for copyright infringement. But it can certainly be (and has been) shown that substantial non-infringing uses exist. > be used for copyright infringement, and it will only be used to hurt > revenue. As far as your arguement of 'you can't stop people > from using > DeCSS' -- Well, thats the point isn't it? Judge Kaplan specifically > went after 2600, to stop many of those entities who were using it. IF > they control how much information gets out, and kill the information > source, the argument (il)logically goes that they control the use. And that's what they can't do. The courts, that is. It's against the law to do what they did. > > THe MPAA, much as the record industry realized, can't go > after everyone. > But if they can scare enough people through laws, and quell > enough speech > by making all code 'functional' (==Not protected) then the > idea is that > the behavior will stop. The problem, is this makes > precedent, and keeps > legitimate users worried, without really controlling the questionable > behavior. Exactly. They haven't really hurt the real pirates, but they have messed things up for legitimate users. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 16 22:33:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA04745 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:33:10 -0500 Received: from mercury.clearway.com ([199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA04741 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:33:09 -0500 Received: by MERCURY with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <15D4S4B7>; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:37:20 -0500 Message-ID: From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:37:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >>Leland Ray writes: >> >> That software is a device is well settled under US law. The only way to >> change that will be by an act of Congress. >Peter D. Junger responds: >What is your authority for this remarkable proposition, even if you are >just talking about patents? When I wrote that, I was thinking of: US v. Mendelsohn 896 F.2d 1183 (9th Cir. 1990) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 17 01:45:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA06337 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:45:39 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA06327 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:45:32 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30VP7>; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:17:14 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardye t? Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:17:13 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com] ... > > Right, but supplying software is not supplying a built bomb. > Aside from > virii, USERS must start the software to do some action. This is an > important difference. Not for the subject we were discussing. I really wish I had time enough to respond in detail to the discussion here, I've had to pass up a few others as well. But I have to respond to the point made above. I think John is confusing two different discussions here. We weren't discussing whether the responsibility lies with the user vs. the mechanism (the Napster issue), we were discussing whether software is an invention. Sure ... the user is responsible for the actions taken using the software. The same way the drunk driver is responsible for killing the pedestrian, and not the car. That doesn't mean that the car is not an invention. The argument John made above arguing to a different point. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 17 01:45:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA06342 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:45:44 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA06323 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:45:32 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30VPX>; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:12:08 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] An enlightened approach Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:12:08 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In contrast to the "Whoops! They did it again" thread re. Microsoft's "Secure Audio Path" I offer this: http://www.baen.com/library/ I figure most of you interested in the DeCSS issue are also interested in similar issues from other industries. Well, the online publishing industry is going through the same issues too. Last year the "Glassbook" reader was introduced which allowed digital rights management via encrypting the content. In addition the Adobe PDF format has similar capabilities for locking up content as do the formats for most of the new dedicated ebook readers. Well, Baen books has decided that 'tis better to give than gripe. Banking on the fact that word of mouth is good free advertising, and that most "pirates" either wouldn't buy the thing anyway or _will_ buy it after they try it & find they like it, Baen has established a free on-line library. They've even gone so far as to make the books available in multiple formats (HTML, MS Reader, Palm "Doc", RocketBook & Rich Text). Authors may _voluntarily_ place any of their books into this library (and may withdraw them at any time). A full essay on how this project came to be may be found at the URL above (as well as some books by David Drake, David Weber, Eric Flint and a couple others). The essay makes some good points, which I tried to summarize above, but I think it's worth reading the original. I don't know if the existance of efforts like this help us in the other industries ... but if their figures hold up on the freely offered e-books having increased sales of the physical editions (which the first couple seem to have done) it might make a very interesting reference case. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 17 01:45:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA06330 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:45:35 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA06321 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:45:31 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30V1R>; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:06:30 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:06:29 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Frozen TV dinners -were- patented, weren't they? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 9:47 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free > speech card > yet? > > > > Agreed. What's the logical difference? That the tools and items are > different is irrelevant. The ease with which it can be done > is irrelevant? > By this analogy, software is to computer as TV dinner is to cookbook. > > > > > Francisco Figueirido > > To: > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone > arvard.edu played > the free speech card yet? > > > > > 02/16/01 09:35 AM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > Richard Hartman wrote: > > > > The truth is (and I said this in the first msg) that software > > is neither fish nor fowl. A cookbook does _not_ "do" anything, > > software -- in the proper environment (a computer) -- does. > > Therfore it is not just writing. > > > > I beg to differ. I might be naive, but Software seems to be > `just' a bunch > of instructions. The instructions can't DO anything; somebody > or something > following the instructions CAN do. From your example, a > cookbook IN THE > PROPER ENVIRONMENT (A COOK) looks no different than software > IN THE PROPER > ENVIRONMENT. > > -- > Francisco Figueirido, Ph.D. Phone: (212)317-7680 > Quantitative Analyst Fax: (212)317-7601 > Imagine Software, Inc. e-mail: > francisco@imagine-sw.com > 233 Broadway 17th Floor > New York, NY 10279 > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 17 03:51:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA08098 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 03:51:24 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA08095 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 03:51:22 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3E9BBB25.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.37]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DD127ABB for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:50:38 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 83882175195; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:53:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:53:15 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! Message-ID: <20010217095314.B811@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from hartman@onetouch.com on Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:43:44PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:43:44PM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > > oh, nothing. a different layer of the OS will make sure that > > you (soon) > > can't do that, either - you filthy music pirate. ;-/ > > Wunnerful. An OS that refuses to do what you tell it to do, > even if it might be legal because it might be illegal in _some_ > circumstances. > > This _is_ CSS all over again. Anything we can do to head > this one off at the pass? yes, use free software. for operating systems, you have the choice between Linux, several BSD variants and probably a couple more that I don't know about. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 17 03:56:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA08235 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 03:56:51 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA08232 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 03:56:50 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3E9BBB25.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.37]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 559DD27ABB for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:56:11 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 34DB4175195; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:58:49 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:58:49 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Message-ID: <20010217095848.C811@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from hartman@onetouch.com on Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:41:07PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:41:07PM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > Exactly. They haven't really hurt the real pirates, but > they have messed things up for legitimate users. oh, yes! *watching* DVDs on windos, with "legit" players is a pain in the a**. first, (of course) they crash randomly. fortunately rarely during playback, but often when scanning the DVD (or maybe during CSS negotiation?). then, there's this darn region coding. my DVD library is a mix of region 1 and 2. imagine my joys. in short, I don't think I have EVER watched a DVD on windos without some hassle, such as rebooting or switching the region. on the other side, I got that vlc Linux player (which uses DeCSS) to run last week, and playing a DVD on that is as simple as putting it in the drive and starting the program. it doesn't even CARE for regions, much less force me to change them only limited times. once again, the non-official solution is the better one. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 17 07:39:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA09940 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 07:39:57 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA09937 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 07:39:56 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00481; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 07:43:48 -0500 Message-Id: <200102171243.HAA00481@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:05:54 CST." <3A8D9632.7000903@bigbrother.net> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 07:43:18 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Stearns writes: : Then what is the conceptual difference between publishing bomb making : instructions and manufacturing bombs? The difference between publishing a text, an activity that is protected by the First Amendment, and making a gadget, an activity that is not protected by the First Amendment. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 17 07:48:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA10132 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 07:48:14 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA10129 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 07:48:13 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00510; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 07:52:15 -0500 Message-Id: <200102171252.HAA00510@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:09:49 CST." <3A8D971D.70500@bigbrother.net> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 07:52:15 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Stearns writes: : Actually this lead me to a very wierd thought. What if somebody was to : write a compiler that happened to compile the Constitution into DeCSS? : The constitution would effectively be the source code for DeCSS. : : Is there anybody who's into writing compilers and has A LOT of free time : want to take a stab at it? :) Wouldn't it be easier to find a key that, when used in a suitable decryption program, reveals that the Constitution is actually the source code for DeCSS? Or the object code? (I ran into my troubles with the export regulations on crypto---which led to the decision in _Junger v. Daley_---because I wrote such a decryption program, which I wanted to use to show my students that keeping a copy of something like the Constitution on one's hard drive might ultimately lead one to being charged with violating MicroSoft's copyright in MSWord (version 3.1 as I think it then was).) -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 17 08:08:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA10354 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:08:47 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA10351 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:08:46 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00615; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:12:38 -0500 Message-Id: <200102171312.IAA00615@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:45:16 EST." <200102162245.RAA03326@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:12:08 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Wunderbar! "Robert S. Thau" writes: : http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~damian/papers/HTML/Perligata.html : : which documents Lingua::Romana::Perligata, the filter which replaces : the '@', '$' and '%' syntactic machinery with Latin inflections. For : a taste, here's sample code to print all prime numbers from 2 to a set : maximum using the Sieve of Eratosthenes: : : da duo tum maximum conscribementa meis listis. : : dum listis decapitamentum damentum nexto : fac sic : nextum tum novumversum scribe egresso. : lista sic hoc recidementum nextum cis vannementa da listis. : cis. : : This corresponds to the ordinary Perl: : : my (@list) = (2..$maxim); : : while ($next = shift @list) : { : print STDOUT $next, "\n"; : @list = grep {$_ % $next} @list; : } : : and is about equally obscure to those unfamiliar with the relevant : syntax. (I love Perl. I use it daily). -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 17 08:16:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA10511 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:16:55 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA10507 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:16:54 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00656; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:20:55 -0500 Message-Id: <200102171320.IAA00656@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:05:17 PST." Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:20:55 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Hartman writes: : : : > -----Original Message----- : > From: Peter D. Junger [mailto:junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu] : ... : > : > Leland Ray writes: : > : > : That software is a device is well settled under US law. The : > only way to : > : change that will be by an act of Congress. : > : > What is your authority for this remarkable proposition, even : > if you are : > just talking about patents? : > : : Well ... for one thing, is it not the case that patents only : apply to devices? No. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 17 08:37:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA10750 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:37:38 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA10747 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:37:37 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00721; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:41:30 -0500 Message-Id: <200102171341.IAA00721@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:37:18 EST." Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:41:00 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Leland Ray writes: : >>Leland Ray writes: : >> : >> That software is a device is well settled under US law. The only way to : >> change that will be by an act of Congress. : : >Peter D. Junger responds: : >What is your authority for this remarkable proposition, even if you are : >just talking about patents? : : When I wrote that, I was thinking of: : : US v. Mendelsohn 896 F.2d 1183 (9th Cir. 1990) Why? I doesn't support your proposition. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 17 08:56:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA10891 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:56:00 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA10888 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:55:59 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00806; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:59:51 -0500 Message-Id: <200102171359.IAA00806@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] It is not illegal to give instructions on how to make a key Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:59:21 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I wish to thank all those who reminded me that the case I was looking for is _Chicago Lock Co. v. Fanberg_. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 17 15:59:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA13413 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 15:59:40 -0500 Received: from inconnu.isu.edu (root@inconnu.isu.edu [134.50.8.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA13410 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 15:59:38 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03461 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:04:21 -0700 Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:04:21 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Copies-to: galt@inconnu.isu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Richard Hartman wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tom [mailto:tom@lemuria.org] >> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 1:57 PM >> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:23:49AM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: >> > > well, your soundcard may allow you to make high-quality >> copies (i.e. >> > > lossless digital output). now we can't allow that, can we? >> > >> > C:\> COPY VALUABLESOUND.WAV COPIEDSOUND.WAV >> > >> > What does the soundcard have to do with that? >> >> oh, nothing. a different layer of the OS will make sure that >> you (soon) >> can't do that, either - you filthy music pirate. ;-/ >> > >Wunnerful. An OS that refuses to do what you tell it to do, >even if it might be legal because it might be illegal in _some_ >circumstances. > >This _is_ CSS all over again. Anything we can do to head >this one off at the pass? Don't buy it? I'm already thinking from my peeks at Whistler that Microsoft's under the impression that they're the only game in town. The "untrusted software" dialog is particularly amusing, as the "untrustworthy" company was none other than Intel (the Pro/2100 DSL modem driver). I'm thinking that if you can't trust Intel on an x86 platform, who can you really trust? > -- EMACS == Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 17 18:23:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15102 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:23:53 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15099 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:23:41 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA20762 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:29:19 -0500 Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:29:14 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Message-ID: <20010217182914.D20197@eldritchpress.org> References: <3A8D9632.7000903@bigbrother.net> <200102171243.HAA00481@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200102171243.HAA00481@samsara.law.cwru.edu>; from junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu on Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 07:43:18AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 07:43:18AM -0500, Peter D. Junger wrote: > Steve Stearns writes: > > : Then what is the conceptual difference between publishing bomb making > : instructions and manufacturing bombs? > > The difference between publishing a text, an activity that is protected > by the First Amendment, and making a gadget, an activity that is not > protected by the First Amendment. yes, that is the way it should be. unfortunately, it no longer is in practice in the u.s. recent laws concerning bombs and methamphetamine manufacture have essentially suppressed the publication of many books that used to be distributed freely. for example, paladin press is no longer able to sell many of its books, even government-made books such as the special forces manual. i don't know anybody who wants to read such books in order to kill people (illegally) with bombs. on the other hand, i don't know anybody who is protesting the factual prohibition on these books. according to the first amendment, publishing a book should be protected. evidently there are ways around the first amendment, and u.s. citizens evidently wish their government to ignore it when it comes to things like bombs and drugs. whatever jefferson would say does not count--he is dead, and he was a democrat-republican anyway. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 17 23:51:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA18469 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:51:19 -0500 Received: from elrond.hobbiton.org (root@elrond.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.97]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA18466 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:51:12 -0500 Received: from hobbiton.org (sage_b@thorin.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.98]) by elrond.hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1I4uPA02995 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:56:25 -0600 (CST) Received: (from sage_b@localhost) by hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f1I4rfg28177; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:53:41 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:53:41 -0600 (CST) From: Stephen Kawamoto Message-Id: <200102180453.f1I4rfg28177@hobbiton.org> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The hackers are not the threat. Perhaps the threat is the coporate owners of intellectual property who are ready to litigate. This gives lie to their justification of capitalism as beneficial to democracy. It also implies that they are a threat to human rights, since countries like China are putting a few hackers into prison. Huang Qi is an example of political control of free speech in China, since he put up banned material on Tianamen Square. Could you imagine what China could do if it owned copyright to an Internet software that monitored Chinese users online and someone in China posted a compromise to that software? They'd put him in jail. He'd be treated worse than Mitnick and the technology ban on him until 2003. If he was released and violated any bans on him, then they might be forced to execute him. Here in the Americas, all the corporate fascists (who are the counterparts to the Chinese communist leaders) do is litigate which is the Western version of China's reaction to rebels and hackers. Stephen > ------------ Begin Original ------------ > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:44:42 -0800 > > > Yes and putting them together means that the DVD case gets tarred with the > same brush - "the screaming hoards of hackers who want to "rape, pillage, > and plunder" the sacred intellectual property" [BTW - I'm stealing a line > from a folksinger's song about a skinny little boy from Cleveland Ohio who > comes to town..][ > > > > "David Petteys" > To: > Sent by: cc: > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone > arvard.edu played the free speech card yet? > > > 02/13/01 07:21 PM > Please respond to > dvd- discuss > > > > > > > There are some overlapping issues, but the dissimilarities outweigh the > similarities. As to playing the free speech card, the defense in the DVD > case played it and is continuing to play it on appeal. There really aren't > any colorable First Amendment arguments with respect to Napster. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 7:01 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card > yet? > > > > Actually, I don't think the DVD case and Napster are very similiar at all. > DVD is about fair use and curtailment of first amendment rights under a > recently enacted law -the DMCA . Napster is really about copyright > infringement and contribulatory infringement. I've been skeptical of the > napster arguments from the beginning. Tactically, putting them together > would be a mistake. > > > > "Philip V. Neves" > To: > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: > [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played > arvard.edu the free speech card > yet? > > > 02/13/01 06:24 PM > Please respond to > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > >From what I've been seeing on this group and on the news reports is that > the > dvd case and the napster case are very similar. Lawyers for these two > groups > haven't tried proving that software is indeed speech. I think that the > biggest obstical to these cases is that most judges and the general public > look at software as some sort of device and not as a creative work that the > > author wrote. > > Demonstrating to the judge that yes indeed software is speech would prompt > the use of the first amendment. How I would do it is by showing that a > computer program has all the characteristics of speech. Then illustrating > that a computer just follows a set of instruction layed out by the > programmer > to perform a specified task. I suggest using DECSS for this demonstation. > This would relate the problem at hand to the judge and eventually get him > to > agree. > > > > > > > > > > > ------------ End Original ------------ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 00:28:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA18975 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:28:18 -0500 Received: from elrond.hobbiton.org (root@elrond.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.97]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA18972 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:28:14 -0500 Received: from hobbiton.org (sage_b@thorin.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.98]) by elrond.hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1I5XIA13917 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:33:18 -0600 (CST) Received: (from sage_b@localhost) by hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f1I5UYR28595; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:30:34 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:30:34 -0600 (CST) From: Stephen Kawamoto Message-Id: <200102180530.f1I5UYR28595@hobbiton.org> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] dvd article in premiere magazine Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu We need to get John Dvorak on our side. He's the computer industry's answer to Royko. If he toes the MPAA's position, then maybe he's been paid off. > ------------ Begin Original ------------ > From: "sparky" > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:24:23 -0600 > Subject: [dvd-discuss] dvd article in premiere magazine > > I don't suppose anyone knows of an article that actually addresses > the dvd events in terms of old and new business models? > > I wish Mike Royko was still around. Someone like that on our side.. > > sparky > > > ------------ End Original ------------ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 00:33:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA19119 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:33:44 -0500 Received: from elrond.hobbiton.org (root@elrond.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.97]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA19116 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:33:41 -0500 Received: from hobbiton.org (sage_b@thorin.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.98]) by elrond.hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1I5cvA14208 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:38:57 -0600 (CST) Received: (from sage_b@localhost) by hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f1I5aDi19314; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:36:13 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:36:13 -0600 (CST) From: Stephen Kawamoto Message-Id: <200102180536.f1I5aDi19314@hobbiton.org> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Does DMCA violate the constitution? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu so, how do we legislate greed? probably by limiting how much royalty can be charge on copyrighted material. > ------------ Begin Original ------------ > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Does DMCA violate the constitution? > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:24:53 -0800 > > > That's been the argument Eric and several others have been making for some > time....I don't think you have to be a lawyer to make it....only to > obfuscate its simplicity with precedents and legal phraseology. It's what > any change to the copyright and patent system must address before that > change is made. It's what hasn't been addressed with the SonnyBono > copyright extension act and the DMCA. The former has created a virtual > forever since the period is longer than the lifetimes of creators and > ability of society and the governement [gov= WE THE PEOPLE here] to > administer it (that pragmatic aspect is somethign that Mary Bono and Jack > Valenti don't see. Their pitifully small minds only see the gold flowing > into their greedly little hands.). The DMCA can create an actual forever. > The reading or Egyption hieroglyphs as a lost art for thousands of years > until they were decipered in the early 19th century and then only because > of a tablet that had the same thing in three languages on it. Strong > encryption will preclude that. > > > > "Reginald Joiner" > To: > Sent by: cc: > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Does DMCA violate the > arvard.edu constitution? > > > 02/15/01 12:27 AM > Please respond to > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > I am not a lawyer, but according to this link... the constitution provides > a > limited time period wherein a work may remain the exclusive property of an > entity; thereafter the material becomes part of the public domain. The > provisions of the DMCA effectively allow the copyright holder the exclusive > right to the material FOREVER. Isn't that inherently a violation of the > constitutional requirement that the material become part of the public > domain after a limited time period. NOTE: That limited time period thing > is > ugly...But it does not say forever. > > My personal conclusion is that the law is illegal since makes the material > forever out of the public domain by the statuary construction of the DMCA. > > My two cents... > > http://www.cssfaq.org/dvd-discuss-faq.html#ss2.4.1 > > > > > > > > ------------ End Original ------------ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 03:27:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA20464 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 03:27:43 -0500 Received: from mta04.onebox.com (mta04.onebox.com [216.33.158.211]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA20461 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 03:27:37 -0500 Received: from onebox.com ([216.33.158.157]) by mta04.onebox.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010218083147.WZRQ15745.mta04.onebox.com@onebox.com> for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:31:47 -0800 Received: from [192.216.193.129] by onebox.com with HTTP; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:31:47 -0800 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:31:47 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? From: "Karee Swift" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20010218083147.WZRQ15745.mta04.onebox.com@onebox.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > That "ONLY" is important. Yes, it is almost certain that it will > be used for copyright infringement. But it can certainly be (and > has been) shown that substantial non-infringing uses exist. > Oh of course. And Judge Kaplan's rough estimation of those uses was what I consider a legal shrug. He acknowledged that they existed, and acknowledged that there would be a substantial number who would be harmed by them, and then completely and utterly wrote the fair use arguments off. REpeatedly. > > be used for copyright infringement, and it will only be used to hurt > > revenue. As far as your arguement of 'you can't stop people > > from using > > DeCSS' -- Well, thats the point isn't it? Judge Kaplan specifically > > went after 2600, to stop many of those entities who were using it. > IF > > they control how much information gets out, and kill the information > > source, the argument (il)logically goes that they control the use. > > And that's what they can't do. The courts, that is. It's against > the law to do what they did. > Not to Kaplan. He figures its very much in the law, ala the DMCA. Its only truly against the law if a higher court takes this case up and finds it so.. Isn't the whole judicial system a hoot? ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 03:36:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA20651 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 03:36:13 -0500 Received: from mta09.onebox.com (mta09.onebox.com [216.35.104.109]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA20643 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 03:36:10 -0500 Received: from onebox.com ([216.33.158.157]) by mta09.onebox.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010218084024.UZCI142.mta09.onebox.com@onebox.com> for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:40:24 -0800 Received: from [192.216.193.129] by onebox.com with HTTP; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:40:24 -0800 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:40:24 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LiViD releases OMS From: "Karee Swift" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20010218084024.UZCI142.mta09.onebox.com@onebox.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu ---- Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Ole Craig wrote: > > Hope I'm not stealing anyone's list-thunder, but LiViD has > > announced an official release of the Open Media System. > > > > http://www.linuxvideo.org/oms/ > > I couldn't immediately tell what their approach to CSS protected DVD's > is. Does > anybody know? Are they using css-cat, css-auth, etc..., or do they > have > replacements. > > I'm rather surprised that the reverse engineering exception wasn't > really > argued heavily (if at all) on appeal. After all, here is the product. > It > decrypts to interoperate, it proves 1201(f), end of story. > It wasn't really argued (At least this is what I read from the initial argument) b/c the Judge effectively threw it out on 2 grounds: 1) They initially had this set up to run in windows. Windows already has a number of DVD readers and therefore, DeCSS isn't necessary. and 2) Linux, while that was the central point of development, was also coming out (or along with) 2 DVD readers of their own. All being produced legally by that schemey process that the MPAA and CCA has going on. PFT. > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 03:36:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA20636 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 03:36:03 -0500 Received: from mta06.onebox.com (mta06.onebox.com [216.33.158.213]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA20633 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 03:36:02 -0500 Received: from onebox.com ([216.33.158.144]) by mta06.onebox.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010218084016.YVIX4763.mta06.onebox.com@onebox.com> for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:40:16 -0800 Received: from [192.216.193.129] by onebox.com with HTTP; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:40:16 -0800 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:40:16 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LiViD releases OMS From: "Karee Swift" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20010218084016.YVIX4763.mta06.onebox.com@onebox.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu ---- Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Ole Craig wrote: > > Hope I'm not stealing anyone's list-thunder, but LiViD has > > announced an official release of the Open Media System. > > > > http://www.linuxvideo.org/oms/ > > I couldn't immediately tell what their approach to CSS protected DVD's > is. Does > anybody know? Are they using css-cat, css-auth, etc..., or do they > have > replacements. > > I'm rather surprised that the reverse engineering exception wasn't > really > argued heavily (if at all) on appeal. After all, here is the product. > It > decrypts to interoperate, it proves 1201(f), end of story. > It wasn't really argued (At least this is what I read from the initial argument) b/c the Judge effectively threw it out on 2 grounds: 1) They initially had this set up to run in windows. Windows already has a number of DVD readers and therefore, DeCSS isn't necessary. and 2) Linux, while that was the central point of development, was also coming out (or along with) 2 DVD readers of their own. All being produced legally by that schemey process that the MPAA and CCA has going on. PFT. > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 03:58:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA20902 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 03:58:14 -0500 Received: from mta07.onebox.com (mta07.onebox.com [216.35.104.107]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA20899 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 03:58:13 -0500 Received: from onebox.com ([216.33.158.154]) by mta07.onebox.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010218090228.VZHR29684.mta07.onebox.com@onebox.com> for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 01:02:28 -0800 Received: from [192.216.193.129] by onebox.com with HTTP; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 01:02:28 -0800 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 01:02:28 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] It is not illegal to give instructions on how to make a key From: "Karee Swift" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20010218090228.VZHR29684.mta07.onebox.com@onebox.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [Sorry if this has already been posted. 90 sum messages is a lot to sift through :) Here's the case: Chicago Lock v. Fanberg, 676 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1982) (OR at least a similar case, which basically said publishing the key codes in a book or print, is not illegal provided it was ascertained through Reverse engineering. ) This totally refutes Kaplan's argument that DeCSS is akin to publishing the bank vault codes in a Newspaper. I'm _STILL_ looking for a better case than this, one similar to what he's going after, such as a case where a newspaper published the location of where to get drugs. I'm sure its come about, but I can't find it. Anyone have any ideas? Karee ---- "Peter D. Junger" wrote: > > My memory, which isn't very good, tells me that recently, most likely > on > this list, posted a citation to a case holding that it is not a crime > to publish instructions on how to make a master key (although Valenti > seems to claim that it is.) Can anyone give me a better reference > to > the case, besides that supplied by my failing memory? > > Thanks, > Peter > -- > Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, > OH > EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu > > NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists > ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 04:55:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA21916 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 04:55:23 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA21913 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 04:55:21 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb27.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.39]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8123027ABB for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 10:54:26 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DC962175195; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 10:57:04 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 10:57:04 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LiViD releases OMS Message-ID: <20010218105703.A7971@lemuria.org> References: <20010218084016.YVIX4763.mta06.onebox.com@onebox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010218084016.YVIX4763.mta06.onebox.com@onebox.com>; from clening@zdnetmail.com on Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:40:16AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:40:16AM -0800, Karee Swift wrote: > It wasn't really argued (At least this is what I read from the initial > argument) b/c the Judge effectively threw it out on 2 grounds: 1) They > initially had this set up to run in windows. Windows already has a number > of DVD readers and therefore, DeCSS isn't necessary. and 2) Linux, while > that was the central point of development, was also coming out (or along > with) 2 DVD readers of their own. All being produced legally by that > schemey process that the MPAA and CCA has going on. PFT. incidently, I haven't seen any of the "legitimate" Linux players yet. does anyone have news on them, or are they still vaporware? on the other side, there's no 2 decss-based Linux players, and at least another 2 that can read encrypted DVDs through decss plugins. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 04:58:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA21985 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 04:58:00 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA21966 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 04:57:21 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb27.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.39]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF3027ABB for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 10:56:42 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DE3D7175195; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 10:59:21 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 10:59:21 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] It is not illegal to give instructions on how to make a key Message-ID: <20010218105921.B7971@lemuria.org> References: <20010218090228.VZHR29684.mta07.onebox.com@onebox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010218090228.VZHR29684.mta07.onebox.com@onebox.com>; from clening@zdnetmail.com on Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 01:02:28AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 01:02:28AM -0800, Karee Swift wrote: > I'm _STILL_ looking for a better case than this, one similar to what > he's going after, such as a case where a newspaper published the location > of where to get drugs. they're doing that all the time, don't they? I know several local papers which have at one time or the other had articles about the major drug spots of the city. of course, with the focus on how bad it is and what the police does to stop it, but if you didn't know where to get your hit before, you'd knew afterwards. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 18:32:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA27837 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:32:17 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA27834 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:32:16 -0500 Received: from seltzerw ([204.243.92.112]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.9.3 (PHNE_21697)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20318 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:37:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010218181610.01a85820@seltzer.com> X-Sender: wendy@seltzer.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:36:39 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: [dvd-discuss] next up: studios' reply brief and a showing from the government Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The latest docket from the 2600 case, posted on Cryptome (thanks!), shows the government moving to intervene, presumably supporting the district court's interpretation of Section 1201. Excerpts from : 2/8/01 New party added: Daniel S. Alter Esq., representing The United States of America (Intervenor) (cv72) 2/8/01 Movant United States of A motion for leave to intervene, file a brief and participate in oral argument FILED (w/pfs). [1790255-1] (cv72) According to the scheduling order, the studios' brief is due tomorrow. (I don't know whether the holiday affects that.) Watch for exaggerated press releases. Their amici must file a week later. Defendants get one more reply before oral argument. --Wendy Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 19:25:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA28306 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:25:58 -0500 Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA28301 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:25:56 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18598 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:24:31 -0700 (MST) Received: from 64-212-27-251.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.27.251), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpdAAASiaatK; Sun Feb 18 17:24:26 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA08060 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:30:02 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:30:01 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021817300100.01680@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Friday 16 February 2001 18:15, you wrote: # In a message dated 2/16/01 5:59:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, # Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: # # << So don't let anybody connect to your computer from the internet that has # all your important records on it! You don't put your file cabinets out on # the street do you? # # If I leave my car in my drive way with the keys on the drivers seat and # someone takes it, it's my fault. I grant you that. But that doesn't make # the car legally any less stolen. # # to translate: # # if I leave an important database on a machine, and someone comes by and # erases it, we can assign blame all we want. That doesn't change the fact # that a crime has been committed. Property has been damaged. There's your # "clear and present danger. " OK, so the Internet constitutes a clear and present danger. Ban it. Or were you suggesting that rm constitutes a clear and present danger? (Same conclusion.) -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 19:33:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA28476 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:33:43 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [209.98.6.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA28473 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:33:42 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [163.228.19.198]) by tneu.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B402D386 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:44:19 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:44:19 -0600 (CST) From: tim To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come down In-Reply-To: <20010216235434.11212.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu So, what's next? Is this going to be appealed to the SC? Also, what does this dissent argument do for us? I presume it can be only used on appeal, or if this case is cited the next time the copyright industry tries to "renew" their copyrights... On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Bryan Taylor wrote: > The dissent understands the mathematical concept of proof by induction. The > majority does not. "Retroactive Extention is allowed" is MATHEMATICALLY > equivalent to "unlimited duration is allowed". > > --- Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > > > Skip the decision and read the dissent > > > > " The majority acknowledges that "[i]f the Congress were to make copyright > > protection permanent, then it surely would exceed the power > > conferred upon it by the Copyright Clause." Maj. Op. at 10. > > However, there is no apparent substantive distinction be- > > tween permanent protection and permanently available au- > > thority to extend originally limited protection. The Congress > > that can extend the protection of an existing work from 100 > > years to 120 years; can extend that protection from 120 years > > to 140; and from 140 to 200; and from 200 to 300; and in > > effect can accomplish precisely what the majority admits it > > cannot do directly. This, in my view, exceeds the proper > > understanding of enumerated powers reflected in the Lopez > > principle of requiring some definable stopping point." > > > > Wonderful argument! It's the old adherence to the letter of the law and > > violation of its spirit. > > > > "Extending existing copy-rights is not promoting useful arts, nor is it > > securing exclusiv- > > ity for a limited time." > > > > TO THE POINT! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joshua Stratton > > > > To: > > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Sent by: cc: > > > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: > > [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come > > arvard.edu down > > > > > > > > > > > > 02/16/01 12:00 PM > > > > Please respond to > > > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200102/99-5430a.txt > > > > reading it now, but i hear it's not all that good > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- What the president of the Motion Picture Association of America says about taking away your constitutional rights: "I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one of these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw out reverse engineering; he threw out linking." - Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "If you don't have the freedom to use what you / ' ) ) own - then you do not own anything." / o ______ / / _ . . No apologies to Jack Valenti or the MPAA / <_/ / / < / (_; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:33:07 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp10.phx.gblx.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA23526 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:37:26 -0700 Received: from 64-212-31-128.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.31.128), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp10.phx.gblx.net, id smtpdko9eEa; Sun Feb 18 17:37:20 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA08129 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:37:14 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:37:13 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] An enlightened approach MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021817371301.01680@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Friday 16 February 2001 15:12, you wrote: # In contrast to the "Whoops! They did it again" thread re. Microsoft's # "Secure Audio Path" I offer this: http://www.baen.com/library/ # Authors may _voluntarily_ place any of their books into this library (and # may withdraw them at any time). A full essay on how this project came to be # may be found at the URL above (as well as some books by David Drake, David # Weber, Eric Flint and a couple others). The essay makes some good points, # which I tried to summarize above, but I think it's worth reading the # original. I was surprised to find the entirety of Weber's "The Apocolypse Troll" online, and read most of it there before buying a copy. Whatever that proves. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 20:13:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA28865 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:13:10 -0500 Received: from mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA28862 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:13:08 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010219011748.UZQO19382.mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:17:48 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:32:47 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: <3A8D7693.2070108@bigbrother.net> <20010216200653.B20982@lemuria.org> In-Reply-To: <20010216200653.B20982@lemuria.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021818324700.09088@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id UAA28863 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu You know this whole case really make me very upset. Computer software in its normal form isn't protected under the first amendment. But movies on a dvd which can be considered a type of computer software is. Doesn't anyone see a double standard here. What happened to one law for everyone? On Friday 16 February 2001 19:06, you wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:50:59PM -0600, Steve Stearns wrote: > > Now, to apply this to software. I think that you could reasonably argue > > that pseudo-code is more clearly a matter of free expression than > > compilable code. > > compil-ED, not compil-ABLE. why? because your own words apply just fine > to source code: > > one has to get a compiler and invest some time in compiling, > configuring and installing the software. granted, with tools like > automake that is easy, but it's still usually too much for the newbie. > > compiled code is the bomb, instructions on how to write a specific program > is the book, but source-code really IS is somewhere inbetween. maybe a > bomb-construction-kit. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 20:34:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA29233 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:34:58 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA29230 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:34:47 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA21736 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:40:40 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:40:35 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come down Message-ID: <20010218204034.A21705@eldritchpress.org> References: <20010216235434.11212.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from tim@tneu.visi.com on Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:44:19PM -0600 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:44:19PM -0600, tim wrote: > So, what's next? > > Is this [Eldred v. Reno] going to be appealed to the SC? we are considering that this week. but we need some input from everyone who wants to help. larry lessig has a private list and there is always the underused discussion group under http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvreno (which i don't take part in). tim has wisely suggested that the decision cries out for an en banc review by the (full) appeals court. i rather favor that idea. however, others believe that the dissent might be more likely to be adopted by some on the supreme court who might not be around in the fall. and still others suggest that the supreme court is very unlikely to take the appeal on cert if we appeal before september, just because of some procedural issues. in favor of the appeal for an en banc review is the idea that resolving some of the procedural issues raised by the appeals panel might be necessary before the supreme court would hear it. once it reaches the s.c. many predict that the conservatives will agree with judge sentelle's dissent. but it has to be framed more clearly, i think. one point that needs to be considered fully is what happens if the s.c. takes the appeal but renders a verdict that is as unfavorable as this one. i worry that ms justice o'connor might veer to the wrong side of harper v. nation and uphold a view of copyright that is essentially a natural rights property right, which is what other courts have been doing in decss and napster and others. instead, we desperately, i believe, need the supreme court to rule that copyright is not 'intellectual property' in that sense, but rather must be based on a social contract, a utilitarian statutory construct that exists only to promote creation of new works. leaving the first amendment issue in this state is bad. leaving congress with 'plenary' power is in my opinion about as bad a precedent for everyone as bush v. gore is. lessig assures me that the conservatives would jump at the chance to agree with judge sentelle, and of course he is the lawyer here. lessig has also discovered a very interesting new issue: judge ginsburg in the oral arguments discussed it, and in his decision stated it outright: there is no legal standing for the government to give copyright to works that are in the public domain. ginsburg overlooked the fact that this is precisely what congress did when it adopted the berne treaty--many many works went out of the public domain back under copyright, under certain complicated situations. we are now investigating a new suit to overturn those earlier copyright laws! we will be asking plaintiffs, who were injured by the transfer of public domain works back under copyright, to get in touch with us so we can consider developing a case. it is possible that this decision gives us a tremendous opening to challenge the 'strong IPR' side, even though it otherwise looks rather bleak. but even so there are clear grounds for an appeal. ginsburg is simply wrong on main points and this cannot stand as a precedent. but it needs a full discussion elsewhere, not on the dvd-discuss list. (sorry to be negative here, but dvd-discuss is important and we ought to turn our attention to what the other side will be submitting in briefs tomorrow.) i quote from the decision in Part B. Note the text after "Applied mutatis..." (And remember that much of this First Amendment stuff was raised only so we could get standing, and we got standing now and in the future.) > > > http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200102/99-5430a.txt The plaintiffs do point out that the Supreme Court has said the "Congress may not authorize the issuance of patents whose effects are to remove existent knowledge from the public domain, or to restrict free access to materials already available." Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 6 (1966). The Court similarly stated, over a century ago, that the issuance of a trademark could not be justified under the Copyright Clause because the subject matter of trademark is "the adoption of something already in existence." Trade- mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879). Applied mutatis mutan- dis to the subject of copyright, these teachings would indeed preclude the Congress from authorizing under that Clause a copyright to a work already in the public domain. The plaintiffs read the Court's guidance more broadly, in the light of Feist, to mean that a work in the public domain lacks the originality required to qualify for a copyright. That is certainly not inconsistent with the Court's opinion: A work in the public domain is, by definition, without a copyright; where the grant of a copyright is at issue, so too is the work's eligibility for copyright, and thus the requirement of originali- ty comes into play. We need not adopt a particular view on that point, however, as it has nothing to do with this case. Here we ask not whether any work is copyrightable -- indeed, the relevant works are already copyrighted -- but only whether a copyright may by statute be continued in force beyond the renewal term specified by law when the copyright was first granted. For the plaintiffs to prevail, therefore, they will need something other than the require- ment of originality upon which to make their stand. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 20:44:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA29787 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:44:20 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA29784 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:44:09 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA21769 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:50:02 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:49:57 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] An enlightened approach Message-ID: <20010218204957.B21739@eldritchpress.org> References: <01021817371301.01680@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <01021817371301.01680@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com>; from dvd@lumbercartel.com on Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 05:37:13PM -0700 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 05:37:13PM -0700, D. C. Sessions wrote: > On Friday 16 February 2001 15:12, you wrote: > # In contrast to the "Whoops! They did it again" thread re. Microsoft's > # "Secure Audio Path" I offer this: http://www.baen.com/library/ > > # Authors may _voluntarily_ place any of their books into this library (and > # may withdraw them at any time). A full essay on how this project came to be > # may be found at the URL above (as well as some books by David Drake, David > # Weber, Eric Flint and a couple others). The essay makes some good points, > # which I tried to summarize above, but I think it's worth reading the > # original. > > I was surprised to find the entirety of Weber's "The Apocolypse Troll" online, > and read most of it there before buying a copy. Whatever that proves. authors voluntarily and openly publishing works online is a success--if not for the big publishers. some of us are trying to give more incentives to make this happen, instead of forcing readers to steal works that copyright owners make inaccessible. larry lessig and i and a big team of people are forming a 'creative commons' to enable tax deductions for donating works. if the public domain is to be a real success then tax dollars ought to support it, i believe, since it is the public that benefits. the internet makes it now possible to publish extremely cheaply. but authors and heirs need some incentive to bypass publishers, and those of us who are voluntarily publishing works online need some opening of the public domain in order to make the works accessible. there will be more on this later (but not on dvd-discuss--although all of us 'hackers' who are kayaking down the hudson are floating on the same river). From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 21:22:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA30867 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:22:37 -0500 Received: from imo-r11.mx.aol.com (imo-r11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA30864 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:22:36 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-r11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.af.74a2670 (4012) for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:26:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:26:44 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 112 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In a message dated 2/18/01 7:33:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, dcs@lumbercartel.com writes: << OK, so the Internet constitutes a clear and present danger. Ban it. Or were you suggesting that rm constitutes a clear and present danger? (Same conclusion.) >> Yes, rm does constitute a "clear and present danger." But we make exceptions for certain things that do. You can legally own a chainsaw, they certainly threaten people's safety. You can legally own a hunting rifle... just because software isn't speech doesn't mean it has no protection. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 18 23:32:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA31991 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:32:05 -0500 Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA31986 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:32:03 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11519 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:31:48 -0700 (MST) Received: from 64-212-31-72.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.31.72), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAjIaGEw; Sun Feb 18 21:31:44 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA08879 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:36:10 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:36:10 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021821361004.01680@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sunday 18 February 2001 19:26, you wrote: # In a message dated 2/18/01 7:33:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, # dcs@lumbercartel.com writes: # # << OK, so the Internet constitutes a clear and present danger. Ban it. # Or were you suggesting that rm constitutes a clear and present danger? # (Same conclusion.) >> # Yes, rm does constitute a "clear and present danger." But we make exceptions # for certain things that do. You can legally own a chainsaw, they certainly # threaten people's safety. You can legally own a hunting rifle... just # because software isn't speech doesn't mean it has no protection. You've expanded the meaning of "clear and present danger" to make it cover everything. Since "clear and present danger" is a key test in First Amendment issues, that vitiates the First Amendment. You have a hard sell here. Meanwhile, you've still to support your thesis that "Add A to B" isn't speech by anything other than repeated assertion. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 00:05:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA00465 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:05:39 -0500 Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA00462 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:05:37 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.dc.282333c (4234) for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:09:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:09:49 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 112 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In a message dated 2/18/01 11:39:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, dcs@lumbercartel.com writes: << You've expanded the meaning of "clear and present danger" to make it cover everything. Since "clear and present danger" is a key test in First Amendment issues, that vitiates the First Amendment. You have a hard sell here. Meanwhile, you've still to support your thesis that "Add A to B" isn't speech by anything other than repeated assertion. >> I haven't expanded any definition. I've simply said if you look at the relationship between programs and data, its the same as the relationship between physical possessions and other physical objects. And some of those possessions we regulate. Weapons, cars, things like that. My Axe can manipulate my tree in more or less the same way rm can manipulate my database file. And seeing the data in my database can have value, and is my property, rm is capable of destroying property. Now my axe isn't government regulated, nor should rm be. But the fact that it can deprive me of property is certainly indicative that rm is either not speech, or speech that presents a "clear and present danger" to the property I keep in my database. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 02:25:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA01757 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 02:25:29 -0500 Received: from web512.mail.yahoo.com (web512.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA01754 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 02:25:27 -0500 Message-ID: <20010219073014.11916.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.81.113.151] by web512.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:30:14 PST Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:30:14 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] next up: studios' reply brief and a showing from the government To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010218181610.01a85820@seltzer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I wonder what this is about. The government becomes a party and wants to participate in oral argument!?!? Isn't that kind of weird? Is this the USDOJ, I assume? If so, how odd, because we all thought Ashcroft would be pro-fair use. Or maybe this is good news -- is there any hope that the governement might not take the MPAA 's point of view? Maybe I'm dreaming. Is there any way to tell which side the government's brief will be supporting? --- Wendy Seltzer wrote: > The latest docket from the 2600 case, posted on Cryptome (thanks!), shows > the government moving to intervene, presumably supporting the district > court's interpretation of Section 1201. > > Excerpts from : > > 2/8/01 New party added: Daniel S. Alter Esq., representing The > United States of America (Intervenor) (cv72) > > 2/8/01 Movant United States of A motion for leave to intervene, > file a brief and participate in oral argument FILED > (w/pfs). [1790255-1] (cv72) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 02:59:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA02037 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 02:59:55 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA02034 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 02:59:52 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd9500656.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.86]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C0927AF0 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:59:03 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 10046175195; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:01:41 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:01:41 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] next up: studios' reply brief and a showing from the government Message-ID: <20010219090139.C9548@lemuria.org> References: <4.2.2.20010218181610.01a85820@seltzer.com> <20010219073014.11916.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010219073014.11916.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 11:30:14PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 11:30:14PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > I wonder what this is about. The government becomes a party and wants to > participate in oral argument!?!? Isn't that kind of weird? Is this the USDOJ, I > assume? If so, how odd, because we all thought Ashcroft would be pro-fair use. > Or maybe this is good news -- is there any hope that the governement might not > take the MPAA 's point of view? Maybe I'm dreaming. apply ockham's razor. which is the most likely reason for the intervention of a politician? lobby and/or money. who has more of both? the MPAA. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 03:31:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA02306 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 03:31:58 -0500 Received: from mta11.onebox.com (mta11.onebox.com [216.35.104.111]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA02303 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 03:31:55 -0500 Received: from onebox.com ([216.33.158.150]) by mta11.onebox.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010219083612.ENTQ9900.mta11.onebox.com@onebox.com> for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:36:12 -0800 Received: from [192.216.194.49] by onebox.com with HTTP; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:36:12 -0800 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:36:12 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] It is not illegal to give instructions on how to make a key From: "Karee Swift" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20010219083612.ENTQ9900.mta11.onebox.com@onebox.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ah yes, they -are- doing and reporting on this all the time. My quandry comes in finding a particular newspaper/magazine who has been sued for it, and an affirmative decision in their favor. I wonder if any such newspapers have even been tried? -K ---- Tom wrote: > On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 01:02:28AM -0800, Karee Swift wrote: > > I'm _STILL_ looking for a better case than this, one similar to > what > > he's going after, such as a case where a newspaper published the > location > > of where to get drugs. > > they're doing that all the time, don't they? I know several local > papers which have at one time or the other had articles about the major > drug spots of the city. of course, with the focus on how bad it is > and > what the police does to stop it, but if you didn't know where to get > your hit before, you'd knew afterwards. > > > -- > -- http://www.lemuria.org > -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net > -- > ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 06:52:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA04056 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 06:52:22 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (cs-2.borgfelde.ricardo.de [62.197.4.114] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA04052 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 06:52:17 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8C42084A6; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:57:29 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:57:29 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] It is not illegal to give instructions on how to make a key Message-ID: <20010219135729.A2519@lemuria.org> References: <20010219083612.ENTQ9900.mta11.onebox.com@onebox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010219083612.ENTQ9900.mta11.onebox.com@onebox.com>; from clening@zdnetmail.com on Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:36:12AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:36:12AM -0800, Karee Swift wrote: > Ah yes, they -are- doing and reporting on this all the time. My quandry > comes in finding a particular newspaper/magazine who has been sued for > it, and an affirmative decision in their favor. I wonder if any such > newspapers have even been tried? I wouldn't think so. it's just so stupid and obvious that... uh, forget what I said, we're talking about the USA there, are we? ;) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 10:17:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA05908 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:17:36 -0500 Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA05903 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:17:29 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29402 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:17:07 -0700 (MST) Received: from 64-212-30-62.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.30.62), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAZWa4x5; Mon Feb 19 08:17:00 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA10063 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:21:27 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:21:27 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021908212700.02580@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sunday 18 February 2001 22:09, you wrote: # In a message dated 2/18/01 11:39:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, # dcs@lumbercartel.com writes: # # << You've expanded the meaning of "clear and present danger" to make it cover # everything. Since "clear and present danger" is a key test in First # Amendment # issues, that vitiates the First Amendment. You have a hard sell here. # # Meanwhile, you've still to support your thesis that "Add A to B" isn't speech # by anything other than repeated assertion. >> # I haven't expanded any definition. I've simply said if you look at the # relationship between programs and data, its the same as the relationship # between physical possessions and other physical objects. You've said it, but that doesn't make it true. My saying "Add A to B" is no threat to your data. Further, the law _specifically_ priveledges things that I say, so it's up to you to show that saying "Add A to B" or even saying "rm -rf /" is an exception to that priveledge. # And some of those # possessions we regulate. Weapons, cars, things like that. My Axe can # manipulate my tree in more or less the same way rm can manipulate my database # file. You can swing rm at your database files? Somehow I suspect that there are a few more parts to the process, and those parts just MIGHT comprise legal essentials. # And seeing the data in my database can have value, and is my property, # rm is capable of destroying property. Now my axe isn't government regulated, # nor should rm be. But the fact that it can deprive me of property is # certainly indicative that rm is either not speech, or speech that presents a # "clear and present danger" to the property I keep in my database. I think you need to look at the legal definition of "clear and present danger." In particular at the "present" part. Here's a related case for you: the code for rm consists of a long sequence of statements, and its application to your database requires still more operations. On the other hand, "Pour Mountain Dew into the drive bay" consists of a shorter sequence of statements and its application to your database requires fewer additional operations. So, by your argument, the statement "pour Mountain Dew into the drive bay" also constitutes a "clear and present danger" to your valuable data and therefore is exempted from First Amendment protections. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 11:29:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA06740 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:29:35 -0500 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA06736 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:29:21 -0500 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA10127 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:32:27 -0600 Message-ID: <3A914A99.5F2B3F74@mninter.net> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:32:25 -0600 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Consilgere@cs.com wrote: > file. And seeing the data in my database can have value, and is my > property, rm is capable of destroying property. Sounds like you're under the same misconception as the MPAA that information == property. I have a hard time with the notion that rm can destroy information (the data in your database): your database was merely composed of ideas, and nothing can "destroy" ideas. It can probably destroy the value of a particular organization of ideas, like a specific database; but last time I checked there are lots of things that destroy the value of other things, such as competition in the marketplace or obsolecense, that aren't prevented from doing so by law. They're just unfortunate side effects of progress. -- moseng@mninter.net I use PGP 6.5.3 -- http://www.underwhelm.org/pgp From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 12:12:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA09124 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:12:00 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA09121 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:11:59 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id JAA20286 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:16:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma019117; Mon, 19 Feb 01 09:13:41 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:15:26 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20249; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:13:39 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardyet? Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:22:44 -0700 Message-ID: <000401c09a98$91efeb20$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <3A914A99.5F2B3F74@mninter.net> Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 168F8B27294328-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Chris Moseng Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 9:32 AM > Consilgere@cs.com wrote: > > file. And seeing the data in my database can have value, and > is my > property, rm is capable of destroying property. > > Sounds like you're under the same misconception as the MPAA that > information == property. > > I have a hard time with the notion that rm can destroy information (the > data in your database): your database was merely composed of ideas, and > nothing can "destroy" ideas. It can probably destroy the value of a > particular organization of ideas, like a specific database; but last > time I checked there are lots of things that destroy the value of other > things, such as competition in the marketplace or obsolecense, that > aren't prevented from doing so by law. They're just unfortunate side > effects of progress. There are at least two other problems with your "clear and present danger". (1) If the database is valuable "rm -rf /" because that wonderful legal fiction the "reasonable man" would have offline, data vault duplicates of that database. (2) "rm -rf /" is itself neither necessary nor sufficient to damage even a local copy of a database. In order for sufficiency one needs (a) access to a data entry point on the system (b) access to an account with sufficient permissions to damage the database files (c) access to a system for which "rm -rf /" operates as it does in Posix (unless you have a Posix "rm" in your path on a MS operating system all your in danger of is producing a unintelligible error message) (c.1) an executable compatible with the processor and run-time environment for "rm" or for a script interpreter (one could write rm in Perl -- in Latin) and the need script. (c.2) the presence of that command in the command path (or it's equivalent) (d) a user to enter the command Mind you that what we've gotten to isn't that the "rm" in source, script, or binary from is a danger to your database. Danger to your database comprises a whole list of technical prerequisites, but most importantly a USER to invoke the command (when not authorized to do so). "rm," deCSS, or any other software poses no greate risk to anyone's good than does the fuel in a drunk driver's gas tank. Useless the driver starts the car and DWI's the car, the fuel, nothing is a "clear and present danger". Now if I had a voice operated computer meeting all necessary conditions then one might be justified to seek "prior restraint" to someone speaking the "rm -rf /" command in that context. One could equal imagine scripting a computer to "rm -rf /" upon hearing the phrase "you are enjoined against posting or linking deCSS" and thus seek restraint against speak of that form ;-). However, a "reasonable man" would moot these risks and one wonders whether the courts would entertain such folly. Imagine if I rigged my car to explode if the song "Superfreak" was played and then sought the courts invention (based on a "clear and present danger"). I think I'd be told to disconnect the bomb (and then locked-up for endanger Rick James fans). The courts should tell the MPAA, the RIAA, and the rest that if their business model is rigged to explode in the presence of internet speach that it's time to fix the business model. (c.f. "Buggy Whips") Next some of them should be locked-up for endangering the intellectual commons. This country tried the prohibition of alcohol with disastrous result because of a list of "horribles" and "dangers" it allegdely contributed to. Do we need to relearn this lesson yet again with technology and the copyright? John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 13:16:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10653 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:16:48 -0500 Received: from sgi04-e.std.COM (sgi04-e.std.com [199.172.62.134]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10650 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:16:47 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by sgi04-e.std.COM (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA1218736 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:21:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from [24.218.56.92] (h000a2792745c.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.56.92]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19269 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:21:36 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20010218204034.A21705@eldritchpress.org> References: <20010216235434.11212.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> <20010218204034.A21705@eldritchpress.org> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:21:27 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come down Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 8:40 PM -0500 2/18/2001, Eric Eldred wrote: >... > >one point that needs to be considered fully is what happens >if the s.c. takes the appeal but renders a verdict that is as unfavorable as this one. ... I think we have to be realistic and recognize that both Eldred and DeCSS are uphill battles. There may be a synergy between the two, however. To justify its ruling against Eldred, The Court of Appeals for the DC District had to emphasize that the expression/idea dichotomy and fair use are the constitutionally essential boundary between copyright and the first amendment. The Court's language may be useful to our case because DeCSS, particularly as defined by Judge Kaplan's injunction, is clearly an idea, not an expression and the DCMA demolishes fair use. In general, it may be hard for the courts to give Congress carte blanche to lengthen the duration of copyright monopoly because it's base is narrow and well defined while at the same time allowing Congress to broaden and blur that base. Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 13:22:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10799 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:22:57 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10796 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:22:56 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id KAA20864 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:27:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma019828; Mon, 19 Feb 01 10:25:28 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:27:12 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id LAA24694; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:25:26 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: Dvd-Discuss Subject: [dvd-discuss] FW: Gov't to intervene re: Universal City, et al v. Reimerdes, et al Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:34:29 -0700 Message-ID: <000f01c09aa2$986047c0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 168FBA0A304600-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here is the text of email I sent to the White House and the DoJ. I'm sure I'm now in their "nut case" file. Who else would write about such trivia? I couldn't find a better email address for Mr Ashcroft. If anyone has it a follow-up to Mr. Ashcroft that points out to him that the lower court is ignore his clear statements about the limits of the intent of the DMCA would be forthcoming from me. Feel free to add your voice to mine. Any /. members want to post the original story from Wendy maybe we can /. the Whitehouse and the DoJ on this -- feel free to quote my letter as potential boiler plate (or come up with your own). John Zulauf private netizen -----Original Message----- From: John Zulauf [mailto:john.zulauf@ia.nsc.com] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 11:26 AM To: president@whitehouse.gov Cc: web@usdoj.gov Subject: Gov't to intervene re: Universal City, et al v. Reimerdes, et al Mr. President, cc: Attorney General John Ashcroft I urge you to prevent the Department of Justice from intervening in Universal City, et al v. Reimerdes, et. al. on behalf of and in support of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This law as currently interpreted decimates the intellectual commons as established by the Copyright Clause. The DMCA would overturn over 200 years of the careful balance of copyright law in favor of draconian "self-help" measures available to the copyright holders. Left wounded in the wake of this law are "limited times," "fair use," and "first sale" -- the three most important balancing principles in copyright law. I urge instead for the DoJ to intervene in opposition to any broad reading of the DMCA, or for it's overturn entirely. In support of this position are a large number of diverse groups including news media, academia, librarians, computer scientists, and the public "fair use" community**. Given the broad adverse impact of the DMCA, and the diverse opposition to broad application of this law it would be inappropriate for the administration in intercede on behalf of or in support of such a flawed and destructive law. Thank you for the attention of your staff to this matter, John Zulauf private citizen ** below is a list of Amici briefs opposing the broad interpretation of the DMCA From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 15:21:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12969 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:21:27 -0500 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12966 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:21:26 -0500 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13054 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:26:15 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A918261.75305164@uic.edu> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:30:25 -0600 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the "royalty paid" card yet? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Hartman writes: > I have heard no similar "legitimate use" defense for Napster. Here's one. ( 1) A person purchases an audio-branded CDR. When that audio CDR was imported or manufactured, a royalty payment was made per 17USC1003, 1004, and 1005. Title 17 Chapter 10 has a special definition for "digital audio recording device", (which excludes computer hard drives) yet no special definition for the word "royalty." Hence, one would believe that the word has its common meaning -- that upon paying the "royalty", a user acquires some rights to use some copyrighted material. Probably the copyrighted material owned by the people who are collecting the royalties. That would be fair, right? (2) The RIAA member corporations collect virtually all of the royalties, because 17USC1006 and 1007 are basically designed to make sure that they are the only recipents, and can receive all the money in a lump sum. Now the record labels have been paid. Real money. Money you paid when you purchased the blank CDR. (3a) The purchaser of the CDR borrows a copy of a Metallica CD from his friend and copies it. He is apparently protected by the AHRA. Note that Patel tried to twist 17USC1008 to say that this section merely forbids lawsuits, but does not legalize copying, which remains illegal. An alternative interpretation of Sec 1008 is that what shields end users from infringement lawsuits is not Sec. 1008, but the fact that a person who fills a music CD with copyrighted music has already paid a ROYALTY (the exact word used throughout the law), and receives the ordinary benefit of a royalty -- the right to make a copy. In this context, Sec. 1008 is seen to be an extra measure of consumer protection preventing frivilous lawsuits by record labels. Now here's a potential "legitimate use" of Napster: (3b) The purchaser of the royalty-paid music CDR downloads a copy of a Metallica CD from Napster and burns it. Why shouldn't this activity be protected by the AHRA? After all: o The purchaser paid a royalty o The plaintiffs received the royalty (actual cash) o The purchaser filled the CD with copyrighted music It's just that instead of using a piece of wire to transmit the music between player and recorder, he used Napster. Ah, you might say, but, taking an extremely limited view, someone making a "legal" non-commercial copy under the AHRA would be using AHRA-covered equipment (with SCMS requirements), while Napster specifically uses non-AHRA-covered equipment to make the copy. (Computers, hard drives, and the Internet.) However, note that in the case of in-person direct copying, the copy procedure would involve the use of a piece of wire, which is NOT a "digital audio recording device", and not subject to the AHRA's SCMS restrictions. In the case of Napster, the copy procedure involves the use of computer networking equipment, which is also NOT a digital audio recording device, and also not subject to the AHRA's SCMS restrictions. There's no real difference, and I think that the Napster team really missed the boat by leaving out this very important legitimate use of Napster -- to fill audio CDRs that are ROYALTY-PREPAID via cash payments directed by law (practically) exclusively to the Napster plaintiffs. - John From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 15:40:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA13241 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:40:27 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA13238 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:40:26 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id PAA13039 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:45:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id PAA19260; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:45:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:45:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102192045.PAA19260@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] next up: studios' reply brief and a showing from the government In-Reply-To: <20010219073014.11916.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <4.2.2.20010218181610.01a85820@seltzer.com> <20010219073014.11916.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor writes: > I wonder what this is about. The government becomes a party and > wants to participate in oral argument!?!? Isn't that kind of weird? > Is this the USDOJ, I assume? If so, how odd, because we all thought > Ashcroft would be pro-fair use. Or maybe this is good news -- is > there any hope that the governement might not take the MPAA 's > point of view? Maybe I'm dreaming. On the basis of reading the legislative history, my guess is that Ashcroft would be a potential ally *if* he recognizes that Kaplan's ruling effectively overturns Sony. Odds are, though, that he doesn't. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 21:07:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA17298 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:07:13 -0500 Received: from imo-r08.mx.aol.com (imo-r08.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA17295 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:07:11 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.d7.29011fa (4004) for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:11:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:11:22 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 112 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here's where you're whole argument falls flat: You are asserting that a person saying "Add A to B" and completely equivalent to, say, a Pentium 90 executing the statement "add ax bx" And while it's true that YOUR SAYING "Add A to B" can't harm data, my Pentium executing "add ax bx" can. There is a fundamental difference between saying something, and forcing a computer to do it. You're right in saying "Pour Mountain Dew into the drive bay" is speech. However, programming a robot to do just that isn't. And as long as you keep deluding yourself into think there is no difference, your argument is going to make perfect sense. In a message dated 2/19/01 10:25:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, dvd@lumbercartel.com writes: << On Sunday 18 February 2001 22:09, you wrote: # In a message dated 2/18/01 11:39:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, # dcs@lumbercartel.com writes: # # << You've expanded the meaning of "clear and present danger" to make it cover # everything. Since "clear and present danger" is a key test in First # Amendment # issues, that vitiates the First Amendment. You have a hard sell here. # # Meanwhile, you've still to support your thesis that "Add A to B" isn't speech # by anything other than repeated assertion. >> # I haven't expanded any definition. I've simply said if you look at the # relationship between programs and data, its the same as the relationship # between physical possessions and other physical objects. You've said it, but that doesn't make it true. My saying "Add A to B" is no threat to your data. Further, the law _specifically_ priveledges things that I say, so it's up to you to show that saying "Add A to B" or even saying "rm -rf /" is an exception to that priveledge. # And some of those # possessions we regulate. Weapons, cars, things like that. My Axe can # manipulate my tree in more or less the same way rm can manipulate my database # file. You can swing rm at your database files? Somehow I suspect that there are a few more parts to the process, and those parts just MIGHT comprise legal essentials. # And seeing the data in my database can have value, and is my property, # rm is capable of destroying property. Now my axe isn't government regulated, # nor should rm be. But the fact that it can deprive me of property is # certainly indicative that rm is either not speech, or speech that presents a # "clear and present danger" to the property I keep in my database. I think you need to look at the legal definition of "clear and present danger." In particular at the "present" part. Here's a related case for you: the code for rm consists of a long sequence of statements, and its application to your database requires still more operations. On the other hand, "Pour Mountain Dew into the drive bay" consists of a shorter sequence of statements and its application to your database requires fewer additional operations. So, by your argument, the statement "pour Mountain Dew into the drive bay" also constitutes a "clear and present danger" to your valuable data and therefore is exempted from First Amendment protections. >> From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 21:07:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA17290 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:07:08 -0500 Received: from dfawcus-laptop.cisco.com (isdn-nat-1.cisco.com [192.82.152.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA17287 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:07:04 -0500 Received: (qmail 1123 invoked by uid 69022); 20 Feb 2001 02:12:13 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:11:51 +0000 From: Derek Fawcus To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Curious - Copyright status of 'Citizen Kane' Message-ID: <20010220021151.A1116@dfawcus-gw-home.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I was just watching Citizen Kane on DVD tonight, and noticed that it was distributed through Universal, from the packaging style I'd thought it was one of those distributed through Polygram. This is a Region 2 DVD, and it is region restricted. However being curious, and checking I noticed that it doesn't employ CSS. This raised the question of the copyright status of the film. The film contains a copyright notice of 1941 (MCMXLI) to RKO Radio Pictures Inc (the original makers). This is also repeated on the packaging, together with a 1999 copyright on the packaging design in favour of Universal Pictures (UK) Ltd. Assuming that this company is related to the Universal Studios that is associated with the MPAA - then why is this DVD not CSS coded? Is the film by any chance copyright expired? I ask since (as I understand it), pre 1976 the US has copyright rules different to those in force now. DF From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 21:24:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA18518 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:24:31 -0500 Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA18515 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:24:25 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.99.10dfebfd (4004) for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:27:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <99.10dfebfd.27c33029@cs.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:27:53 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 112 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In a message dated 2/19/01 11:38:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, moseng@mninter.net writes: << Sounds like you're under the same misconception as the MPAA that information == property. >> I'm not claiming the information stored within the files is my property. I'm claiming the physical storage medium, namely the parts of my hard drive where that file are stored, and the computer that the file is stored on are my property, and that executing "rm database.db" is altering my property in such a way as to make it unusuable (assuming it was a dedicated database server) Just like owning a copy of "Starry Night" doesn't mean I own all of the information stored within the painting, but I do own that physical copy, and damaging it results in a loss of property. <> No, it was composed of receipts... unless you think that little peice of paper you get when you go grocery shopping is merely an idea. They keep it on paper, we keep it on silicon. There's no difference other than the storage media. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 21:42:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA18718 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:42:08 -0500 Received: from imo-r19.mx.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA18715 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:42:07 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.49.7a39e3d (4004) for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:46:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <49.7a39e3d.27c3347a@cs.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:46:18 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 112 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In a message dated 2/19/01 12:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, johnzu@ia.nsc.com writes: The same prerequisties apply to a man who wants to set a house of fire. you need: a USER to perform the action (your d) access to the building (your a and b) and an incendiary device to set the fire with (your c*) Like it or not, software is more analogous to physical tools than you seem to be willing to admit. Why do you think we call DFAs, NFAs, and all those other computational models "Machines"? Because they DO things! << 2) "rm -rf /" is itself neither necessary nor sufficient to damage even a local copy of a database. In order for sufficiency one needs (a) access to a data entry point on the system (b) access to an account with sufficient permissions to damage the database files (c) access to a system for which "rm -rf /" operates as it does in Posix (unless you have a Posix "rm" in your path on a MS operating system all your in danger of is producing a unintelligible error message) (c.1) an executable compatible with the processor and run-time environment for "rm" or for a script interpreter (one could write rm in Perl -- in Latin) and the need script. (c.2) the presence of that command in the command path (or it's equivalent) (d) a user to enter the command >> From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 21:41:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA18707 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:41:36 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA18702 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:41:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA09372 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:45:55 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:45:54 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think that you're making a bad assumption here. You are claiming that the execution of software is necessarily a clear and present danger. Even setting that aside (don't worry, we'll get back to it) you are ALSO claiming that the creation, distribution and posession of software is a clear and present danger. I disagree. Software that is resident on a computer but is not executing is totally inert. Ultimately (barring cats walking on the keyboard, etc.) software does not run by itself. A human being has to cause it to be executed. That's your intent. That's what you want. Without that, you can say "add ax bx" all you like, but nothing's going to happen. If it does, you'd better run for the hills b/c the computers are going to wipe out humanity, doncha know? Why should it be tolerable or desirable to ban all speech - which is what you're doing, as computers will inevitably be able to understand it all - because it has the potential to do things? If Alice says "I wish the government were overthrown," that's legal. She's not doing it right here and now, she's not presenting an immediate threat of treason, and there's no significant intent. If Bob 9000 interprets this as a command, and causes it to happen, I contend that it is still legal, unless she deliberately planned for Bob 9000 to do that. Or someone else did, in which case they're to blame. I am more concerned with the ruling that has to be made on a case by case basis, that determines if she had that intent and was immediately dangerous. We do this in order to preserve our freedom, always under assault by, among others, those claiming an interest in safety. (either truthfully or just to acquire power) Certainly if safety for the state without an examination of the individual circumstances were thought desirable by the framers, we would not have virtually any of the amendments, and the government would have considerably expanded powers. We don't. It is of importance, true, but not so much that freedom must suffer for security, and never vice versa. Of course, if that were true, we'd be living in a police state. And that's only a good thing for the police, no matter how much the people stuck in it might enjoy it. And when the rulings are made, the judges need to decide: were the D's intending harm? Did they do harm? Were they even capable of harm? DeCSS, I think, is not harmful. Find someone who has DeCSS, commercial grade DVD presses, crates of keepcases and xeroxed inserts and you start to have better grounds for prosecuting them. A personal DVD library, a hacked up Linux box and DeCSS are not even in the same league. On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 Consilgere@cs.com wrote: > > Here's where you're whole argument falls flat: You are asserting that a > person saying "Add A to B" and completely equivalent to, say, a Pentium 90 > executing the statement "add ax bx" And while it's true that YOUR SAYING "Add > A to B" can't harm data, my Pentium executing "add ax bx" can. There is a > fundamental difference between saying something, and forcing a computer to do > it. You're right in saying "Pour Mountain Dew into the drive bay" is speech. > However, programming a robot to do just that isn't. And as long as you keep > deluding yourself into think there is no difference, your argument is going > to make perfect sense. > > In a message dated 2/19/01 10:25:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, > dvd@lumbercartel.com writes: > > << On Sunday 18 February 2001 22:09, you wrote: > # In a message dated 2/18/01 11:39:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, > # dcs@lumbercartel.com writes: > # > # << You've expanded the meaning of "clear and present danger" to make it > cover > # everything. Since "clear and present danger" is a key test in First > # Amendment > # issues, that vitiates the First Amendment. You have a hard sell here. > # > # Meanwhile, you've still to support your thesis that "Add A to B" isn't > speech > # by anything other than repeated assertion. >> > # I haven't expanded any definition. I've simply said if you look at the > # relationship between programs and data, its the same as the relationship > # between physical possessions and other physical objects. > > You've said it, but that doesn't make it true. My saying "Add A to B" > is no threat to your data. Further, the law _specifically_ priveledges > things that I say, so it's up to you to show that saying "Add A to B" or > even saying "rm -rf /" is an exception to that priveledge. > > # > And some of those > # possessions we regulate. Weapons, cars, things like that. My Axe can > # manipulate my tree in more or less the same way rm can manipulate my > database > # file. > > You can swing rm at your database files? Somehow I suspect that there are > a few more parts to the process, and those parts just MIGHT comprise legal > essentials. > > # And seeing the data in my database can have value, and is my > property, > # rm is capable of destroying property. Now my axe isn't government > regulated, > # nor should rm be. But the fact that it can deprive me of property is > # certainly indicative that rm is either not speech, or speech that presents > a > # "clear and present danger" to the property I keep in my database. > > I think you need to look at the legal definition of "clear and present > danger." > In particular at the "present" part. > > Here's a related case for you: the code for rm consists of a long sequence > of statements, and its application to your database requires still more > operations. > On the other hand, "Pour Mountain Dew into the drive bay" consists of a > shorter sequence of statements and its application to your database requires > fewer additional operations. So, by your argument, the statement "pour > Mountain Dew into the drive bay" also constitutes a "clear and present > danger" to your valuable data and therefore is exempted from First Amendment > protections. > >> > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 22:02:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA19153 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:02:04 -0500 Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA19150 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:02:02 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.11.10040a08 (4004) for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:06:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <11.10040a08.27c33928@cs.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:06:16 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 112 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In a message dated 2/19/01 9:48:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, cpt@gryphon.auspice.net writes: << If Bob 9000 interprets this (Alice saying "I want the government to be overthrown") as a command, and causes it to happen, I contend that it is still legal, unless she deliberately planned for Bob 9000 to do that. Or someone else did, in which case they're to blame. >> You can contend that all you want, but if it is speech (which I don't concede), Alice has incited Imminent Lawless Action. And I would submit to you that if Alice had shouted fire in a crowded theatre with the intent of saving everyone's lives, she would still be legally responsible for the deaths that followed in the panic that ensued. And you seem to be forgetting that we outlaw things all the time that can't act atuonomously: I can't own a patriot missile... and that needs a "user" to "execute" it. Why wouldn't the same concept apply to that? Arms are protected by the Constitution too... From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 22:15:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA19310 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:15:24 -0500 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA19307 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:15:21 -0500 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA31844 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:19:06 -0600 Message-ID: <3A91E224.C64E888C@mninter.net> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:19:00 -0600 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? References: <99.10dfebfd.27c33029@cs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > No, it was composed of receipts... unless you think that little > peice of paper you get when you go grocery shopping is merely an > idea. I had a long response to this all typed out, but thank my lucky stars my computer crashed. Maybe I should slap an injunction on Microsoft from ever again having Windows execute that errant op code, it having destroyed my email. In the mean time, I humbly recommend we abandon this line of argument because nobody will be convinced, and it's not fruitful. I'm rarely one to suggest curtailing a discussion, but I don't think debating the philosophy of speech will advance our agenda (now). It seems to me the current battles are at a much higher level of abstraction. -- moseng@mninter.net I use PGP 6.5.3 -- http://www.underwhelm.org/pgp From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 19 23:25:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA19889 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:25:51 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA19884 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:25:38 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA23285 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:31:46 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:31:41 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Curious - Copyright status of 'Citizen Kane' Message-ID: <20010219233141.E22779@eldritchpress.org> References: <20010220021151.A1116@dfawcus-gw-home.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010220021151.A1116@dfawcus-gw-home.cisco.com>; from dfawcus@cisco.com on Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:11:51AM +0000 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:11:51AM +0000, Derek Fawcus wrote: > I was just watching Citizen Kane on DVD tonight, and noticed that it was > distributed through Universal, from the packaging style I'd thought it > was one of those distributed through Polygram. > > This is a Region 2 DVD, and it is region restricted. However being curious, > and checking I noticed that it doesn't employ CSS. This raised the question > of the copyright status of the film. > > The film contains a copyright notice of 1941 (MCMXLI) to RKO Radio Pictures > Inc (the original makers). This is also repeated on the packaging, together > with a 1999 copyright on the packaging design in favour of Universal Pictures > (UK) Ltd. Assuming that this company is related to the Universal Studios > that is associated with the MPAA - then why is this DVD not CSS coded? I doubt that its CSS encoding status has anything to do with its copyright status. Works in the public domain have been encrypted and thus you are technically prevented from revealing any technique to decrypt them, if doing so allows copyrighted works to be decrypted the same way. And if the film is indeed under copyright, CSS is not necessary to protect it any further. > Is the film by any chance copyright expired? I ask since (as I understand it), > pre 1976 the US has copyright rules different to those in force now. I don't know about this particular film for sure, but you can check--if it is worth your time. The new book, "The Public Domain," by Stephen Fishman, available in PDF form for sale from http://www.nolo.com, or in bookstores, has a chapter on film copyrights. It points to another book, "The Film Superlist: 20,000 Motion Pictures in the Public Domain," by Johnny Minus and William Storm Hale (Seven Arts Press). The authors of this latter book (expensive and maybe no longer in print) went through the Copyright Office records to determine renewal status; you can go to a big library that has the Catalog of Copyright Entries and look up renewals for yourself as well. You have to check the years around 28 years after the copyright date. According to Fishman, the major Hollywood studios, including RKO, were pretty scrupulous about renewing copyright in films. But "they sometimes made mistakes. For example, MGM missed renewing some films released in 1950 and Universal did not renew 11 features copyrighted during the summer of 1938." Fishman lists some noted films that were not renewed and so have entered the public domain: "A Star Is Born," (1937); "The General," (1927); "The Gold Rush," (1925); "McClintock," (1963); "Of Human Bondage," (1934); "Nothing Sacred," (1937). Perhaps one third of all films produced in the U.S. between 1912 and 1939 were not renewed, according to Fishman. As well, thousands of foreign films entered the public domain before 1996, but U.S. copyright was restored on them at that point. I suspect that "Citizen Kane" was renewed and is under copyright. The copyright renewal date ought to appear on the print. ('The Night of the Living Dead' is one film that was put out without a copyright notice, and thus entered the public domain immediately! And 'Steamboat Willie,' the first Mickey Mouse film, according to one person, was originally issued without a valid copyright notice.) There are other complications even if the film itself has gone into the public domain. Fishman discusses the saga of "It's a Wonderful Life," likely technically in the public domain, but everyone is afraid of a lawsuit that claims it is based on a short story that is still under copyright, and so television stations no longer show it at Christmas time without paying royalties. I seem to remember that removing a copyright notice is also a violation of the DMCA--I don't know if the claim has to be valid in order to have that section invoked. I would like to see the Internet Movie Archive start publishing or linking to these public domain films from Hollywood. So far they have mostly films that have always been in the public domain because they were training films and the like. Not so interesting. Meanwhile, there must be thousands of films in cans in somebody's basement that are rotting away, in the public domain, but not available on the Internet; or, copyrighted by some long-bankrupt studio whom nobody can locate to get permission to publish. Hollywood studios are not so interested in producing DVDs for these films, but they can make tons of money on films such as 'Citizen Kane,' whether or not they are under copyright (or encrypted). There is plenty of work for us to do to make the others more accessible, and the Internet reduces the cost of doing so to a point where it is practical to do so for just one viewer. For years now I too have been obsessed with the copyright status of every work I pick up in a bookstore or library. I have to think, can I scan this book, is it in the public domain and interesting enough? Sounds like some of us are doing that with movies now, too. Good. But I have enough to do with books, so I pass the torch to you now. Just remember: Rosebud. -- nom:"Eric" Eric Eldred Eldritch Press mailto:Eldred@EldritchPress.org vCard3.0:http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 05:17:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA22899 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 05:17:04 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA22894 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 05:17:01 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27319; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:21:42 GMT Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:21:42 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Curious - Copyright status of 'Citizen Kane' To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <20010220021151.A1116@dfawcus-gw-home.cisco.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > I was just watching Citizen Kane on DVD tonight, and noticed that it was > distributed through Universal, from the packaging style I'd thought it > was one of those distributed through Polygram. > > This is a Region 2 DVD, and it is region restricted. However being curious, > and checking I noticed that it doesn't employ CSS. This raised the question > of the copyright status of the film. > There's no reason for any link between copyright status and whether or not CSS is used on the DVD! A quick look at http://www.videolan.org/freedvd.html reveals that (amongst other things) the region 2 "Dances with Wolves" and "Strange Days" are likewise not CSS encoded. I wonder if the MPAA appeal can somehow use this fact that the main studios sometimes randomly don't use CSS? It would seem to me that if (as claimed) CSS encryption is "vital" to the studios' survival (:-)) then they ought to be using it universally. There's even a claim on http://www.videolan.org/freedvd.html that "Mission Impossible II" (Region *1*) is not CSS encoded! Maybe the studios themselves are starting to suspect that they're being ripped off by DVD-CCA and are running some unadvertised tests to see if they really do suffer piracy any worse on their CSS-encrypted titles than on the others? -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 10:56:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA26075 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:56:17 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA26072 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:56:13 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:00:40 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come down To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:00:38 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/20/2001 08:00:40 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'm afraid so.....I always thought Congress could not make a law retroactive... Bryan Taylor To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has arvard.edu come down 02/16/01 04:02 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss The dissent understands the mathematical concept of proof by induction. The majority does not. "Retroactive Extention is allowed" is MATHEMATICALLY equivalent to "unlimited duration is allowed". --- Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > Skip the decision and read the dissent > > " The majority acknowledges that "[i]f the Congress were to make copyright > protection permanent, then it surely would exceed the power > conferred upon it by the Copyright Clause." Maj. Op. at 10. > However, there is no apparent substantive distinction be- > tween permanent protection and permanently available au- > thority to extend originally limited protection. The Congress > that can extend the protection of an existing work from 100 > years to 120 years; can extend that protection from 120 years > to 140; and from 140 to 200; and from 200 to 300; and in > effect can accomplish precisely what the majority admits it > cannot do directly. This, in my view, exceeds the proper > understanding of enumerated powers reflected in the Lopez > principle of requiring some definable stopping point." > > Wonderful argument! It's the old adherence to the letter of the law and > violation of its spirit. > > "Extending existing copy-rights is not promoting useful arts, nor is it > securing exclusiv- > ity for a limited time." > > TO THE POINT! > > > > > > > Joshua Stratton > > To: > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: > [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come > arvard.edu down > > > > > > 02/16/01 12:00 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200102/99-5430a.txt > > reading it now, but i hear it's not all that good > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 11:03:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26215 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:03:10 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26212 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:03:04 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:06:55 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:06:52 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/20/2001 08:06:55 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Do you keep backups? Do you have adequate access control? Physical and remote? Do you have access control for those record? Did you put protections on them? The bottom line is that if you want to protect your records, you don't connect them to the internet. That's a pragmatic approach. Consilgere@cs.com Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? 02/16/01 05:17 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss In a message dated 2/16/01 5:59:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: << So don't let anybody connect to your computer from the internet that has all your important records on it! You don't put your file cabinets out on the street do you? If I leave my car in my drive way with the keys on the drivers seat and someone takes it, it's my fault. I grant you that. But that doesn't make the car legally any less stolen. to translate: if I leave an important database on a machine, and someone comes by and erases it, we can assign blame all we want. That doesn't change the fact that a crime has been committed. Property has been damaged. There's your "clear and present danger. " From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 11:11:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26370 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:11:07 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26367 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:11:02 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:15:34 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:15:31 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/20/2001 08:15:34 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu You should look at a few of the "software patents".....nonsensical drivel. Analytical Graphics Inc has a couple. One is nothing more than a program that does what you can read in a textbook on communications theory (I know because I was a minor contributor to B. Sklar's book on digital communications). Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? 02/16/01 06:51 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter D. Junger [mailto:junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu] ... > > Leland Ray writes: > > : That software is a device is well settled under US law. The > only way to > : change that will be by an act of Congress. > > What is your authority for this remarkable proposition, even > if you are > just talking about patents? > Well ... for one thing, is it not the case that patents only apply to devices? And since there have been software patents issued ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 11:14:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26652 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:14:21 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26649 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:14:19 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:17:21 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:17:19 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/20/2001 08:17:21 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'm afraid you are right there. A lot of people want to take the most versatile tool ever developed and dumb it down to a fancy applicance...under their control and not mine. That pisses me off! Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! 02/16/01 06:51 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom [mailto:tom@lemuria.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 1:57 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Whoops! They did it again! > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:23:49AM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > > > well, your soundcard may allow you to make high-quality > copies (i.e. > > > lossless digital output). now we can't allow that, can we? > > > > C:\> COPY VALUABLESOUND.WAV COPIEDSOUND.WAV > > > > What does the soundcard have to do with that? > > oh, nothing. a different layer of the OS will make sure that > you (soon) > can't do that, either - you filthy music pirate. ;-/ > Wunnerful. An OS that refuses to do what you tell it to do, even if it might be legal because it might be illegal in _some_ circumstances. This _is_ CSS all over again. Anything we can do to head this one off at the pass? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 11:22:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27049 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:22:10 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27041 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:22:08 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:25:56 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:25:54 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/20/2001 08:25:56 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu How do you handle the mix of 1s and 2s? The whole regional coding is a contraint on World trade (where's the WIPO, WTO when you need them? Hypocrits!). But the idea that I BUY a player that I have to pay someone to change the regional coding and then pay them to reset it offends me. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? 02/17/01 01:03 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:41:07PM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > Exactly. They haven't really hurt the real pirates, but > they have messed things up for legitimate users. oh, yes! *watching* DVDs on windos, with "legit" players is a pain in the a**. first, (of course) they crash randomly. fortunately rarely during playback, but often when scanning the DVD (or maybe during CSS negotiation?). then, there's this darn region coding. my DVD library is a mix of region 1 and 2. imagine my joys. in short, I don't think I have EVER watched a DVD on windos without some hassle, such as rebooting or switching the region. on the other side, I got that vlc Linux player (which uses DeCSS) to run last week, and playing a DVD on that is as simple as putting it in the drive and starting the program. it doesn't even CARE for regions, much less force me to change them only limited times. once again, the non-official solution is the better one. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 11:26:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27426 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:26:50 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [209.98.6.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27423 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:26:47 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [163.228.19.198]) by tneu.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 926DB37A for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 04:37:33 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 04:37:33 -0600 (CST) From: tim To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come down In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > I'm afraid so.....I always thought Congress could not make a law > retroactive... > That's a very, very interesting point. Isn't the copyright extension, kindof like going after people for drinking prior to prohibition, after the law was passed? (i.e. violating a law that wasn't even in existance at the time of the "offense"?) I wonder if there are any cases of people being sued for using public domain works prior to them being yanked back under copyright. One could argue that they were only bound by the law at the time of the publication of the work, which granted 28 years... To say otherwise is to say that congress could tomorrow pass a law banning some thing, and then could arrest people for previously doing that thing, even though the law was not passed then. This concept is ridiculous in criminal law - why should it not be the same in copyright law? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- What the president of the Motion Picture Association of America says about taking away your constitutional rights: "I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one of these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw out reverse engineering; he threw out linking." - Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "If you don't have the freedom to use what you / ' ) ) own - then you do not own anything." / o ______ / / _ . . No apologies to Jack Valenti or the MPAA / <_/ / / < / (_; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:37:37 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id IAA07759 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:42:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma004682; Tue, 20 Feb 01 08:34:39 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:36:24 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id JAA20123; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:34:36 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardyet? Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:43:05 -0700 Message-ID: <001d01c09b5c$32d21860$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 168C428D112209-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Consilgere Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 7:11 PM > Here's where you're whole argument falls flat: > You are asserting that a person saying "Add A > to B" and completely equivalent to, say, a > Pentium 90 executing the statement "add ax bx" You've changed modality here from expression to execution. Note that my reading "add ax bx" in my email from you didn't magical invoke my Pentium to add anything. Even were it in the context of a valid executable for my O/S and processor, it would have done nothing without my invoking that code (see earlier mail for the "virus" tangent). There is no difference from the standpoint of writing, copying, storing, or publishing (typical First Amendment protected activities) between "Add A to B" and "add ax bx". Now if a person encountering "Add A to B" (with an English language runtime environment) and performs that action or a Pentium (again with approprite environment and context) encounter "add ax bx" and performs that operation then we have "action" or "conduct". Note that it is the person performing the add or the pentium performing the add. It is true that for convenience we have made it appear as if the "code" is running by seemlessly hiding the details of the processor. But it is clearly the processor (a real, tangible, object) running (changing physical, electrical state over time) and processing a set of instructions (mere writing--though instructive and imperative). If I pour Mt. Dew into your disk drive based on an imperative statement, it is I (me?) not the statement pouring the lime green, sticky liquid. If I write a program to control a robot to pour Mt. Dew onto your disk drive, the code is mere instruction. The robot does all the work -- and finally, a human has to commit some action to cause the robot to execute those instructions. > There is a fundamental difference between saying > something, and forcing a computer to do it. Correct. But the mere exsistence of code forces a computer to do nothing. A user must command the computer to execute some block of code. The user actually invoking command is the danger, not underlying code, or even the text of the command. Typing "rm -rf /" won't affect your hard disk (even meeting all other prerequisites) until the user presses "enter". Again the action of the user lies entirely as the proximate cause. We don't convict the proverbial blunt object for murder, we convict the wielder of that object. > You're right in saying "Pour Mountain Dew into the drive > bay" is speech. However, programming a robot to do just > that isn't. Break that sentence in two parts. "Programming a robot" this is creation of a set of instructions. This does not and cannot damage anything by itself. While necessary it isn't sufficient. Going to a firing range maybe be necessary to become an asassin, but it isn't sufficient. "to do just that" You skipped an important step --commiting the robot to it destructive course by the execution of that code. One must position the robot in an appropriate starting position, provide a can of Mt. Dew (assume robot buildable today), and even gain physical access to the hard drive (same assumption). Even assuming a Terminator-style high function robot, you have to tell it to do the thing you are instructing it to do. A "confirm" or "commit" step -- again by a controlling user. > And as long as you keep deluding yourself into > think there is no difference, your argument is > going to make perfect sense. As long as you ignore that the code does nothing, only the processor does, and that only happens when the user says "go" then you will see a set of instruction as actually functional, rather than potentially functional. I know it's hard to see outside the computer-science "the code does the work" worldview, but it just isn't reality. "add ax bx" by itself does no more than "Add a to b." Concluding otherwise results in the logical, frightening precept as the bright line test to preclude first ammendment protection -- "speech is no longer speech if a computer can understand or execute it." Once we say that, we facing a world of shrinking freedoms as the computers are gaining more capacity to understand everyday. John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 11:42:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28147 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:42:41 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28144 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:42:39 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:46:41 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Does DMCA violate the constitution? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:46:38 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/20/2001 08:46:40 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu You don't legilate greed. You just don't let the greedy people set up how things run. That's the problem that we are facing here. A bunch of greedy people have spent the last 15 years messing up the copyrights and patents system. As for limiting royalties, that's not going to work nor is it desireable. WHy shouldn't they have all the benefit they can derive from it. Lets limit the TERM that they can derive it. 20yrs for patents is more than enough. I'd like to roll back the copyright limits to what they were set in 1909. At least they had the sense to STUDY and discuss it rather than just taking their PAC money (ironic too because that was the time of Tammeny hall and "honest graft") Stephen Kawamoto To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Does DMCA violate the arvard.edu constitution? 02/17/01 09:40 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss so, how do we legislate greed? probably by limiting how much royalty can be charge on copyrighted material. > ------------ Begin Original ------------ > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Does DMCA violate the constitution? > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:24:53 -0800 > > > That's been the argument Eric and several others have been making for some > time....I don't think you have to be a lawyer to make it....only to > obfuscate its simplicity with precedents and legal phraseology. It's what > any change to the copyright and patent system must address before that > change is made. It's what hasn't been addressed with the SonnyBono > copyright extension act and the DMCA. The former has created a virtual > forever since the period is longer than the lifetimes of creators and > ability of society and the governement [gov= WE THE PEOPLE here] to > administer it (that pragmatic aspect is somethign that Mary Bono and Jack > Valenti don't see. Their pitifully small minds only see the gold flowing > into their greedly little hands.). The DMCA can create an actual forever. > The reading or Egyption hieroglyphs as a lost art for thousands of years > until they were decipered in the early 19th century and then only because > of a tablet that had the same thing in three languages on it. Strong > encryption will preclude that. > > > > "Reginald Joiner" > To: > Sent by: cc: > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Does DMCA violate the > arvard.edu constitution? > > > 02/15/01 12:27 AM > Please respond to > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > I am not a lawyer, but according to this link... the constitution provides > a > limited time period wherein a work may remain the exclusive property of an > entity; thereafter the material becomes part of the public domain. The > provisions of the DMCA effectively allow the copyright holder the exclusive > right to the material FOREVER. Isn't that inherently a violation of the > constitutional requirement that the material become part of the public > domain after a limited time period. NOTE: That limited time period thing > is > ugly...But it does not say forever. > > My personal conclusion is that the law is illegal since makes the material > forever out of the public domain by the statuary construction of the DMCA. > > My two cents... > > http://www.cssfaq.org/dvd-discuss-faq.html#ss2.4.1 > > > > > > > > ------------ End Original ------------ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 11:47:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28460 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:47:07 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28455 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:47:00 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:49:03 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:49:02 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/20/2001 08:49:03 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Isn't the whole judicial system a hoot?.,....I'm not laughing "Karee Swift" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speech card y et? 02/18/01 12:36 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss > That "ONLY" is important. Yes, it is almost certain that it will > be used for copyright infringement. But it can certainly be (and > has been) shown that substantial non-infringing uses exist. > Oh of course. And Judge Kaplan's rough estimation of those uses was what I consider a legal shrug. He acknowledged that they existed, and acknowledged that there would be a substantial number who would be harmed by them, and then completely and utterly wrote the fair use arguments off. REpeatedly. > > be used for copyright infringement, and it will only be used to hurt > > revenue. As far as your arguement of 'you can't stop people > > from using > > DeCSS' -- Well, thats the point isn't it? Judge Kaplan specifically > > went after 2600, to stop many of those entities who were using it. > IF > > they control how much information gets out, and kill the information > > source, the argument (il)logically goes that they control the use. > > And that's what they can't do. The courts, that is. It's against > the law to do what they did. > Not to Kaplan. He figures its very much in the law, ala the DMCA. Its only truly against the law if a higher court takes this case up and finds it so.. Isn't the whole judicial system a hoot? ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 11:46:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28447 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:46:43 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28444 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:46:36 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id IAA11771 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:51:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma010178; Tue, 20 Feb 01 08:47:25 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:49:10 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id JAA21620; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:47:23 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:55:52 -0700 Message-ID: <001e01c09b5d$fbaf3000$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <49.7a39e3d.27c3347a@cs.com> Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 168C7F8C115319-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Consilgere Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 7:46 PM > > a USER to perform the action (your d) > access to the building (your a and b) > and an incendiary device to set the fire with (your c*) Two points. First, a can of gasoline, or other common household products (fumigation smoke bombs) etc all **can** function as incendiary devices > > Like it or not, software is more analogous to physical tools than > you seem to be willing to admit. > Why do you think we call DFAs, NFAs, and all those > other computational models "Machines"? Because they DO things! No. We abstract away the details of the processor to **imagine** that they do things. They (as abstract instructions) act only upon other abstractions (the state of the abstract machine, etc.). It's a convenient simplifying assuming that the code itself is running -- the processor is running the code. The only real thing that does anything in a computer is the silicon itself. Electrons moving from here to there, charges, currents, inductions -- all real physical things. For a robot driven by some FA, the voltage to the stepper motor has to change. The code doesn't do that, the electronics do. In a Jicard loom, what weaves the cloth, the pattern card or the loom? Clearly the loom. We've never really gotten that far beyond the loom. I've written code for 25 years now. It never did anything by itself. Whether double-clicking the icon, or runing an 029 job deck -- somehow I had to convince some chunk of electronics to listen to my idea of how to spend a few time slices. The code never did it itself. John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 11:55:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28716 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:55:54 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28713 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:55:52 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:54:51 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LiViD releases OMS To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:54:49 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/20/2001 08:54:50 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes. Kaplan seems to have it in his head that the computer is just an applicance that should be serviced by licensed technicians....the man operates on a VOODOO level in his head. "Karee Swift" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LiViD releases OMS arvard.edu 02/18/01 12:43 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss ---- Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Ole Craig wrote: > > Hope I'm not stealing anyone's list-thunder, but LiViD has > > announced an official release of the Open Media System. > > > > http://www.linuxvideo.org/oms/ > > I couldn't immediately tell what their approach to CSS protected DVD's > is. Does > anybody know? Are they using css-cat, css-auth, etc..., or do they > have > replacements. > > I'm rather surprised that the reverse engineering exception wasn't > really > argued heavily (if at all) on appeal. After all, here is the product. > It > decrypts to interoperate, it proves 1201(f), end of story. > It wasn't really argued (At least this is what I read from the initial argument) b/c the Judge effectively threw it out on 2 grounds: 1) They initially had this set up to run in windows. Windows already has a number of DVD readers and therefore, DeCSS isn't necessary. and 2) Linux, while that was the central point of development, was also coming out (or along with) 2 DVD readers of their own. All being produced legally by that schemey process that the MPAA and CCA has going on. PFT. > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 12:00:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28797 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:00:33 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28792 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:00:26 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:04:06 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:04:05 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/20/2001 09:04:06 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Programmers too it would seem..... "D. C. Sessions" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speech card yet? 02/18/01 04:34 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Friday 16 February 2001 18:15, you wrote: # In a message dated 2/16/01 5:59:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, # Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: # # << So don't let anybody connect to your computer from the internet that has # all your important records on it! You don't put your file cabinets out on # the street do you? # # If I leave my car in my drive way with the keys on the drivers seat and # someone takes it, it's my fault. I grant you that. But that doesn't make # the car legally any less stolen. # # to translate: # # if I leave an important database on a machine, and someone comes by and # erases it, we can assign blame all we want. That doesn't change the fact # that a crime has been committed. Property has been damaged. There's your # "clear and present danger. " OK, so the Internet constitutes a clear and present danger. Ban it. Or were you suggesting that rm constitutes a clear and present danger? (Same conclusion.) -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 12:05:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28943 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:05:00 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28939 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:04:57 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:09:00 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:08:58 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/20/2001 09:09:00 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Nobody likes these measures but these are dangerous times." "Be careful Mr. Dickinson. Those who trade freedom for temporary security deserve neither freedom or security" B. Franklin to J.Dickinson Philadelphia 1776 "D. C. Sessions" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speech card yet? 02/18/01 08:41 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Sunday 18 February 2001 19:26, you wrote: # In a message dated 2/18/01 7:33:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, # dcs@lumbercartel.com writes: # # << OK, so the Internet constitutes a clear and present danger. Ban it. # Or were you suggesting that rm constitutes a clear and present danger? # (Same conclusion.) >> # Yes, rm does constitute a "clear and present danger." But we make exceptions # for certain things that do. You can legally own a chainsaw, they certainly # threaten people's safety. You can legally own a hunting rifle... just # because software isn't speech doesn't mean it has no protection. You've expanded the meaning of "clear and present danger" to make it cover everything. Since "clear and present danger" is a key test in First Amendment issues, that vitiates the First Amendment. You have a hard sell here. Meanwhile, you've still to support your thesis that "Add A to B" isn't speech by anything other than repeated assertion. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 12:12:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29117 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:12:51 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA29114 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:12:44 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:16:25 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has come down To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:16:23 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/20/2001 09:16:25 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Agreed. Just as the MPAA etc have used a multi-prong approach a multiprong "counter attack is needed" If they loose the copyright extension, they still can fall back on encryption and the DMCA. If they loose the DMCA, they can fall back on copyright extension and spend more $$$ to get them extended ad nauseum. "Arnold G. Reinhold" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno has arvard.edu come down 02/19/01 10:38 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 8:40 PM -0500 2/18/2001, Eric Eldred wrote: >... > >one point that needs to be considered fully is what happens >if the s.c. takes the appeal but renders a verdict that is as unfavorable as this one. ... I think we have to be realistic and recognize that both Eldred and DeCSS are uphill battles. There may be a synergy between the two, however. To justify its ruling against Eldred, The Court of Appeals for the DC District had to emphasize that the expression/idea dichotomy and fair use are the constitutionally essential boundary between copyright and the first amendment. The Court's language may be useful to our case because DeCSS, particularly as defined by Judge Kaplan's injunction, is clearly an idea, not an expression and the DCMA demolishes fair use. In general, it may be hard for the courts to give Congress carte blanche to lengthen the duration of copyright monopoly because it's base is narrow and well defined while at the same time allowing Congress to broaden and blur that base. Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 12:16:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29275 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:16:35 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA29272 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:16:29 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:20:29 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:20:28 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/20/2001 09:20:29 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu All of this comes back to it's no the tool. It's the user of it. Consilgere@cs.com Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardyet? 02/19/01 06:48 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss In a message dated 2/19/01 12:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, johnzu@ia.nsc.com writes: The same prerequisties apply to a man who wants to set a house of fire. you need: a USER to perform the action (your d) access to the building (your a and b) and an incendiary device to set the fire with (your c*) Like it or not, software is more analogous to physical tools than you seem to be willing to admit. Why do you think we call DFAs, NFAs, and all those other computational models "Machines"? Because they DO things! << 2) "rm -rf /" is itself neither necessary nor sufficient to damage even a local copy of a database. In order for sufficiency one needs (a) access to a data entry point on the system (b) access to an account with sufficient permissions to damage the database files (c) access to a system for which "rm -rf /" operates as it does in Posix (unless you have a Posix "rm" in your path on a MS operating system all your in danger of is producing a unintelligible error message) (c.1) an executable compatible with the processor and run-time environment for "rm" or for a script interpreter (one could write rm in Perl -- in Latin) and the need script. (c.2) the presence of that command in the command path (or it's equivalent) (d) a user to enter the command >> From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 12:52:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29973 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:52:59 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA29968 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:52:56 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3EE2D5F7.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.247]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7494127ABB for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:52:10 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2DC73175195; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:54:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:54:54 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Message-ID: <20010220185453.A10508@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:25:54AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:25:54AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > How do you handle the mix of 1s and 2s? by circumventing it. good thing I'm not an american, isn't it? :)) there's lots of software out there that will reset the "counter" of your favorite software player. so every couple DVDs, I reset it to 5. > The whole regional coding is a > contraint on World trade (where's the WIPO, WTO when you need them? > Hypocrits!). you are seemingly quite mistaken on the actual purpose of these organisations. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 13:15:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30496 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:15:04 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA30489 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:14:58 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:19:11 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:19:09 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/20/2001 10:19:10 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu And American's pride themselves on fighting city hall! WRT to WIPO, WTO...no I know exactly what they are for and it's certainly not a WORLD view. Like many organizations based upon a few limited ideas it believes that it actually understands what's going on and what things should be-an intellectual fallacy. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? 02/20/01 10:08 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:25:54AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > How do you handle the mix of 1s and 2s? by circumventing it. good thing I'm not an american, isn't it? :)) there's lots of software out there that will reset the "counter" of your favorite software player. so every couple DVDs, I reset it to 5. > The whole regional coding is a > contraint on World trade (where's the WIPO, WTO when you need them? > Hypocrits!). you are seemingly quite mistaken on the actual purpose of these organisations. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 14:54:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01325 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:54:16 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA01322 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:54:14 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA09716 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:59:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:59:05 -0500 (EST) From: Ole Craig To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? In-Reply-To: <001e01c09b5d$fbaf3000$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 02/20/01 at 09:55, 'twas brillig and John Zulauf scrobe: > Consilgere Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 7:46 PM > > > > a USER to perform the action (your d) > > access to the building (your a and b) > > and an incendiary device to set the fire with (your c*) > > Two points. First, a can of gasoline, or other common household products > (fumigation smoke bombs) etc all **can** function as incendiary devices > > > > Like it or not, software is more analogous to physical tools than > > you seem to be willing to admit. > > > Why do you think we call DFAs, NFAs, and all those > > other computational models "Machines"? Because they DO things! > > No. We abstract away the details of the processor to **imagine** that they > do things. They (as abstract instructions) act only upon other abstractions > (the state of the abstract machine, etc.). It's a convenient simplifying > assuming that the code itself is running -- the processor is running the > code. The only real thing that does anything in a computer is the silicon > itself. Electrons moving from here to there, charges, currents, > inductions -- all real physical things. For a robot driven by some FA, the > voltage to the stepper motor has to change. The code doesn't do that, the > electronics do. > > In a Jicard loom, what weaves the cloth, the pattern card or the loom? > Clearly the loom. We've never really gotten that far beyond the loom. > > I've written code for 25 years now. It never did anything by itself. > Whether double-clicking the icon, or runing an 029 job deck -- somehow I had > to convince some chunk of electronics to listen to my idea of how to spend a > few time slices. The code never did it itself. John - You are of course completely correct, but you've forgotten one long-standing internet maxim: Don't Feed The Trolls. In other news, I watched The Matrix (well, sections of it anyway) under linux and OMS this weekend. Way cool. (Now I just have to get the kinks worked out of my setup, to eliminate some annoying jitter and audio dropouts. I don't think it was using the DXR3 properly, and I haven't researched 4-channel sound for the emu10k1 drivers recently.. I can report that OMS v1.0 uses css-cat and css-auth. I haven't looked at the code to see if it's still the same stuff that was enjoined, or the newer (brute-force keyspace) deCSS-plus. Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 17:00:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03310 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:00:59 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA03307 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:00:57 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id OAA00991 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:05:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma025770; Tue, 20 Feb 01 13:53:26 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:55:12 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id OAA07682; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:53:25 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] FW: Gov't to intervene re: Universal City, et alv. Reimerdes, et al Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:01:45 -0700 Message-ID: <002c01c09b88$b6e82aa0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <000f01c09aa2$986047c0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 168C384A176870-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Replying to myself... a bad sign huh? Anybody else take time to let their elected officials know that the DMCA is threatening to overturn "Sony" and cut short our free speech? John Zulauf private (but vocal) netizen > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of John Zulauf > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 11:34 AM > To: Dvd-Discuss > Subject: [dvd-discuss] FW: Gov't to intervene re: Universal City, et > alv. Reimerdes, et al > > > Here is the text of email I sent to the White House and the DoJ. I'm sure > I'm now in their "nut case" file. Who else would write about such trivia? > I couldn't find a better email address for Mr Ashcroft. > > If anyone has it a follow-up to Mr. Ashcroft that points out to > him that the > lower court is ignore his clear statements about the limits of > the intent of > the DMCA would be forthcoming from me. Feel free to add your > voice to mine. > > Any /. members want to post the original story from Wendy maybe we can /. > the Whitehouse and the DoJ on this -- feel free to quote my letter as > potential boiler plate (or come up with your own). > > John Zulauf > private netizen > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Zulauf [mailto:john.zulauf@ia.nsc.com] > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 11:26 AM > To: president@whitehouse.gov > Cc: web@usdoj.gov > Subject: Gov't to intervene re: Universal City, et al v. Reimerdes, et al > > > Mr. President, > > cc: Attorney General John Ashcroft > > I urge you to prevent the Department of Justice from intervening in > Universal City, et al v. Reimerdes, et. al. on behalf of and in support of > the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This law as currently > interpreted decimates the intellectual commons as established by the > Copyright Clause. The DMCA would overturn over 200 years of the careful > balance of copyright law in favor of draconian "self-help" measures > available to the copyright holders. Left wounded in the wake of this law > are "limited times," "fair use," and "first sale" -- the three most > important balancing principles in copyright law. > > I urge instead for the DoJ to intervene in opposition to any broad reading > of the DMCA, or for it's overturn entirely. In support of this > position are > a large number of diverse groups including news media, academia, > librarians, > computer scientists, and the public "fair use" community**. > Given the broad > adverse impact of the DMCA, and the diverse opposition to broad > application > of this law it would be inappropriate for the administration in > intercede on > behalf of or in support of such a flawed and destructive law. > > Thank you for the attention of your staff to this matter, > > John Zulauf > private citizen > > ** below is a list of Amici briefs opposing the broad > interpretation of the > DMCA > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 20:48:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA06924 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:48:40 -0500 Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA06919 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:48:38 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.44.b77d73d (7319) for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:53:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <44.b77d73d.27c47991@cs.com> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:53:21 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_44.b77d73d.27c47991_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --part1_44.b77d73d.27c47991_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/20/01 11:11:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: And like I said, if I leave my keys on my driver's seat, that isn't pragmatic security. If someone takes it, it's still stolen. > Do you keep backups? Do you have adequate access control? Physical and > remote? Do you have access control for those record? Did you put > protections on them? The bottom line is that if you want to protect your > records, you don't connect them to the internet. That's a pragmatic > approach. > --part1_44.b77d73d.27c47991_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/20/01 11:11:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes:
And like I said, if I leave my keys on my driver's seat, that isn't pragmatic
security.  If someone takes it, it's still stolen.  

Do you keep backups? Do you have adequate access control? Physical and
remote? Do you have access control for those record? Did you put
protections on them? The bottom line is that if you want to protect your
records, you don't connect them to the internet. That's a pragmatic
approach.


--part1_44.b77d73d.27c47991_boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 20:51:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA07026 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:51:32 -0500 Received: from mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA07022 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:51:31 -0500 Received: from swbell.net ([208.190.215.130]) by mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0G93007GY3S2IH@mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:50:27 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:47:21 -0600 From: Jolley Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Senate updating IP laws To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <3A931E29.78BB3F41@swbell.net> Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-SBI-NC472 (Win98; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en References: <3A8C8D0D.14E19D@swbell.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Cryptome has more information about the bill S.320 and the senate record. It looks like Senator Leahy is concerned about the 50 million Napster fans and their influence on IP legislation if (when) Napster is shut down. http://cryptome.org/s320.txt Lots of talk about Napster, DMCA, and upcoming IP legislation but nothing about 2600. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 21:11:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA07263 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:11:15 -0500 Received: from imo-r15.mx.aol.com (imo-r15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA07260 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:11:02 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-r15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.7d.1133ddc2 (7319) for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:15:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <7d.1133ddc2.27c47eb8@cs.com> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:15:20 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7d.1133ddc2.27c47eb8_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --part1_7d.1133ddc2.27c47eb8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/20/01 11:45:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, johnzu@ia.nsc.com writes: And if I have an automatic rifle pointed at a pedestrian, it doesn't go off until I pull the trigger. But that doesn't mean I have the right to own one. > . Typing "rm -rf /" won't affect your hard disk (even > meeting all other prerequisites) until the user presses "enter". --part1_7d.1133ddc2.27c47eb8_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/20/01 11:45:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
johnzu@ia.nsc.com writes:

And if I have an automatic rifle pointed at a pedestrian, it doesn't go off
until I pull the trigger.  But that doesn't mean I have the right to own one.

. Typing "rm -rf /" won't affect your hard disk (even
meeting all other prerequisites) until the user presses "enter".   
--part1_7d.1133ddc2.27c47eb8_boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 21:34:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA07509 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:34:14 -0500 Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA07506 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:34:12 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.cc.10fa7247 (7319) for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:38:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:38:30 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_cc.10fa7247.27c48426_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --part1_cc.10fa7247.27c48426_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/20/01 11:45:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, johnzu@ia.nsc.com writes: Oh please! That's like saying a car doesn't do anything, it's all in the metal and rubber. Without some sort of code, computers are overly elaborate paperweights. When code is executed on them, they begin to fully function in the way the code directs it to. It's not "instruction" as much as it is "molding". When I execute pico, my computer becomes an object that is capable of taking in text from a keyboard and formatting it in a text document. When I execute quake, it becomes an object that simulates an armed soldier in a 3D environment. This is different from instruction insomuch as when truly giving instructions, the instructees have always had the ability to refuse. When the instructions must be followed, the instructee becomes nothing more than an extension of the instructor. Thus you cannot separate the code from the computer. > As long as you ignore that the code does nothing, only the processor does, > and that only happens when the user says "go" then you will see a set of > instruction as actually functional, rather than potentially functional. I > know it's hard to see outside the computer-science "the code does the work" > worldview, but it just isn't reality. > <<"add ax bx" by itself does no more than "Add a to b." Concluding otherwise results in the logical, frightening precept as the bright line test to preclude first ammendment protection >> Which is exactly my point and exactly what you are acting like you're afraid of. Except I'm proving that "add ax bx" does more because --part1_cc.10fa7247.27c48426_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/20/01 11:45:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
johnzu@ia.nsc.com writes:

Oh please!
That's like saying a car doesn't do anything, it's all in the metal and
rubber.  Without some sort of code, computers are overly elaborate
paperweights.  When code is executed on them, they begin to fully function in
the way the code directs it to.  It's not "instruction" as much as it is
"molding".  When I execute pico, my computer becomes an object that is
capable of taking in text from a keyboard and formatting it in a text
document.  When I execute quake, it becomes an object that simulates an armed
soldier in a 3D environment.  This is different from instruction insomuch as
when truly giving instructions, the instructees have always had the ability
to refuse.  When the instructions must be followed, the instructee becomes
nothing more than an extension of the instructor.  Thus you cannot separate
the code from the computer.  

As long as you ignore that the code does nothing, only the processor does,
and that only happens when the user says "go" then you will see a set of
instruction as actually functional, rather than potentially functional.  I
know it's hard to see outside the computer-science "the code does the work"
worldview, but it just isn't reality.


<<"add ax bx" by itself does no more than "Add a to b."  Concluding otherwise
results in the logical, frightening precept as the bright line test to
preclude first ammendment protection >>
Which is exactly my point and exactly what you are acting like you're afraid
of.  Except I'm proving that "add ax bx" does more because --part1_cc.10fa7247.27c48426_boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 21:35:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA07522 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:35:27 -0500 Received: from imo-r20.mx.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA07519 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:35:26 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.b0.109d1946 (7319) for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:39:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:39:43 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_b0.109d1946.27c4846f_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --part1_b0.109d1946.27c4846f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/20/01 11:54:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, johnzu@ia.nsc.com writes: No. When you executed "mov ax bx", they HAD to mov ax bx. There was no choice, convincing, or anything of the sort. > somehow I had > to convince some chunk of electronics to listen to my idea of how to spend a > few time slices. --part1_b0.109d1946.27c4846f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/20/01 11:54:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
johnzu@ia.nsc.com writes:

No.  When you executed "mov ax bx", they HAD to mov ax bx.  There was no
choice, convincing, or anything of the sort.  
somehow I had
to convince some chunk of electronics to listen to my idea of how to spend a
few time slices.
--part1_b0.109d1946.27c4846f_boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 21:36:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA07611 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:36:35 -0500 Received: from attila.stevens-tech.edu (khockenb@attila.stevens-tech.edu [155.246.14.11]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA07608 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:36:34 -0500 Received: from localhost (khockenb@localhost) by attila.stevens-tech.edu (SGI-8.9.3/8.9.3/7) with ESMTP id VAA98415 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:41:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:41:26 -0500 From: Kurt Hockenbury To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Senate updating IP laws In-Reply-To: <3A931E29.78BB3F41@swbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Jolley wrote: > Cryptome has more information about the bill S.320 and the senate > record. It looks like Senator Leahy is concerned about the 50 million > Napster fans and their influence on IP legislation if (when) Napster > is shut down. > > http://cryptome.org/s320.txt In general, I like what I've read of Leahy, but this language bothers me: "It is clear that creators and owners of copyrighted property should have their copyrights protected, and they should certainly be compensated for their artistry and their work." "owners of copyrighted property"? I own lots of copyrighted property -- books, CDs, etc. Somehow, I feel he doesn't mean me. "holders of copyrights" would be better language. This shift in language seems to be more of people trying to take away the ownership of books, CDs, and other copyrighted material, and replace it with a world where I "own" nothing, mearly "license" it. -Kurt From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 22:13:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA08294 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:13:10 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA08291 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:13:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13126 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:17:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:17:31 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ah? So if I wrote "move ax bx" and the computer was expecting "mov ax bx" that wouldn't be subject to restrictions. No amount of convincing in the world will make a program that's even slightly misformatted work. But that's an absurd test. That DeCSS is fine if it's not executable, but only slightly so? That it becomes illegal if even the one bit is flipped, w/o having to be executed, or even on an executable medium. (is a hardcopy of DeCSS illegal? What if I step through it by hand with paper and pencil? Am I a computing machine and not a human with inalienable rights?) That does not strike me as even vaguely desirable. On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 Consilgere@cs.com wrote: > In a message dated 2/20/01 11:54:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, > johnzu@ia.nsc.com writes: > > No. When you executed "mov ax bx", they HAD to mov ax bx. There was no > choice, convincing, or anything of the sort. > > somehow I had > > to convince some chunk of electronics to listen to my idea of how to spend a > > few time slices. > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 20 23:31:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA09284 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:31:04 -0500 Received: from mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA09281 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:31:01 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010221043541.WFHA25888.mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:35:41 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:50:26 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022021502600.19662@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id XAA09282 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu You may not have to convince the electronics to execute mov ax, bx but you do have to tell the electronics to execute that instruction. By typing in the file name and pressing enter or clicking on the icon. The instruction isn't actually executed until you instruct the computer to execute the instruction. Even if you are talking about an operating system this is true. By turning on the computer you instruct the computer to execute the statup procedure. Notice the wording that we are all using instruction procedure statement command These are all words used when talking about speech or communicating. These words are why we can make a strong statement that software is speech. On Wednesday 21 February 2001 02:39, you wrote: > > In a message dated 2/20/01 11:54:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, > johnzu@ia.nsc.com writes: > > No. When you executed "mov ax bx", they HAD to mov ax bx. There was no > choice, convincing, or anything of the sort. > > > somehow I had > > to convince some chunk of electronics to listen to my idea of how to > > spend a few time slices. ---------------------------------------- Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"; name="Attachment: 1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: ---------------------------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 03:27:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA11286 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:27:04 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA11283 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:27:01 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3ee2d5c6.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.198]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0284D27ABB for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:26:08 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 21976175195; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:28:48 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:28:48 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Senate updating IP laws Message-ID: <20010221092847.D10986@lemuria.org> References: <3A8C8D0D.14E19D@swbell.net> <3A931E29.78BB3F41@swbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A931E29.78BB3F41@swbell.net>; from tjolley@swbell.net on Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:47:21PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:47:21PM -0600, Jolley wrote: > Cryptome has more information about the bill S.320 and the senate > record. It looks like Senator Leahy is concerned about the 50 million > Napster fans and their influence on IP legislation if (when) Napster > is shut down. someone send the man a basic introduction to democracy. it may seem unfair if you're part of the minority (i.e. the intellectual appropriation mafia) but that's just how the system works. PLEASE piss off the 50 mio. napster users. it's time people notice just how much the whole "IP" crazyness is costing them. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 10:54:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA16025 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:54:58 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA16022 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:54:57 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA32315 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:59:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:59:50 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to reprint a religious text? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Those of you with access to the Wall Street Journal may want to take a look at "Bad Tithings: Sect disavows tenets, and woe to him who printeth them anyway" (WSJ, 12 Feb 2001, page A1). Short Synopsis: In 1934, Herbert Armstrong founded the Radio Church of God--and began diseminating various religious tracts over the airways, in the magazine "Plain Truth," and a free book entitle "Mystery of the Ages". The Church was later renamed "The Worldwide Church of God", and claimed 100.000 memers and 131 million dollars in assets. In 1986, Armstrong died, and was replaced by his chosen successor Joseph Tkach. Subsequently, Tkach repudiated many of the churches teachings, and stopped distributing "Mystery of the Ages," a work which Armstrong had called "the most important book wriiten in the past 1900 years." After 1986, the churches membership dwindled, and many flocked to a splinter church based in Oklahoma that continued to use Armstrong's teachings and works. The Oklahoma group continued to reprint "Mystery of the Ages." The original church sued tthe Oklahoma sect for copyright infringement, demanding that it forfeit all tithes and assets to the "mother" church. The Oklahoma group claimed fair use, claiming that it was Armstrong's wish that the book be published in unabridged form. Consequently, any fair use republication would neccesarily involve reprinting the entire work. A district court upheld the actions of the Oklahoma group, but the Appeals reversed, saying that "an owners right tto control publication of a text aren't erased simply because others have beliefs attached to it. The case is Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God 227 F. 3d 1110 (2000) BTW,I really do recommmend reading the WSJ article. Unfortunately, Dow Jones Interactive is a pay service, so I can't provide a link. Jeremy Erwin From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 11:01:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16189 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:01:43 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA16185 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:01:41 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:06:19 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Senate updating IP laws To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:06:17 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/21/2001 08:06:19 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Napster is an easy target. The question is if he has left out 2600 because of a desire to balance legitimate concerns or is using this to "watch the birdy, now watch the birdy [while I pick your wallet]" Jolley Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Senate updating IP laws 02/20/01 05:58 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Cryptome has more information about the bill S.320 and the senate record. It looks like Senator Leahy is concerned about the 50 million Napster fans and their influence on IP legislation if (when) Napster is shut down. http://cryptome.org/s320.txt Lots of talk about Napster, DMCA, and upcoming IP legislation but nothing about 2600. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 11:05:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16329 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:05:37 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA16326 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:05:35 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:08:49 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:08:46 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/21/2001 08:08:49 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This makes absolutley no sense whatsoever.....have you been playing with Eliza? Consilgere@cs.com Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech cardyet? 02/20/01 06:41 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss In a message dated 2/20/01 11:45:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, johnzu@ia.nsc.com writes: Oh please! That's like saying a car doesn't do anything, it's all in the metal and rubber. Without some sort of code, computers are overly elaborate paperweights. When code is executed on them, they begin to fully function in the way the code directs it to. It's not "instruction" as much as it is "molding". When I execute pico, my computer becomes an object that is capable of taking in text from a keyboard and formatting it in a text document. When I execute quake, it becomes an object that simulates an armed soldier in a 3D environment. This is different from instruction insomuch as when truly giving instructions, the instructees have always had the ability to refuse. When the instructions must be followed, the instructee becomes nothing more than an extension of the instructor. Thus you cannot separate the code from the computer. As long as you ignore that the code does nothing, only the processor does, and that only happens when the user says "go" then you will see a set of instruction as actually functional, rather than potentially functional. I know it's hard to see outside the computer-science "the code does the work" worldview, but it just isn't reality. <<"add ax bx" by itself does no more than "Add a to b." Concluding otherwise results in the logical, frightening precept as the bright line test to preclude first ammendment protection >> Which is exactly my point and exactly what you are acting like you're afraid of. Except I'm proving that "add ax bx" does more because From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 11:13:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16510 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:13:02 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA16507 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:13:00 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:17:49 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Senate updating IP laws To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:17:46 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/21/2001 08:17:49 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes. That's part of the problem. There has been a shift in the last 20yrs or so from the notion of copyright as enacted by statute to the "natural" law. Of course, if people weren't around not only would there be no discussion of it but all the copies "intellecutal property" that was "owned" would be decomposing into molecules and atoms. Once all the copies are gone so is the" Intellectual property". that's the whole fallacy of "natural" law copyrights. The pragmatic question is if it is better to distribute that "intellectual property" via the public domain or keep it centered? Historically, the former has been tried. Look at the libraries at Alexandria. All the knowledge known at the time all collected in one place all destroyed in an instant. In some ways the DVD and Secure music initiative and the like are attempting what I refer to a "centralized distributed processing" (distributed workstations that depend upon remote servers for ALL functions. In my company all the pcs print through centralized print servers. Guess what happens when power goes out the the computing facility but not the offices or labs?) - They distribute the media but still want to retain control. Kurt Hockenbury To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Senate updating IP arvard.edu laws 02/20/01 06:43 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Jolley wrote: > Cryptome has more information about the bill S.320 and the senate > record. It looks like Senator Leahy is concerned about the 50 million > Napster fans and their influence on IP legislation if (when) Napster > is shut down. > > http://cryptome.org/s320.txt In general, I like what I've read of Leahy, but this language bothers me: "It is clear that creators and owners of copyrighted property should have their copyrights protected, and they should certainly be compensated for their artistry and their work." "owners of copyrighted property"? I own lots of copyrighted property -- books, CDs, etc. Somehow, I feel he doesn't mean me. "holders of copyrights" would be better language. This shift in language seems to be more of people trying to take away the ownership of books, CDs, and other copyrighted material, and replace it with a world where I "own" nothing, mearly "license" it. -Kurt From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 11:15:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16543 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:15:07 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA16540 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:15:04 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:19:50 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Senate updating IP laws To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:19:47 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/21/2001 08:19:50 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The whole bunch of people seem intent upon adding a few more twists to the Gorgon's Knot they started knoting 25 yrs ago. It's time to cut the knot. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Senate updating IP laws 02/21/01 12:34 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:47:21PM -0600, Jolley wrote: > Cryptome has more information about the bill S.320 and the senate > record. It looks like Senator Leahy is concerned about the 50 million > Napster fans and their influence on IP legislation if (when) Napster > is shut down. someone send the man a basic introduction to democracy. it may seem unfair if you're part of the minority (i.e. the intellectual appropriation mafia) but that's just how the system works. PLEASE piss off the 50 mio. napster users. it's time people notice just how much the whole "IP" crazyness is costing them. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 11:18:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16637 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:18:35 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA16634 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:18:33 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:23:16 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to reprint a religious text? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:23:13 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/21/2001 08:23:16 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Copyright infringement being used for religious persecution? What else is it? They are attempting to suppress the dissemination and teaching of religious doctrine - no matter what I think of it that's what it is. Is the appeals court CRAZY! That's surely an abuse of copyright! Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to reprint arvard.edu a religious text? 02/21/01 08:07 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Those of you with access to the Wall Street Journal may want to take a look at "Bad Tithings: Sect disavows tenets, and woe to him who printeth them anyway" (WSJ, 12 Feb 2001, page A1). Short Synopsis: In 1934, Herbert Armstrong founded the Radio Church of God--and began diseminating various religious tracts over the airways, in the magazine "Plain Truth," and a free book entitle "Mystery of the Ages". The Church was later renamed "The Worldwide Church of God", and claimed 100.000 memers and 131 million dollars in assets. In 1986, Armstrong died, and was replaced by his chosen successor Joseph Tkach. Subsequently, Tkach repudiated many of the churches teachings, and stopped distributing "Mystery of the Ages," a work which Armstrong had called "the most important book wriiten in the past 1900 years." After 1986, the churches membership dwindled, and many flocked to a splinter church based in Oklahoma that continued to use Armstrong's teachings and works. The Oklahoma group continued to reprint "Mystery of the Ages." The original church sued tthe Oklahoma sect for copyright infringement, demanding that it forfeit all tithes and assets to the "mother" church. The Oklahoma group claimed fair use, claiming that it was Armstrong's wish that the book be published in unabridged form. Consequently, any fair use republication would neccesarily involve reprinting the entire work. A district court upheld the actions of the Oklahoma group, but the Appeals reversed, saying that "an owners right tto control publication of a text aren't erased simply because others have beliefs attached to it. The case is Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God 227 F. 3d 1110 (2000) BTW,I really do recommmend reading the WSJ article. Unfortunately, Dow Jones Interactive is a pay service, so I can't provide a link. Jeremy Erwin From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 11:36:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16948 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:36:54 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA16945 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:36:51 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:41:38 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Clear and Present Danger vs Bad Tendencies - SAY WHAT! To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:41:34 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/21/2001 08:41:38 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I was reading the section on Clear and present danger in a book I have on Constitutional Law last night. Consider this. Holmes created that test for first amendment. What did he mean? Clear - obvious Present - immediate Danger - injury to persons, loss of life or PHYSICAL destruction of property or loss of territory The cases that he dealt with involved censorship of writings opposing WWI among other things. The SC didn't accept that doctrine but used a lesser one that censorship was OK if there was a bad tendency to harm the government. What do we have in the 2600 case. Clear - No cases of piracy identified Present - Maybe in the future when everybody had 1Gb fiber to their homes Danger - maybe somebody may possibly somewhere create a copy of something we hold the copyright. That seems to miss the mark there. What about bad tendency? Well I'll concede that Napster may be a point there But, who is we there? The government? No. It's a cartel of companies. So what we have here is a case where it fails a first amendment test formulated 80 yrs ago for GOVERNMENT censorship. It fails an even less stringent test used until 60 yrs ago. This is NOT government censorship this is censorship imposed by companies. NOTE: The statement that first amendment rights ends with yelling fire in a crowded theatre OBVIOUSLY implies that there is no fire in the theater. If there is, then the danger of getting incinerated clearly outweighs the danger of people getting injured in the stampede to get out. (Yes Ole...I read your admonition about feeding trolls.) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 11:50:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA17270 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:50:07 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17267 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:50:06 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id IAA11438 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma011173; Wed, 21 Feb 01 08:53:51 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:55:37 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id JAA27040; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:53:49 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:01:30 -0700 Message-ID: <004001c09c27$efcb2760$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 168D2C83345248-01-01 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0041_01C09BED.436C4F60" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C09BED.436C4F60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Three letters "JCL" -- always seemed much more like "convincing" the TSO host my job was worthy than anything else. The point remains the "mov ax bx" does nothing without being in a stream of instruction sent to the proper processor by a user. John -- I'm done with this one -- -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Consilgere@cs.com Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 7:40 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? In a message dated 2/20/01 11:54:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, johnzu@ia.nsc.com writes: No. When you executed "mov ax bx", they HAD to mov ax bx. There was no choice, convincing, or anything of the sort. somehow I had to convince some chunk of electronics to listen to my idea of how to spend a few time slices. ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C09BED.436C4F60 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Three=20 letters "JCL" -- always seemed much more like "convincing" the TSO host = my job=20 was worthy than anything else.
 
The=20 point remains the "mov ax bx" does nothing without being in a stream of=20 instruction sent to the proper processor by a user.
 
John
 
-- I'm=20 done with this one --
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu=20 [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of=20 Consilgere@cs.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 7:40=20 PM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: = Re:=20 [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the=20 freespeechcardyet?

In a message dated 2/20/01 11:54:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, =
johnzu@ia.nsc.com writes:

No.  When you executed "mov = ax bx",=20 they HAD to mov ax bx.  There was no
choice, convincing, or = anything=20 of the sort.  
somehow I had
to convince some chunk of electronics = to=20 listen to my idea of how to spend a
few time slices.

 ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C09BED.436C4F60-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 12:33:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA18056 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:33:43 -0500 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA18052 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:33:41 -0500 Received: from panix.com (www1.panix.com [166.84.0.209]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D83C548A98 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:38:35 -0500 (EST) From: "Roy Murphy" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:38:35 -0500 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to reprint a religious text? X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.6k, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3a93fd1b.124.0@panix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 'Twas brillig when Michael A. Rolenz said: >Copyright infringement being used for religious persecution? What else >is it? They are attempting to suppress the dissemination and teaching >of religious doctrine - no matter what I think of it that's what it >is. Is the appeals court CRAZY! That's surely an abuse of copyright! Actually, if copyright law made a distinction between religious and non-religious texts, that would be an impermissable regulation of religion that probably wouldn't pass a traditional separation of Church and State analysis. There's a 9th Circuit case surrounding Urantia which had a similar result, but in that case, the defense tried to invalidate the copyright on the grounds that divine beings dictated the text and the Urantia corporation was not the author. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/9th/9517093.html Religious texts are routinely copyrighted. That allows the author protection against his words being changed without permission to express doctrine which he didn't advocate. I note that the text of the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church has been explicitly placed in the Public Domain, so not all churches choose to take advantage of this right. All new translations of the Bible, for example, bear copyrights that are routinely enforced. It has been possible to get permission to place many 20th Century translations on the web. One big exception is the recent New Revised Standard Version which is zealously guarded by the National Council of Churches. Generous license is granted for limited copying in the context of a church service, but wholesale copying of the translation is not without payment of a royalty. -- Roy Murphy \ CSpice -- A mailing list for Clergy Spouses murphy@panix.com \ http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 12:57:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA18302 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:57:32 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA18299 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:57:30 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:02:17 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to reprint a religious text? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:02:15 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/21/2001 10:02:17 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Curiouser and Curiouser......Although the Urantia case involves distribution. In the case of the Armstrong book, there is the additional fact that the sect still uses the original text which the "mother church" is now attempting to suppress. The law may have no remedy for this. "Roy Murphy" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to arvard.edu reprint a religious text? 02/21/01 09:41 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss 'Twas brillig when Michael A. Rolenz said: >Copyright infringement being used for religious persecution? What else >is it? They are attempting to suppress the dissemination and teaching >of religious doctrine - no matter what I think of it that's what it >is. Is the appeals court CRAZY! That's surely an abuse of copyright! Actually, if copyright law made a distinction between religious and non-religious texts, that would be an impermissable regulation of religion that probably wouldn't pass a traditional separation of Church and State analysis. There's a 9th Circuit case surrounding Urantia which had a similar result, but in that case, the defense tried to invalidate the copyright on the grounds that divine beings dictated the text and the Urantia corporation was not the author. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/9th/9517093.html Religious texts are routinely copyrighted. That allows the author protection against his words being changed without permission to express doctrine which he didn't advocate. I note that the text of the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church has been explicitly placed in the Public Domain, so not all churches choose to take advantage of this right. All new translations of the Bible, for example, bear copyrights that are routinely enforced. It has been possible to get permission to place many 20th Century translations on the web. One big exception is the recent New Revised Standard Version which is zealously guarded by the National Council of Churches. Generous license is granted for limited copying in the context of a church service, but wholesale copying of the translation is not without payment of a royalty. -- Roy Murphy \ CSpice -- A mailing list for Clergy Spouses murphy@panix.com \ http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 12:59:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA18332 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:59:08 -0500 Received: from postal.fcci-group.com (postal.fcci-group.com [4.23.102.37]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA18329 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:59:06 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:08:51 -0500 Message-ID: <8E4908BE2E48C64490E574C800DF52D10D0D27@postal.fcci-group.com> Thread-Topic: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? Thread-Index: AcCbYT3L46vMTOSxQhSPaTxEpsVRqgAz9bLg From: "Dean Sanchez" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id MAA18330 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Don't forget this as well: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." H. L. Mencken -----Original Message----- From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 12:09 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? "Nobody likes these measures but these are dangerous times." "Be careful Mr. Dickinson. Those who trade freedom for temporary security deserve neither freedom or security" B. Franklin to J.Dickinson Philadelphia 1776 "D. C. Sessions" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the free speech card yet? 02/18/01 08:41 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Sunday 18 February 2001 19:26, you wrote: # In a message dated 2/18/01 7:33:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, # dcs@lumbercartel.com writes: # # << OK, so the Internet constitutes a clear and present danger. Ban it. # Or were you suggesting that rm constitutes a clear and present danger? # (Same conclusion.) >> # Yes, rm does constitute a "clear and present danger." But we make exceptions # for certain things that do. You can legally own a chainsaw, they certainly # threaten people's safety. You can legally own a hunting rifle... just # because software isn't speech doesn't mean it has no protection. You've expanded the meaning of "clear and present danger" to make it cover everything. Since "clear and present danger" is a key test in First Amendment issues, that vitiates the First Amendment. You have a hard sell here. Meanwhile, you've still to support your thesis that "Add A to B" isn't speech by anything other than repeated assertion. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 13:33:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA18778 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:33:37 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA18775 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:33:35 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id KAA03209 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:38:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma002521; Wed, 21 Feb 01 10:36:34 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:38:20 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id LAA03383; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:36:31 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: Dvd-Discuss Subject: [dvd-discuss] Slashdot rejected my US DoJ to intervene in DeCSS case post Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:44:07 -0700 Message-ID: <004701c09c36$45c6d700$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 168AD491368641-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu So I attempted to post Cyrptome's news about US DoJ to Slashdot. Any other /.'rs with a track record for get news stories up? I essentially posted the the summary from the cryptome story. With a pointer to the source document. Maybe it wasn't deemed "juicy" enough because the US DoJ positition hasn't been filed. How though to get awareness in the community **before** the DoJ steps in. Talk about Catch-22. We can't get the community interested until the gov't does "the-wrong-thing" (tm). Once the gov't does "the-wrong-thing" (tm) the gov't (like the law of the Meads and the Persians) can't change it's mind lest it lose face -- and thus it is too late to change (easily) that "wrong-thing" (pat. pend.). Well I'm so sure the story on Sony parntering with Namco for arcade games was more important than our constitutional rights... what **was** I thinking. Royal Page: Daniel, Daniel, the king is about to pass the DMCA (Dominion Must Cowtow Always) act and you'll be fed to the lions if you pray to your God and not Cowtow to the king. Daniel: I didn't see it on the latest /. cuneiform postings. It can't be important can it? Why don't we see how it's implemented. Lions: Dinner! John Zulauf private netizen (parent's genetic material used by persmission) PS the meta IP references are a joke... From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 13:49:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA19455 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:49:27 -0500 Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19452 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:49:25 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa188.pool013.at101.earthlink.net [216.249.84.188]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26022 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:54:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010221105136.00aa5e30@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: jstyre@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:54:37 -0800 To: From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slashdot rejected my US DoJ to intervene in DeCSS case post In-Reply-To: <004701c09c36$45c6d700$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 11:44 AM 2/21/2001 -0700, John Zulauf wrote: >So I attempted to post Cyrptome's news about US DoJ to Slashdot. Any other >/.'rs with a track record for get news stories up? I essentially posted the >the summary from the cryptome story. With a pointer to the source document. > >Maybe it wasn't deemed "juicy" enough because the US DoJ positition hasn't >been filed. How though to get awareness in the community **before** the DoJ >steps in. Talk about Catch-22. Don't take it personally. The brief was filed late yesterday, and slashdot knows it. My guess is that they are assuming the brief itself will be on the Net shortly, then they'll run a story. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 This man, who seems to have led a life of unrelieved insignificance, must have been astonished to find himself suddenly putting the Government of the United States in such fear that it was afraid to tell him why it was afraid of him. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) (Jackson, J., dissenting) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 14:02:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA19760 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:02:40 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA19752 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:02:32 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:07:23 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slashdot rejected my US DoJ to intervene in DeCSS casepost To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:07:21 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/21/2001 11:07:23 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Well I'm so sure the story on Sony parntering with Namco for arcade games was more important than our constitutional rights... what **was** I thinking. Soma Soma Soma.....we must have our Soma....... From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 14:30:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA20221 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:30:03 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA20218 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:30:01 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA14365 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:34:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:34:55 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to reprint a religious text? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > Curiouser and Curiouser......Although the Urantia case involves > distribution. In the case of the Armstrong book, there is the additional > fact that the sect still uses the original text which the "mother church" > is now attempting to suppress. The law may have no remedy for this. > > Oh my. I just read the Urantia case (Urantia Foundation v. Kristen Maaherra, 114 F.3d 95.) 3] In this case, the Contact Commission may have received some guidance from celestial beings when the Com- mission posed the questions, but the members of the Contact Commission chose and formulated the specific questions asked. These questions materially contributed to the structure of the Papers, to the arrangement of the revelations in each Paper, and to the organization and order in which the Papers followed one another. We hold that the human selection and arrangement of the revelations in this case could not have been so "mechanical or routine as to require no creativity whatsoever." Feist, 499 at 362. We conclude, therefore, that the "extremely low" threshold level of creativity required for copyright protection has been met in this case. See Feist, 499 U.S. at 345. ("The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark,`no matter how crude, humble, or obvious' it might be.") (quotation omitted). To a certain extent, the World Church case reminds me of Gilliam v ABC, in which Gilliam sued under both breach of contact and section 43a of the Lanham Act. (The Lanham Act governs trademarks.) In this case, Gilliam attempted to construct a "right to authorial integrity", a right that exists under "moral copyrights" but not neccesarilly under our system of "pragmatic copyrights." Section 43a specifically applies to the "misrepresentation of goods to the public." Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 14:38:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA20397 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:38:15 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA20393 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:38:09 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:42:47 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to reprint a religious text? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:42:46 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/21/2001 11:42:47 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu ] In this case, the Contact Commission may have received some guidance from celestial beings when the Com- mission posed the questions,.... We hold that the human selection and arrangement of the revelations in this case could not have been so "mechanical or routine as to require no creativity whatsoever." Feist, 499 at 362. We conclude, therefore, that the "extremely low" threshold level of creativity required for copyright protection has been met in this case. I'd love to have seen the judges faces when they read this opinion... From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 16:54:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA24805 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:54:32 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA24802 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:54:31 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3EE2D5D0.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.208]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5033227AD5 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:53:50 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CA190175195; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:56:28 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:56:28 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slashdot rejected my US DoJ to intervene in DeCSS case post Message-ID: <20010221225628.C11336@lemuria.org> References: <004701c09c36$45c6d700$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <004701c09c36$45c6d700$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com>; from johnzu@ia.nsc.com on Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:44:07AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:44:07AM -0700, John Zulauf wrote: > John Zulauf > private netizen (parent's genetic material used by persmission) yes, but can you prove that THEY did the same? maybe your grandmother did not and you are actually only 3/4 "pure". oops. last time we over here set up a "prove your heritage or..." system, you invaded us to stop the madness. who's gonna invade YOU? -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 17:06:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA25051 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:06:48 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA25041 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:06:46 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id OAA02103 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:11:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma001781; Wed, 21 Feb 01 14:10:57 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:12:44 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA15574; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:10:56 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Slashdot rejected my US DoJ to intervene inDeCSS case post Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:18:22 -0700 Message-ID: <005401c09c54$33834240$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <20010221225628.C11336@lemuria.org> Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 168AE2D6411033-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 2:56 PM > On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:44:07AM -0700, John Zulauf wrote: > > John Zulauf > > private netizen (parent's genetic material used by persmission) > > yes, but can you prove that THEY did the same? maybe your grandmother did > not and you are actually only 3/4 "pure". > > oops. last time we over here set up a "prove your heritage or..." > system, you invaded us to stop the madness. who's gonna invade YOU? > Well, before the CTEA they had lapsed into the (life +20) public domain, now they are no longer (life +50). Damn Berne Convention! John Zulauf potential genetic infringer From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 17:49:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA25773 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:49:19 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA25770 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:49:18 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30ZG7>; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:09:04 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:08:55 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The fact that the patent office is not qualified to properly review software patents does not invalidate the concept. Heck, they don't even recognize prior art or obvious concepts ... consider the XOR cursor patent! Nobody is suggesting that they are doing things -right-. Just that patent -is- the more correct protection for software (given the choices we have available to us). -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 8:16 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free > speech card > y et? > > > > You should look at a few of the "software > patents".....nonsensical drivel. > Analytical Graphics Inc has a couple. One is nothing more > than a program > that does what you can read in a textbook on communications > theory (I know > because I was a minor contributor to B. Sklar's book on digital > communications). > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone > played > the free speech card y et? > > > 02/16/01 06:51 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peter D. Junger [mailto:junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu] > ... > > > > Leland Ray writes: > > > > : That software is a device is well settled under US law. The > > only way to > > : change that will be by an act of Congress. > > > > What is your authority for this remarkable proposition, even > > if you are > > just talking about patents? > > > > Well ... for one thing, is it not the case that patents only > apply to devices? And since there have been software patents > issued ... > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 18:45:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA26619 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:45:40 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA26616 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:45:34 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:50:18 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:50:14 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/21/2001 03:50:18 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Why? Why is it more correct? You've made the assertion, now what's the reasons supporting it? ("reason as logic..." -LaCarre) So....What's in a software patent? What's being patented? Source code? That can't be since everybody knows that you can code things a dozen different ways and they all execute the same. Or do we allow patent "Source code for FFT for Cray XMP1 with super processor" CLAIM 1 It runs faster on Cray blah blah blah....Then we have "Source code for FFT for Cray XMP1 with superduper processor" CLAIM 1 It runs faster on Cray with super duper processor blah blah blah. That prospect is sure to deluge the patent office with even more junk than they have now......look patents are supposed to be for useful novel and NONOBVIOUS things. Non obvious doesn' mean that you spent a lot of time doing it either. (There's the old story of VonNeumann's lecture at the IAS at Princeton where he stated that something was trivial. When asked if it was he left the lecture room and came back in half an hour saying "yes it really was trivial"). Source code has been protected by copyright and that seems appropriate. Are you patenting an algorithm? That's not going to work since everybody knows that there are families of algorithms and do you give patents to every minor variation or perturbation that can slip by as an improvement? How do you deal with the fact that algorithms families also become embedded into yet more general families. Again, more junk deluging a patent office to no avail except to keep people squabbling over "me first" "no I did" [sorry but I got sick listening to a coworker bemoan the fact that he discovered Gear's algorithm before Gear did]. Besides, NAG, IMSL and several others have made a pretty fair living selling libraries of algorithms that they don't give you source code for. Trade secret seems to have worked pretty well there.Also the SC has previously ruled that algorithms are like laws of nature and doubt that it is arguable to the contrary. So just what is a software patent? It's Something I did it on my computer rather than using a paper pencil and calculator [remember the universal turing machine? Sorry too late. That's already in the public domain.] Sorry if the tone is a bit terse....I hate finding another problem in Mathematica (4th in 12 yrs) Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? 02/21/01 02:56 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss The fact that the patent office is not qualified to properly review software patents does not invalidate the concept. Heck, they don't even recognize prior art or obvious concepts ... consider the XOR cursor patent! Nobody is suggesting that they are doing things -right-. Just that patent -is- the more correct protection for software (given the choices we have available to us). -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 19:03:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA26894 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:03:19 -0500 Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA26891 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:03:19 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.dc.2a74881 (4403) for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:07:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:07:36 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 112 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In a message dated 2/20/01 10:21:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, cpt@gryphon.auspice.net writes: << Ah? So if I wrote "move ax bx" and the computer was expecting "mov ax bx" that wouldn't be subject to restrictions.>> It's like I tell the users I deal with, computers do exactly what you tell them to, you just don't realize what you told them sometimes. <> You miss my point. There is no convincing! When you say "mov ax bx" it does it. No ifs, ands, or buts. << But that's an absurd test. That DeCSS is fine if it's not executable, but only slightly so? That it becomes illegal if even the one bit is flipped, w/o having to be executed, or even on an executable medium. >> DeCSS with a bit flipped no longer functions as DeCSS. It's a completely different program. So yes. <<(is a hardcopy of DeCSS illegal?>> I've tried this line before, and apparantly there is no way to distinguish between a hard copy and an .exe. << What if I step through it by hand with paper and pencil? Am I a computing machine and not a human with inalienable rights?)>> you have a choice. Computers don't. That does not strike me as even vaguely desirable. >> From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 19:06:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA27000 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:06:40 -0500 Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA26997 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:06:39 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.76.7f5edff (4403) for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:10:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <76.7f5edff.27c5b310@cs.com> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:10:56 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 112 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In a message dated 2/20/01 11:38:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, pneves@aicompro.com writes: Except you're mixing mediums. Speech in the context of the physical world is not a direct equivalent to programs on a computer. There are extremely obvious differences. So why would we treat them as though they were the same? << instruction procedure statement command These are all words used when talking about speech or communicating. These words are why we can make a strong statement that software is speech. >> From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 19:11:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA27205 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:11:18 -0500 Received: from imo-r11.mx.aol.com (imo-r11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA27202 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:11:18 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-r11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.5a.116d17b5 (4403) for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:15:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5a.116d17b5.27c5b417@cs.com> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:15:19 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 112 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In a message dated 2/21/01 11:58:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, johnzu@ia.nsc.com writes: And it's not unprecedented to regulate something that needs a user to do what it was designed to do, especially if it can be proven to have a destructive impact on someone's life or property. Cars and guns for example. I'm not breaking new ground here. << The point remains the "mov ax bx" does nothing without being in a stream of instruction sent to the proper processor by a user. >> From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 20:01:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA27580 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:01:53 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA27576 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:01:51 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA17377 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:06:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:06:15 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Great. I'd like to announce DeeCSS, which will include commented instructions at the very beginning pointing out the precise character that you have to change. It starts out: /* delete the first character on the next line (f) */ funsigned int CSStab0[11]={5,0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4}; etc.... Clearly, no legal defense fund will be needed. Share and enjoy. On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 Consilgere@cs.com wrote: > In a message dated 2/20/01 10:21:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, > cpt@gryphon.auspice.net writes: > << But that's an absurd test. That DeCSS is fine if it's not executable, but > only slightly so? That it becomes illegal if even the one bit is flipped, > w/o having to be executed, or even on an executable medium. >> > DeCSS with a bit flipped no longer functions as DeCSS. It's a completely > different program. So yes. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 20:40:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA27942 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:40:40 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA27939 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:40:37 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id RAA08591 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:45:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma008343; Wed, 21 Feb 01 17:44:39 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:46:26 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id SAA27962; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:44:38 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:51:51 -0700 Message-ID: <006001c09c72$06a42780$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 168AB0F8455712-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Consilgere wrote: > You miss my point. There is no convincing! When you say "mov ax > bx" it does > it. No ifs, ands, or buts. Look I orginally used the word "convince" in half jest. Clearly the CDC card reader would read my deck when I pushed the button. Literally speaking, pushing a button isn't "convincing." However, when one has a thick job deck and a cantankerous card reader (jams, tears, doubled card reads) one finds themselves alone in the computer center at 3am talking to the the reader "please run this deck" -- thus the half-jesting use of "convince". (Ever find yourself talking to Windows about a some .DLL hell / library path / registry or environment setting nightmare that is preventing some code from executing -- same concept.) The point is that the job deck never walked from card punch and inserted itself in the card reader. (Even when I was half delusional after two dozen Mt. Dews and 30 hours straight.) I inserted a "job run" card in the deck (see a). I stuck the cards in the reader. I pushed the reader start button. The computer followed the instructions I gave it, but the instructions were just that -- instructions. Until I pressed the card reader "submit" button they were a lifeless stack of paper -- pure speech in typed in hollerith codes (see b) 80 characters to a card. The fact that they were easy for the computer to read is irrelevant. The fact that they were MNF Fortran and not CDC assembly is irrelevant. They were simply a list of instructions in a unambigous, formal, language suitably clear to be executed by hand (see c) or by a computer. A computer could follow those same instructions, but only when I told it to. Footnotes (a cop-out to good composition (a) Only a "job run" card would cause compilation and execution of the job deck. Other choices were "print listing" which simply dumped the card text to the printer or "compile only" which just compiled the code spitting out the annotated listing and error messages, or "copy deck" which would send the contents of the deck to the automate card punch (not some students got to use) Even here the simple speech elements of the code are explict. The instructions, even if perfectly valid, caused no execution on the processor without the explicit instruction of the job deck. Both the print listing and compile only cards treated the software as mere data to be processed -- like any spell checker would. Does the fact that I can control the actions of a Word processor spell checker (in your terms it's a virtual machine of it's own) by means of the mispellings I make, somehow add functionality to my mispelled words? If so, how much functionality is "enough" to corrupt my text. (b) Hollerith codes. Lest anyone think that because the format is computer readable, that it somehow is not pure speech. Remember that Hollerith cards were invented for recording census information -- pure data, not even instructions -- and predate the electronic computer by several decades. Punch are a convenient way to encode information such that a card sorter, or a computer can deal with that information. But all the punch cards really did was compensate for the lack of computer vision/OCR to read typewritten tabulations directly. (c)Execution by hand, which I did frequently, as job runs tend to have 20-40 minute delays. The listing of my Advanced FORTRAN mid-term never did execute itself. **I** had to take pencil and paper a **I** had to follow each instruction precisely. BTW this is how I know that code does not run itself but is pure speech. It is instead processors that run code when instructed to do so by users. Without the computer (me -- check out any pre 1960's dictionary "computer n. a person who computes") the code is lifeless. It may describe some virtual, logical machine, but it is not such a machine and never will be. I know, I know... don't feed the trolls. ("But mooooom, they're so cute!") John Zulauf private netizen and troll feeder From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 21:50:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA28466 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:50:22 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA28463 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:50:20 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA30ZHD>; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:13:14 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:13:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Consilgere@cs.com [mailto:Consilgere@cs.com] > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 6:27 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free > speech card > yet? > > > In a message dated 2/18/01 7:33:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, > dcs@lumbercartel.com writes: > > << OK, so the Internet constitutes a clear and present > danger. Ban it. > Or were you suggesting that rm constitutes a clear and > present danger? > (Same conclusion.) >> > Yes, rm does constitute a "clear and present danger." But we > make exceptions > for certain things that do. You can legally own a chainsaw, > they certainly > threaten people's safety. You can legally own a hunting > rifle... just > because software isn't speech doesn't mean it has no protection. > We make exceptions for chainsaws? You are suggesting that everything is banned by default and exceptions must be made for anything that is useful? This is precisely the opposite of how the world (and even law) works. Dangerous things exist. Then they (may) get banned. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 23:00:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA29034 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:00:50 -0500 Received: from smtp10.phx.gblx.net (smtp10.phx.gblx.net [206.165.6.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA29031 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:00:49 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp10.phx.gblx.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21440 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:05:17 -0700 Received: from 64-212-31-190.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.31.190), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp10.phx.gblx.net, id smtpdMl5bia; Wed Feb 21 21:05:11 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA20112 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:05:34 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:05:33 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to reprint a religious text? MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022121053300.01525@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wednesday 21 February 2001 11:02, you wrote: # Curiouser and Curiouser......Although the Urantia case involves # distribution. In the case of the Armstrong book, there is the additional # fact that the sect still uses the original text which the "mother church" # is now attempting to suppress. The law may have no remedy for this. Yes, but it's a WONDERFUL example of First Sale. The Oklahoma group can be prevented from printing any more copies, but according to the DVD CCA they should also be prevented from using the copies that they already have. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 21 23:12:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA29249 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:12:52 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA29246 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:12:40 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA26460 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:19:10 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:19:05 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Sony Bono Message-ID: <20010221231905.O24880@eldritchpress.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 'DataPlay - Flash Killer or Copy-Control Nightmare?' http://slashdot.org/ on Feb 21 2001 has the usual rantings but also a few veering comments on 'Sony Bono' that even i thought actually somewhat funny, even for /. (This fits with the recent NYT article that reported an alarming forgetting among writers of Chinese in how to draw characters, and a similar decrease in English spelling ability, brought upon by computer use.) But when the thieves start to fall out and sue each other for trademarked names and rights of publicity, even though they are the ones who now own our common language, some of us will just watch and grin and say nothing. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 04:05:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA32639 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 04:05:28 -0500 Received: from mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.85]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA32636 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 04:05:19 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010222091004.QOK585.mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 01:10:04 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 02:24:41 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" References: <76.7f5edff.27c5b310@cs.com> In-Reply-To: <76.7f5edff.27c5b310@cs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022202244100.02121@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id EAA32637 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The first amendment doesn't say what kind of speech is protected it just protects freedom of speech. You can say what ever you want. It doesn't matter who you are saying it to. (I am aware of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater but that isn't a free speech problem thats a problem of disturbing the peace ). The fact is what difference does it make if we are talking to a computer or talking to a human being. This is what my point has been all along. I think making that distinction is very dangerous. You start on a very slippery slope at that point. One that could ultimatly mean that we don't have the right to speek freely on the net. On Thursday 22 February 2001 00:10, you wrote: > In a message dated 2/20/01 11:38:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, > pneves@aicompro.com writes: > > Except you're mixing mediums. Speech in the context of the physical world > is not a direct equivalent to programs on a computer. There are extremely > obvious differences. So why would we treat them as though they were the > same? > > << instruction > procedure > statement > command > > These are all words used when talking about speech or communicating. These > words are why we can make a strong statement that software is speech. >> From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 05:13:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA00754 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 05:13:17 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA00751 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 05:13:13 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA15105 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 05:17:17 -0500 Message-Id: <200102221017.FAA15105@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: DVD Discussion List Subject: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 05:16:47 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I got to thinking last night, which badly interrupted my sleep. I was thinking about two things that sort of merged: (i) The government's intervention in the 2600 case, supposedly in support of the constitutionality of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, and (2) A passage in the current issue of Harper's that reads in its entirety as follows: [Rights] eVIL \emph{The following restrictions appear in an ``eBook'' edition of \emph{Alice in Wonderland} published by VolumeOne for the Adobe Acrobat eBook Reader.} Permissions on \emph{Alice in Wonderland} COPY No text selection can be copied from this book to the clipboard. PRINT No printing is forbidden on this book. LEND This book cannot be lent to someone else. GIVE This book cannot be given to someone else. READ ALOUD This book cannot be read aloud. Now here is more or less what I was thinking: The government surely isn't going to argue---and the court surely would not let them argue---that all possible interpretations and applications of the Anti-Circumvention provisions are constitutional. On the other hand, the white hats are not going to argue that all possible interpretations and applications of the Anti-Circumvention provisions are unconstitutional. The court is only going to be concerned with the constitutionality and application of the provisions to the facts of the 2600 case and similar cases. But the actual facts of the 2600 case are confusing and misleading, in part because the workings of DVD's are not easy to explain and it is not self-evident how ``fair use'' and similar doctrines apply to movies that traditionally were not published in individual copies but rather presented as public performances. So it would be well to argue the constitutional issues, not in terms of DVD's, but of e-books, where the issues are actually the same, but the issues are much clearer. Now I am pretty sure that Harper's published the permissions ``on'' the Alice in Wonderland ebook under the impression that they forbade the owner of that ebook from reading it aloud. And that was, I admit, the way I first read it. But when I discovered that the current edition of that ebook now has permissions that expressly permit reading the work aloud and doing all the other things that were forbidden in the Harper's version, I concluded that the software in the ebook reader was capable of reading the text aloud, but that that bit of functionality was disabled in the Harper's version, as was the ability to copy sections of the text into the clipboard, etc. Now let us consider the case of a blind man who owns a copy of the Alice in Wonderland ebook, or some other ebook, and wants to have his computer read the text to him. If the ebook reader program has disabled that ability, the would be hearer of the text undoubtedly has other programs that can read aloud ordinary ascii text. So all he has to do is write a program that gets access to the ascii text version of his copy of Alice by circumventing whatever encryption scheme was used to make the text of the ebook inaccessible to the ordinary reader. But the only trouble with that is that, at least according to the MPAA, it is a violation of the Anti-Circumvention provisions for him to write or use that program. Can a statute be constitutional that makes it illegal for a blind man to write or use a program that causes his computer to read aloud to him the text of an ebook that he owns? I concluded that since the legal issues involving DVD's and ebooks are exactly the same---at least I can't think of any difference---every effort should be made to state the good guys' case in terms of understandable ebooks, rather than confusing DVD's. And then I thought---perhaps because I have only gone to two movies in the last dozen years---that if the good guys lose the DVD case that that would not be a major tragedy, except for its precedential value. What is important is that readers be able to get access to the contents of ebooks, not DVD's. What the world needs, I concluded, is a concerted effort to make the contents of ebooks available through open source software. That is, we need some organization to attempt to do for the many different types of ebooks, what Livid is trying to do for DVD's. And then I got up and before 4:00 a.m. today I became the proud owner of the elboss.org domain name to be used by the Electronic Book Open Source Systems (ElBOSS) project. Is anyone interested? Is anyone already working on open source ebook readers? -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 05:35:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA01007 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 05:35:14 -0500 Received: from bur-jud-175-135 (bur-jud-175-135.rh.uchicago.edu [128.135.175.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA01004 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 05:35:09 -0500 Received: by bur-jud-175-135 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B9266206; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 04:43:19 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 04:43:19 -0600 From: Sam TH To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's Message-ID: <20010222044319.A13543@uchicago.edu> References: <200102221017.FAA15105@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+QahgC5+KEYLbs62" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <200102221017.FAA15105@samsara.law.cwru.edu>; from junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 05:16:47AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 05:16:47AM -0500, Peter D. Junger wrote: >=20 > Is anyone interested? Is anyone already working on open source ebook=20 > readers? >=20 Well, you already have a manifesto: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html=20 Unfortunately, I was totally unable to find software of dubious repute that would decode Glassbook books, or any others. But I'm sure it's out there. =20 =20 =20 sam th =20 sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ GnuPG Key: =20 http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6lO1Ht+kM0Mq9M/wRAh40AKDamEF+9QcodsBlXpV6EKJxOZN/tACeNIiE BUgXf/7O5l+fUsFhIE7Pl5w= =OzuT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 08:52:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA02315 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:52:32 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [209.98.6.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA02312 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:52:28 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [163.228.19.198]) by tneu.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1DF1AA for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 02:03:32 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 02:03:32 -0600 (CST) From: tim To: DVD Discussion List Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's In-Reply-To: <200102221017.FAA15105@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu As much as I like a conspiracy, ... I think the "right to read" setting on an ebook has more to do with technology than opressing the right of people to read the story. The "No" slot just means that the ebook does not contain voice data. However, with public domain works, I don't see how they would have a leg to stand on, if they tried to use the anticircumvention portion of the DMCA to stop the other activities listed. (partially because I think more judges are familiar with books, than DVDs - especially in regards to traditional fair use doctrine). If this occured, it would be a much simpler case then that of 2600. On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Peter D. Junger wrote: > > I got to thinking last night, which badly interrupted my sleep. > > I was thinking about two things that sort of merged: > > (i) The government's intervention in the 2600 case, supposedly > in support of the constitutionality of the anti-circumvention > provisions of the DMCA, and > > (2) A passage in the current issue of Harper's that reads in its > entirety as follows: > > > [Rights] > eVIL > > > \emph{The following restrictions appear in an ``eBook'' edition of > \emph{Alice in Wonderland} published by VolumeOne for the Adobe > Acrobat eBook Reader.} > > > > Permissions on \emph{Alice in Wonderland} > > COPY > No text selection can be copied from this book to the clipboard. > > PRINT > No printing is forbidden on this book. > > LEND > This book cannot be lent to someone else. > > GIVE > This book cannot be given to someone else. > > READ ALOUD > This book cannot be read aloud. > > Now here is more or less what I was thinking: > > The government surely isn't going to argue---and the court surely > would not let them argue---that all possible interpretations and > applications of the Anti-Circumvention provisions are constitutional. > > On the other hand, the white hats are not going to argue that all > possible interpretations and applications of the Anti-Circumvention > provisions are unconstitutional. > > The court is only going to be concerned with the constitutionality > and application of the provisions to the facts of the 2600 case > and similar cases. > > But the actual facts of the 2600 case are confusing and misleading, > in part because the workings of DVD's are not easy to explain and > it is not self-evident how ``fair use'' and similar doctrines apply > to movies that traditionally were not published in individual copies > but rather presented as public performances. > > So it would be well to argue the constitutional issues, not in terms > of DVD's, but of e-books, where the issues are actually the same, but > the issues are much clearer. > > Now I am pretty sure that Harper's published the permissions ``on'' > the Alice in Wonderland ebook under the impression that they forbade > the owner of that ebook from reading it aloud. And that was, I admit, > the way I first read it. > > But when I discovered that the current edition of that ebook now has > permissions that expressly permit reading the work aloud and doing > all the other things that were forbidden in the Harper's version, I > concluded that the software in the ebook reader was capable of reading > the text aloud, but that that bit of functionality was disabled in > the Harper's version, as was the ability to copy sections of the text > into the clipboard, etc. > > Now let us consider the case of a blind man who owns a copy of the > Alice in Wonderland ebook, or some other ebook, and wants to have > his computer read the text to him. If the ebook reader program has > disabled that ability, the would be hearer of the text undoubtedly > has other programs that can read aloud ordinary ascii text. > > So all he has to do is write a program that gets access to the ascii > text version of his copy of Alice by circumventing whatever encryption > scheme was used to make the text of the ebook inaccessible to the > ordinary reader. > > But the only trouble with that is that, at least according to the > MPAA, it is a violation of the Anti-Circumvention provisions for him > to write or use that program. > > Can a statute be constitutional that makes it illegal for a blind > man to write or use a program that causes his computer to read aloud > to him the text of an ebook that he owns? > > I concluded that since the legal issues involving DVD's and ebooks are > exactly the same---at least I can't think of any difference---every > effort should be made to state the good guys' case in terms of > understandable ebooks, rather than confusing DVD's. > > And then I thought---perhaps because I have only gone to two movies in > the last dozen years---that if the good guys lose the DVD case that that > would not be a major tragedy, except for its precedential value. > > What is important is that readers be able to get access to the contents > of ebooks, not DVD's. > > What the world needs, I concluded, is a concerted effort to make the > contents of ebooks available through open source software. That is, > we need some organization to attempt to do for the many different > types of ebooks, what Livid is trying to do for DVD's. > > And then I got up and before 4:00 a.m. today I became the proud owner of > the elboss.org domain name to be used by the Electronic Book Open Source > Systems (ElBOSS) project. > > Is anyone interested? Is anyone already working on open source ebook > readers? > > -- > Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH > EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu > NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists > -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- What the president of the Motion Picture Association of America says about taking away your constitutional rights: "I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one of these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw out reverse engineering; he threw out linking." - Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "If you don't have the freedom to use what you / ' ) ) own - then you do not own anything." / o ______ / / _ . . No apologies to Jack Valenti or the MPAA / <_/ / / < / (_; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:45:02 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA26923 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:51:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:51:37 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's Message-ID: <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> References: <200102221017.FAA15105@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from tim@tneu.visi.com on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 02:03:32AM -0600 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 02:03:32AM -0600, tim wrote: > > As much as I like a conspiracy, ... > > I think the "right to read" setting on an ebook has more to do with > technology than opressing the right of people to read the story. in this particular case, it was a choice the technology enabled, that the publisher chose not to take. that choice oppressed the right of people who are visually impaired from accessing the book. the reader would have the choice of reading the open project gutenberg work--or another such work, perhaps with illustrations and so on--at another internet site--if the publisher of the ebook had bothered to leave in the link to the other web sites. but they did not. they are using computers not to make books more accessible, but to lock them up. and that locking up books is precisely the point of the dmca, which seeks to protect this publisher activity on top of the tpm. i put out a rant on this subject of ebooks' only purpose being to lock up books, a few years ago, in the last half of: http://www.eldritchpress.org/battle.html and i see no reason to change my mind yet. > The "No" slot just means that the ebook does not contain voice data. > > However, with public domain works, I don't see how they would have a leg > to stand on, if they tried to use the anticircumvention portion of the > DMCA to stop the other activities listed. (partially because I think more > judges are familiar with books, than DVDs - especially in regards to > traditional fair use doctrine). > If this occured, it would be a much simpler case then that of 2600. i agree. some of us feel another lawsuit might be a good idea. one that is a positive assault on the dmca, and that is in part based on encrypted public domain ebooks being protected by the same dmca provisions as dvds. we need to discuss that here and offline. more notes interspersed in the long, valuable post from Peter (i include the whole thing because it is very thoughtful and deserves another, full reading): > On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Peter D. Junger wrote: > > > > I got to thinking last night, which badly interrupted my sleep. > > > > I was thinking about two things that sort of merged: > > > > (i) The government's intervention in the 2600 case, supposedly > > in support of the constitutionality of the anti-circumvention > > provisions of the DMCA, and > > > > (2) A passage in the current issue of Harper's that reads in its > > entirety as follows: > > > > > > [Rights] > > eVIL > > > > > > \emph{The following restrictions appear in an ``eBook'' edition of > > \emph{Alice in Wonderland} published by VolumeOne for the Adobe > > Acrobat eBook Reader.} > > > > > > > > Permissions on \emph{Alice in Wonderland} > > > > COPY > > No text selection can be copied from this book to the clipboard. > > > > PRINT > > No printing is forbidden on this book. > > > > LEND > > This book cannot be lent to someone else. > > > > GIVE > > This book cannot be given to someone else. > > > > READ ALOUD > > This book cannot be read aloud. > > > > Now here is more or less what I was thinking: > > > > The government surely isn't going to argue---and the court surely > > would not let them argue---that all possible interpretations and > > applications of the Anti-Circumvention provisions are constitutional. > > > > On the other hand, the white hats are not going to argue that all > > possible interpretations and applications of the Anti-Circumvention > > provisions are unconstitutional. > > > > The court is only going to be concerned with the constitutionality > > and application of the provisions to the facts of the 2600 case > > and similar cases. > > > > But the actual facts of the 2600 case are confusing and misleading, > > in part because the workings of DVD's are not easy to explain and > > it is not self-evident how ``fair use'' and similar doctrines apply > > to movies that traditionally were not published in individual copies > > but rather presented as public performances. > > > > So it would be well to argue the constitutional issues, not in terms > > of DVD's, but of e-books, where the issues are actually the same, but > > the issues are much clearer. > > > > Now I am pretty sure that Harper's published the permissions ``on'' > > the Alice in Wonderland ebook under the impression that they forbade > > the owner of that ebook from reading it aloud. And that was, I admit, > > the way I first read it. > > > > But when I discovered that the current edition of that ebook now has > > permissions that expressly permit reading the work aloud and doing > > all the other things that were forbidden in the Harper's version, I > > concluded that the software in the ebook reader was capable of reading > > the text aloud, but that that bit of functionality was disabled in > > the Harper's version, as was the ability to copy sections of the text > > into the clipboard, etc. yes, i believe it is the publisher who sets the bits. and publishers do not wish ebooks to be put out in open format. they want to force a market for encrypted books, which will never succeed as long as there is a larger market of free (speech) books. hence the specialized appliances that enable and support encryption, not possible or easy in the case of a pc or laptop. authors in general do not wish books to be encrypted and not read by blind folks. see stephen king's rapid learning process: 'the plant' was inaccessible to the blind but rapidly cracked--king could not even read it on his own macintosh--so his next ebook--which was a commercial success, in spite of the vituperation of publishers--was not locked up. > > Now let us consider the case of a blind man who owns a copy of the > > Alice in Wonderland ebook, or some other ebook, and wants to have > > his computer read the text to him. If the ebook reader program has > > disabled that ability, the would be hearer of the text undoubtedly > > has other programs that can read aloud ordinary ascii text. > > > > So all he has to do is write a program that gets access to the ascii > > text version of his copy of Alice by circumventing whatever encryption > > scheme was used to make the text of the ebook inaccessible to the > > ordinary reader. > > > > But the only trouble with that is that, at least according to the > > MPAA, it is a violation of the Anti-Circumvention provisions for him > > to write or use that program. i am not sure that it would be a violation of the dmca anti- circumvention provisions to write or use a program that did access the underlying public domain work. however, judge kaplan's ruling apparently makes it a crime to share any information with another party on how to do this--whether it be a software program or some other means, such as a found key--as long as the same encryption system is used to protect copyrighted works. > > Can a statute be constitutional that makes it illegal for a blind > > man to write or use a program that causes his computer to read aloud > > to him the text of an ebook that he owns? > > > > I concluded that since the legal issues involving DVD's and ebooks are > > exactly the same---at least I can't think of any difference---every > > effort should be made to state the good guys' case in terms of > > understandable ebooks, rather than confusing DVD's. > > > > And then I thought---perhaps because I have only gone to two movies in > > the last dozen years---that if the good guys lose the DVD case that that > > would not be a major tragedy, except for its precedential value. > > > > What is important is that readers be able to get access to the contents > > of ebooks, not DVD's. > > > > What the world needs, I concluded, is a concerted effort to make the > > contents of ebooks available through open source software. That is, > > we need some organization to attempt to do for the many different > > types of ebooks, what Livid is trying to do for DVD's. i think we need a new lawsuit to overturn the dmca. if we can have the dmca declared unconstitutional then there will be no need for any movement to crack the ebook encryption and make 'open source' ebook readers. we already have many readers for electronic books and other works. the handheld platforms have created new ones (proprietary ones--there is a long history here that i won't get into now) and the best thing would be to let 'eBooks' die peacefully just like circuit city divx, rejected by the marketplace. then the electronic texts could be 'open source books' freely accessible on the net. the only reason 'eBooks' have not died is the dmca-- and possibly that today's readers don't value books in the same way as other commodities of popular culture, so few have bothered to pay attention to them. > > And then I got up and before 4:00 a.m. today I became the proud owner of > > the elboss.org domain name to be used by the Electronic Book Open Source > > Systems (ElBOSS) project. > > > > Is anyone interested? Is anyone already working on open source ebook > > readers? please read carefully 'The Big Town' at http://www.eldritchpress.org/rl/bigtown.html i took it from a Microsoft Reader format encrypted eBook available from http://ebooks.barnesandnoble.com you can download MS Reader without registering it, and download this free ebook, for comparison purposes. if you don't download ms reader, you can download the berlinger truetype fonts from my directory /rl/ and enjoy the same font that ms reader uses. tell me which you prefer. and please share my edition with your blind reader friends--i am sure that they will enjoy it. and, no, i won't share with anybody how to do this, so they can access this or other encrypted books, even if they are in the public domain. that would as i understand judge kaplan's ruling be a violation of the dmca, a crime, and i don't wish to go to jail. i would rather keep plugging at publishing and sharing books, using computers in the way they should be used, and never to lock up books. -- nom:"Eric" Eric Eldred Eldritch Press mailto:Eldred@EldritchPress.org vCard3.0:http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 10:47:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA03355 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:47:03 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA03350 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:46:55 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:51:37 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:51:36 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/22/2001 07:51:37 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That's a specious argument. Guns and cars have the ability to be life threatening and loss of life - a clear and present danger at all times PERIOD. (Remember, there is no such thing as an unloaded gun.) And the counterexample that goes "what if I put my heart lung machine on the internet and some hacker hacks in and kills my patients" . That's specious too. You don't NEED to put it on the internet and if the risks outweight the benefits you DON"T DO IT. There's also one huge amount of things that are regulated, licensed, for no good reason - possesssion of refrigerator gauges without a license, lockpick tools without being a bonefide locksmith, repo man, or law officer,blowguns, fancy knives, knives with more than 3" blades, rifles with stocks that protrude below the handles)...so why don't we just add one more thing to the ever increasing list. Possession of LINUX, Possession of DOS, possession of compiler, possession of code making tools...... No you're not breaking new ground here....just more of the same. Not every problem can be solved by creating a new law, a new regulation or creating a new class of criminals. Consilgere@cs.com Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? 02/21/01 04:18 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss In a message dated 2/21/01 11:58:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, johnzu@ia.nsc.com writes: And it's not unprecedented to regulate something that needs a user to do what it was designed to do, especially if it can be proven to have a destructive impact on someone's life or property. Cars and guns for example. I'm not breaking new ground here. << The point remains the "mov ax bx" does nothing without being in a stream of instruction sent to the proper processor by a user. >> From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 11:03:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03665 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:03:31 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03662 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:03:23 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:08:14 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:08:12 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/22/2001 08:08:14 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Dangerous things exist. Then they (may) get banned." All things are dangerous. The balance that is struck is banning things that are extremely dangerous to others (e.g., possession of nuclear materials, storage of large amounts of explosive in residential areas), to regulating things that are dangerous to others if user is unskilled (e.g., cars) to limiting access because of the dangers if misused (e.g., dynamite.) to accepting the fact that some things are dangerous in accidental situations that occur (e.g., the skateboarder that likes to skate up stairs and breaks his arm, the woodworking toos that I own that can cut off a limb if I am not careful) The problem that WE , especially in the USA, are having now is that a large group of people wish to move things from the bottom category into the ones above with all the attendant administration or licensing, regulation, and PUNISHMENT for transgressors. The possession or purchase of refrigerator gauges and lockpick tools without licenses really is illegal today. Where does that fit in to things? Somebody maybe might have let some ozone into the air or maybe may break into somebody's house. MAYBE, COULD HAVE. DID NOT? Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? 02/21/01 06:59 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: Consilgere@cs.com [mailto:Consilgere@cs.com] > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 6:27 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free > speech card > yet? > > > In a message dated 2/18/01 7:33:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, > dcs@lumbercartel.com writes: > > << OK, so the Internet constitutes a clear and present > danger. Ban it. > Or were you suggesting that rm constitutes a clear and > present danger? > (Same conclusion.) >> > Yes, rm does constitute a "clear and present danger." But we > make exceptions > for certain things that do. You can legally own a chainsaw, > they certainly > threaten people's safety. You can legally own a hunting > rifle... just > because software isn't speech doesn't mean it has no protection. > We make exceptions for chainsaws? You are suggesting that everything is banned by default and exceptions must be made for anything that is useful? This is precisely the opposite of how the world (and even law) works. Dangerous things exist. Then they (may) get banned. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 11:16:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03859 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:16:40 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03856 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:16:22 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26978 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:23:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:22:56 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] DMCA enables pay-per-view books Message-ID: <20010222112256.A26934@eldritchpress.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from jrusk@mac-email.com on Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 11:53:31PM -0500 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cross-posted from the bookpeople mailing list, written by a friend: > Steven Levy has an interesting article in the > current "Newsweek"... > > This is on p. 60 of the Feb 26, 2001 issue: > > "The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Lee Tien believes that > the content industries will eventually use the laws > [Millennium Copyright Act and others] to create even more > controls over creative works, engineering a pay-per-view > model for all forms of intellectual property. Instead of > buying a record or a book and enjoying it as often as you > like, he says, you might wind up having to fork over bucks > every time you reread the book or replay the tune." > > Levy ends on an optimistic note, saying that Americans will > not stand for this kind of greed. Imagine, he says, if all > 62 million Napster users wrote their congress-people! > > I have a more negative view. Greed will win. I agree. I would like to help the EFF with a proactive suit against the DMCA. We cannot allow books to be turned into pay-per-view infotainment events. If there is any purpose for copyright law, surely it is to encourage open public debate, something that would be made impossible if all expressions were in this form. Would it be worth living in this world without used book stores, free public libraries, news and discussion that you can buy instead of rent, but only digital events you cannot share with anyone or refer to without going to jail as in '1984'? I think not. But too many of us are too enamored of techology, and think that it makes no difference what the law (right coast code, in Lessig's newspeak) is. We who understand technology and want to see it used wisely had better wake up and communicate with the legal and policy experts, and devise some political way of furthering our ideas. We are not going to be able to stay alive long if we only write our congressperson, or write code to crack sdmi or css or glassbook. they adapt faster than us and they have control now--and their greed will never be satisfied. -- nom:"Eric" Eric Eldred Eldritch Press mailto:Eldred@EldritchPress.org vCard3.0:http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 11:49:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04387 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:49:39 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA04384 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:49:38 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id IAA15583 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:54:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma015157; Thu, 22 Feb 01 08:53:54 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:55:42 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00007; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:53:53 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:00:58 -0700 Message-ID: <000401c09cf1$071f0a20$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <200102221017.FAA15105@samsara.law.cwru.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 168B9B04571694-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Peter D. Junger spaketh Thursday, February 22, 2001 3:17 AM > > (i) The government's intervention in the 2600 case, supposedly > in support of the constitutionality of the anti-circumvention > provisions of the DMCA, and > > (2) A passage in the current issue of Harper's that reads in its > entirety as follows: This is extremely important. As we saw in the WIPO smoking gun, they IP companies (cartel?) are establishing their legal-technical-contractual control triad with explicit knowledge that this can be extended to digital print and text content. Napster and DVD rippers have "black hats" before the court. These groups can easily be painted in Kaplan disparaging "adherents of a movement that believes that information should be available without charge to anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data storage media in which it is located," free-as-in-free-beer light. The point of view of the lower Court appears to be "it's just a movie, get the VHS if you want fair use, all you guys want is to sneek into the moviehouse, digitally." The combination of these emerging ebook copyright abuses, and the impact on the fair use community give the ability for a meaningful "white hat" attack on the insidious effects of the DMCA. The sight disabled and academia have one of the brightest "white hat" claims on fair use and the answer to Jack Valenti's challenge from his Media institute speach. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010207/re/movies_valenti_dc_1.html Valenti said any encryption technology the industry adopts would likely allow consumer to make only one digital copy of a movie they purchase. ``Why on earth would you need more than one copy? Everything you want to copy you'll be able to copy one time,'' he said. Suppose a Professor wanted to build a compilation of small, fair use excerpts from a series of disparate source. "one copy" allows the Professor to create the compilation only from the orignal material. Thus instead of creating a master and duplicating it, he or she must create the compilation from scratch for each student. As the son of a Professor, and former teaching assis, I know the hard work that goes into material preparation. Now in the digital age we wish to again make the instructor's job more difficult. >From the point of view of the disabled and specifically the sight impaired, text to speech (TTS) systems need to get tot the clear-text of any ebook in order to read it. However, the lower courts claim that "non-infringing use" doesn't matter means that any tools with the capability extract the clear text needed by the TTS would be illegal regardless of the legitimate use. Further the one copy issue affects the disabled as well. Assume that one makes some disabled friendly version of a work, derived from a TPM'd source. One would like to be able provide a copy of that derived work to anyone showing proof of ownership of the original (think of this as a "space shift" service, similar in concept to an archival service which would backup your hard disk for you). This could be done for a reasonable cost. If instead one must rederive the work by hand from each original presented -- the costs would go up enourmously. Hmmm... maybe there is an ADA challenge to the DMCA.... John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 11:53:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04519 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:53:40 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA04516 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:53:34 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:57:29 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:57:27 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/22/2001 08:57:29 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Your comment on the slippery slope is a good one. A conservative and more pragamtic approach is to do nothing and see what happens....if nothing happens then nothing should have been done. If what does happen can be dealt with easily, then do the mimimum you need to do. But don't enact draconian laws to deal with possible things that may happen decades in advance. In fact, that's the whole problem with the DMCA. It's been enacted NOT in response to any abuses but to curb possible ones that may happen in the future. Only Hollywierd believes they have a crystal ball that predicts the future - you've seen it in so many movies haven't you? :-) Similarly, the excluded middle is a falacious argument which creeps into some of the arguements here. There is a big difference between guns ,cars, and software. "Philip V. Neves" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu arvard.edu cc: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? 02/22/01 01:14 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss The first amendment doesn't say what kind of speech is protected it just protects freedom of speech. You can say what ever you want. It doesn't matter who you are saying it to. (I am aware of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater but that isn't a free speech problem thats a problem of disturbing the peace ). The fact is what difference does it make if we are talking to a computer or talking to a human being. This is what my point has been all along. I think making that distinction is very dangerous. You start on a very slippery slope at that point. One that could ultimatly mean that we don't have the right to speek freely on the net. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 11:55:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04560 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:55:26 -0500 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA04557 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:55:25 -0500 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03758 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:00:22 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A954618.98799E7@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:02:16 -0600 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] yelling fire ... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > I am aware of yelling fire in a crowded movie > theater but that isn't a free speech problem thats a > problem of disturbing the peace ). Sigh. This is a pet peeve of mine. It's NOT a matter of disturbing the peace. It's very different from that. At the time the quote was written, theatre fires were very common and killed hundreds of people at a time in a matter of minutes. Theatre fires were the airline disasters of the time. The buildings and sets were made of wood and flammable fabric, painted with oil paint. Open arc lamps and gaslights were used for illumination. Theatres often had locked exits, and no fire suppression systems. They were deathtraps if a fire broke out. If someone stood up in a theatre and yelled fire, it was very likely that everyone in the theatre would rush for the exits, and many people would be injured or killed in the stampede. Contemporary theatres are extremely safe, and if you were to stand up in a modern movie theatre and yell, "FIRE", people would probably just look at you and ask you to sit down. A better modern day analogy would be if you snuck up behind someone peering down an open elevator shaft and yelled "BOO!", causing them to involuntarily leap to their death. All that Justice Holmes was saying is that you couldn't claim "freedom of speech" if your speech was calculated to cause involuntary panic leading to injury or death, not that the first amendment doesn't shield annoying or disruptive speakers from prosecution. That's sort of the point of the first amendment. Unfortunately, the quote no longer has any meaningful context, so people interpret it as meaning something very different then it was intended to. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 11:59:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04669 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:59:44 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA04666 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:59:43 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:04:31 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:04:30 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/22/2001 09:04:31 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Peter D. Junger" Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's arvard.edu 02/22/01 02:20 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss \emph{The following restrictions appear in an ``eBook'' edition of \emph{Alice in Wonderland} published by VolumeOne for the Adobe Acrobat eBook Reader.} Permissions on \emph{Alice in Wonderland} COPY No text selection can be copied from this book to the clipboard. >>Public Domain PRINT No printing is forbidden on this book. >>The medium is the message....and paper isn't the media LEND This book cannot be lent to someone else. >>Wow...that's a great one. There goes libraris GIVE This book cannot be given to someone else. >>First sale? I guess they don't anticipate large Xmas sales READ ALOUD This book cannot be read aloud. >>Now this one I can agree with! If you can't read without moving your lips then you should have your computer read it to you! Or maybe we should create a new category of disabled people - those who either move their lips or occassionally like to read passages aloud when they are well written (oppss I belong to that one.) Is this actually for real? Maybe somebody should send a copy of this to Senator Leahy and ask for commentary. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 12:07:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA04915 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:07:50 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA04911 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:07:49 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:12:39 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:12:37 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/22/2001 09:12:38 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Conspiracy means coordination....yet a group of greedy bastards all thinking alike seems to accomplish the same thing. This also raises the idea of derivative works. We've discussed how they can be used to lock up public domain material. Well here is a case. Is this a derivative work? Surely if material is in the public domain, I have complete access to it. I may take the text from ANY copy of the book and do with it what I want-Not just a first edition. Yet here we read all the things that I used to be able to do with a work are not allowed. Eric, you are absolutely right. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 12:11:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA05043 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:11:43 -0500 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA05040 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:11:42 -0500 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08334 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:16:39 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A9549EA.1C2BEC92@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:18:34 -0600 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > The "No" slot just means that the ebook does not contain voice data. Ebooks do not contain voice data. What this means is that some glassbook readers may contain a text-to-voice facility, so blind people can listen to the ebook instead of reading it on a screen. This would normally work for all ebooks, except that a flag bit has been thoughtfully provided to disable that facility. This flag means that this particular copy of the ebook has had that ability disabled, so if you were to load Alice into an e-reader which is equipped with a text-to-speech converter for the blind, the reader would refuse to "read" the book out loud. Setting this bit is a deliberate action that places a technical restriction on all licensed ebook readers. It has nothing to do with your right to read the book to your child out loud, as has been suggested. > However, with public domain works, I don't see how they would have a leg > to stand on, if they tried to use the anticircumvention portion of the > DMCA to stop the other activities listed.unavailable to blind people. However, under the logic of the DMCA, it would still be illegal to distrubute or use software that allows blind people to read this public domain work, not because the publisher has any copyright control over Alice in Wonderland, but because the same system that prevents blind people from reading Alice in Wonderland also happens to serve as the copy protection system for other currently copyrighted works, and "cracking" the protection on Alice would also crack the protection on Tom Clancy. Hence, Alice is locked up. Remember that the MPAA never alleged any actual copyright infringement. Just that DeCSS *could* be used to infringe their copyrights. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 12:13:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA05098 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:13:19 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA05095 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:13:17 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA31753 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:18:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:18:14 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's In-Reply-To: <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Eric Eldred wrote: > > authors in general do not wish books to be encrypted and > not read by blind folks. see stephen king's rapid learning > process: 'the plant' was inaccessible to the blind but > rapidly cracked--king could not even read it on his own > macintosh--so his next ebook--which was a commercial > success, in spite of the vituperation of publishers--was > not locked up. Actually, It was King's "Riding the Bullet" that was innaccessible. The Plant was available in several formats including glassbook, pdf, and html. The Plant pdf did not use a security method... Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 12:16:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA05945 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:16:51 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA05939 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:16:44 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:21:13 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] yelling fire ... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:21:12 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/22/2001 09:21:13 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu AGREED. One must understand the time and context of the quotation to truly understand its significance. Calling it a disturbance of the peace ignores the fact that at that time, and today, it is likely to cause a STAMPEDE of people running for exits that might be locked. Even today some stupid ass locks the doors and people die-crushed at a rock concert or incinerated at a disco in Denmark....Today a better analogy might be "OH PATRONS. I've planted a bomb in the theater with a 60 second timer...60...59..............1...0........GOTCHA .. HA ... HA ...HA!" John Schulien Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] yelling fire ... 02/22/01 09:09 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss > I am aware of yelling fire in a crowded movie > theater but that isn't a free speech problem thats a > problem of disturbing the peace ). Sigh. This is a pet peeve of mine. It's NOT a matter of disturbing the peace. It's very different from that. At the time the quote was written, theatre fires were very common and killed hundreds of people at a time in a matter of minutes. Theatre fires were the airline disasters of the time. The buildings and sets were made of wood and flammable fabric, painted with oil paint. Open arc lamps and gaslights were used for illumination. Theatres often had locked exits, and no fire suppression systems. They were deathtraps if a fire broke out. If someone stood up in a theatre and yelled fire, it was very likely that everyone in the theatre would rush for the exits, and many people would be injured or killed in the stampede. Contemporary theatres are extremely safe, and if you were to stand up in a modern movie theatre and yell, "FIRE", people would probably just look at you and ask you to sit down. A better modern day analogy would be if you snuck up behind someone peering down an open elevator shaft and yelled "BOO!", causing them to involuntarily leap to their death. All that Justice Holmes was saying is that you couldn't claim "freedom of speech" if your speech was calculated to cause involuntary panic leading to injury or death, not that the first amendment doesn't shield annoying or disruptive speakers from prosecution. That's sort of the point of the first amendment. Unfortunately, the quote no longer has any meaningful context, so people interpret it as meaning something very different then it was intended to. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 12:19:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA06002 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:19:22 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA05999 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:19:20 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:24:03 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] yelling fire ... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:24:02 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/22/2001 09:24:03 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Last night I was reading more on clear and present danger. What as chilling was Brandais's concurance in Whitney vs California 274 U.S. 357;47 sep ct 641; (you win Jim...that's about as cryptic as the most wretchedly written "C" code i've ever seen). You could quote that on 2600 today and justpoint out that in this case it is not a government interest but a commercial one. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 12:27:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA06146 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:27:14 -0500 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA06143 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:27:12 -0500 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12389 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:32:09 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A954D8C.F0DD4E6E@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:34:04 -0600 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu More details on how these facilities work. > COPY > No text selection can be copied from this book to the clipboard. Self explanatory ... > PRINT > No printing is forbidden on this book. Self explanatory ... > LEND > This book cannot be lent to someone else. Here's how this works. If you have an ebook that you want to "lend" to someone, you would connect your ebook reader to your friend's ebook reader, and select a "lend" option. The ebook would ask you how long you wanted to loan it for, and you would enter in a "return" date. Then the ebook reader would copy the book to your friend's ebook, and temporarily disable your own copy of the ebook. So the book could be read on his ebook but not yours. When the expiration time arrives, the software on your reader re-enables the ebook, and the software on his reader erases or disables the ebook. This facility -- the right to lend ebooks -- can be disabled at the discretion of the publisher, as it has been here, without regard to copyright status. > GIVE > This book cannot be given to someone else. Similarly, ebooks have the facility to be transferred -- but only with the permission of the publisher! If you wanted to give your ebook to someone else, you would connect your readers, select something from a menu, and the ebook would be copied into your friend's reader, and erased from yours. In the Glassbook world, consumer's first sale rights are only available if the publisher grants them. > READ ALOUD > This book cannot be read aloud. This option disables text-to-speech converters, thus preventing blind people from using certain ebooks. You could make an argument that "copy" and "print" somehow protect exclusive rights of the copyright holder, even though they eliminate fair use, but the "GIVE", "LEND", and "READ ALOUD" options are actually technological measures that nullify the corresponding first-sale rights of the owners of copies of copyrighted (and uncopyrighted) works. They don't have the legal right to prevent loaning and resale of ebooks, but by incorporating technical restrictions that prevent resale into the same copy protection scheme that prevents copying, they can get the same effect. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 12:46:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA06424 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:46:25 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA06421 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:46:14 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA27264 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:52:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:52:51 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's Message-ID: <20010222125251.B27171@eldritchpress.org> References: <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:18:14PM -0500 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:18:14PM -0500, Jeremy A Erwin wrote: > On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Eric Eldred wrote: > > > > authors in general do not wish books to be encrypted and > > not read by blind folks. see stephen king's rapid learning > > process: 'the plant' was inaccessible to the blind but > > rapidly cracked--king could not even read it on his own > > macintosh--so his next ebook--which was a commercial > > success, in spite of the vituperation of publishers--was > > not locked up. > > Actually, It was King's "Riding the Bullet" that was innaccessible. The > Plant was available in several formats including glassbook, pdf, and html. > > The Plant pdf did not use a security method... > Jeremy sorry, i got that backwards, thanks for the correction. it was indeed possible to convert the cracked glassbook edition of 'riding the bullet' into html that could be read by blind readers, but that involved circumventing the tpm. -- nom:"Eric" Eric Eldred Eldritch Press mailto:Eldred@EldritchPress.org vCard3.0:http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 12:53:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA06608 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:53:17 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA06604 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:53:01 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA27280 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:59:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:59:38 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's Message-ID: <20010222125938.C27171@eldritchpress.org> References: <3A954D8C.F0DD4E6E@uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <3A954D8C.F0DD4E6E@uic.edu>; from jms@uic.edu on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 11:34:04AM -0600 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 11:34:04AM -0600, John Schulien wrote: > More details on how these facilities work. thanks, john. > .... > > They don't have the legal right to prevent loaning and resale of > ebooks, but by incorporating technical restrictions that prevent > resale into the same copy protection scheme that prevents copying, > they can get the same effect. and converting the first sale into a licensed sale or rental has the further effect of using the law to attain even more control. so we have perpetual copyright, tpm, dmca, ucita, trade secrets, patents, and trademarks. what more can the strong ipr forces ask for? how about sales to real customers for these pay-per-view events? and when the companies go bankrupt, what then with these works? -- nom:"Eric" Eric Eldred Eldritch Press mailto:Eldred@EldritchPress.org vCard3.0:http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 12:58:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA06776 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:58:10 -0500 Received: from web10001.mail.yahoo.com (web10001.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.130.37]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA06773 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:58:09 -0500 Message-ID: <20010222180305.91745.qmail@web10001.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.131.99.129] by web10001.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:03:05 PST Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:03:05 -0800 (PST) From: Larry Blunk Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here's Adobe's explanation of the "Read Aloud" feature from the Inside article at: http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=24027&pod_id=8 ''I'm extremely surprised that an intellect like Lawrence Lessig would be sucked in by the morons on Slashdot and its ilk,'' writes Len Kawell, director of e-book development for Adobe Systems Inc., in an e-mail. ''Read Aloud,'' he explains, is Adobe's brand name for a text-to-speech feature available on its more advanced e-book Plus Reader. Though the feature currently sounds quite ''mechanical,'' Kawell continues, Adobe hopes it will eventually enable children or the visually impaired to read e-books. But then why was the feature disabled on Alice -- and why is it ever disabled, for that matter? ''Our original intention was to enable Read Aloud for all PDF e-books,'' Kawell replies. ''Unfortunately, the book publishers said that they had already sold the audio rights to many of their titles and didn't want to run afoul of those agreements.... So, we created a 'permission' that allowed publishers with such a worry to turn it off.'' The fact that the Read Aloud feature was denied to those who downloaded Alice was merely the result of a ''data entry error,'' he says. (Indeed, if you download the Adobe Glassbook version now, all of the permissions are set to their maximally lenient -- as one might expect of a book that is being offered for free.) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 14:07:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA07418 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:07:17 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA07415 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:07:15 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA305FS>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:26:42 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card y et? Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:26:39 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 8:08 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free > speech card > yet? > > Richard Hartman said: > "Dangerous things exist. Then they (may) get banned." > All things are dangerous. The balance that is struck is > banning things that > are extremely dangerous to others (e.g., possession of > nuclear materials, > storage of large amounts of explosive in residential areas), > to regulating > things that are dangerous to others if user is unskilled > (e.g., cars) to > limiting access because of the dangers if misused (e.g., dynamite.) to > accepting the fact that some things are dangerous in > accidental situations > that occur (e.g., the skateboarder that likes to skate up > stairs and breaks > his arm, the woodworking toos that I own that can cut off a > limb if I am > not careful) And to which of these categories of danger do we assign DeCSS and/or Linux? Somehow I don't see even the accidental category applying except perhaps for getting a cut in your forehead if somebody throws the DVD like a Frisbee ... and that danger is present even without DeCSS. > The problem that WE , especially in the USA, are having now > is that a large > group of people wish to move things from the bottom category > into the ones > above with all the attendant administration or licensing, > regulation, and > PUNISHMENT for transgressors. It's all those damned legislators sitting around when all the good laws have already been written ... when can we say of our body of law "stick a fork in it, it's done" (oops, sorry ... forks are dangerous, aren't they?) >The possession or purchase of > refrigerator > gauges and lockpick tools without licenses really is illegal > today. Where > does that fit in to things? Lockpicks I knew ... that's supposed to be some sort of restraint on theives. (Doesn't seem to work very well ...) Refrigerator gauges? Didn't know about that one. What's the reasoning for that? Sounds like that is another example of whackos getting control of the fountain pen. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 14:09:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA07464 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:09:31 -0500 Received: from elrond.hobbiton.org (root@elrond.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.97]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA07461 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:09:29 -0500 Received: from hobbiton.org (sage_b@thorin.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.98]) by elrond.hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1MJFNw27394 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:15:23 -0600 (CST) Received: (from sage_b@localhost) by hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f1MJBoa16328; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:11:50 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:11:50 -0600 (CST) From: Stephen Kawamoto Message-Id: <200102221911.f1MJBoa16328@hobbiton.org> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to reprint a religious text? Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It's also a violation of freedom to worship since the Oklahoma group follows Armstrong's original tenets while Tkach's reformed WWCOG follows his dictates, in contravention of the last will and testament of Armstrong. I wonder if anyone did a discovery into Tkach's background. Is he a dupe of the Moral Marjority (a minority of people from the Religious Right) like Sheela Anand, the South Asian American woman who helped to get Osho kicked out of America? Ok this isn't pertinent to copyright, except indirectly as usually a church with wacko Millenniumist visions may be reformed by a person who believes more strongly in American virtues than church edicts. So, the WWCOG's attempt to control its COG splint in Oklahoma is similar to the MPAA's attempt to persecute hackers. However, the major difference is WWCOG's attempted suppression of Mystery of the Ages is part of its reform campaign. MPAA is just helping the cryptography firm to protect what is basically bad encryption so they can continue to overcharge for DVD players. Judging by the specious claims made in Mystery of Ages, maybe WWCOG is just protecting the world from bad prophecy and what is basically Millienniumist religious fiction. BTW, I did find their Plain Truth magazines more colorful and informative than Awake! and Watchtower magazines. > ------------ Begin Original ------------ > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to reprint a religious text? > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:23:13 -0800 > > > Copyright infringement being used for religious persecution? What else is > it? They are attempting to suppress the dissemination and teaching of > religious doctrine - no matter what I think of it that's what it is. Is the > appeals court CRAZY! That's surely an abuse of copyright! > > > > Jeremy A Erwin > To: dvd- discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to reprint > arvard.edu a religious text? > > > 02/21/01 08:07 AM > Please respond to > dvd- discuss > > > > > > > > Those of you with access to the Wall Street Journal may want to take a > look at "Bad Tithings: Sect disavows tenets, and woe to him who printeth > them anyway" (WSJ, 12 Feb 2001, page A1). > > Short Synopsis: > > In 1934, Herbert Armstrong founded the Radio Church of God--and began > diseminating various religious tracts over the airways, in the magazine > "Plain Truth," and a free book entitle "Mystery of the Ages". The Church > was later renamed "The Worldwide Church of God", and claimed 100.000 > memers and 131 million dollars in assets. > > In 1986, Armstrong died, and was replaced by his chosen successor Joseph > Tkach. Subsequently, Tkach repudiated many of the churches teachings, and > stopped distributing "Mystery of the Ages," a work which Armstrong had > called "the most important book wriiten in the past 1900 years." > > After 1986, the churches membership dwindled, and many flocked to a > splinter church based in Oklahoma that continued to use Armstrong's > teachings and works. The Oklahoma group continued to reprint "Mystery of > the Ages." > > The original church sued tthe Oklahoma sect for copyright infringement, > demanding that it forfeit all tithes and assets to the > "mother" church. The Oklahoma group claimed fair use, claiming that it was > Armstrong's wish that the book be published in unabridged > form. Consequently, any fair use republication would neccesarily involve > reprinting the entire work. > > A district court upheld the actions of the Oklahoma group, but the Appeals > reversed, saying that "an owners right tto control publication of a text > aren't erased simply because others have beliefs attached to it. > > The case is Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God 227 > F. 3d 1110 (2000) > > BTW,I really do recommmend reading the WSJ article. Unfortunately, Dow > Jones Interactive is a pay service, so I can't provide a link. > > Jeremy Erwin > > > > > > > > > > ------------ End Original ------------ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 14:17:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA07730 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:17:40 -0500 Received: from mta07.onebox.com (mta07.onebox.com [216.35.104.107]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA07727 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:17:39 -0500 Received: from onebox.com ([216.33.158.157]) by mta07.onebox.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010222192206.USVY29684.mta07.onebox.com@onebox.com> for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:22:06 -0800 Received: from [128.195.178.120] by onebox.com with HTTP; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:22:06 -0800 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:22:06 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? From: "Karee Swift" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20010222192206.USVY29684.mta07.onebox.com@onebox.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu You're forgetting a few crucial elements here. you're right, the 1st amendment doesn't specify which speech is protected. Thats what the courts have done. THey've made all sorts of distinctions in the kinds of speech that are protected, versus those that aren't. Yelling fire is just one of the many distinctions. So theoretically, you can say whatever you want, YES, but you're not protected. If I start linking to or displaying child pornography for instance, that would qualify under the non-protected area. The problem with making the link between human and machine is this. At least to Kaplan, the machine is a tool, and the speech -- Just like 'fire' in a theatre -- has consequences. On a side note, the discussion of the alteration of code -- if one character was removed from DeCSS, would displaying it, and linking to it still be illegal -- intrigues me. If for instance, you displayed that one character in a comment line (as another had posted earlier) could it still be considered questionable, or the same kind of fear as DeCSS in its current form would be? I can see parallels to this and Toretzky's website, and how minor alterations, while making it dysfunctional can still have problems. -C ---- "Philip V. Neves" wrote: > The first amendment doesn't say what kind of speech is protected it > just > protects freedom of speech. You can say what ever you want. It doesn't > matter > who you are saying it to. (I am aware of yelling fire in a crowded > movie > theater but that isn't a free speech problem thats a problem of disturbing > > the peace ). The fact is what difference does it make if we are talking > to a > computer or talking to a human being. This is what my point has been > all > along. I think making that distinction is very dangerous. You start > on a > very slippery slope at that point. One that could ultimatly mean that > we > don't have the right to speek freely on the net. > > > > On Thursday 22 February 2001 00:10, you wrote: > > In a message dated 2/20/01 11:38:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > pneves@aicompro.com writes: > > > > Except you're mixing mediums. Speech in the context of the physical > world > > is not a direct equivalent to programs on a computer. There are > extremely > > obvious differences. So why would we treat them as though they were > the > > same? > > > > << instruction > > procedure > > statement > > command > > > > These are all words used when talking about speech or communicating. > These > > words are why we can make a strong statement that software is speech. > >> > ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 14:24:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA07844 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:24:51 -0500 Received: from elrond.hobbiton.org (root@elrond.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.97]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA07841 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:24:49 -0500 Received: from hobbiton.org (sage_b@thorin.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.98]) by elrond.hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1MJUnw18298 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:30:49 -0600 (CST) Received: (from sage_b@localhost) by hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f1MJRGN07103; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:27:16 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:27:16 -0600 (CST) From: Stephen Kawamoto Message-Id: <200102221927.f1MJRGN07103@hobbiton.org> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Clear and Present Danger vs Bad Tendencies - SAY WHAT! Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu What is clearly present as a danger here is that companies can and will prevent you from saying anything bad about them mainly because they fear loss of market share, not because someone has the means of bypassing a bad encryption scheme. This is not about DVD piracy. This is always a control issue. I don't think anyone can implement the solution since it requires concepts such as "sovereignty of the people", "replacing the patriarchal superstructure with a truly democratic one", and other radical concepts that basically allow for limited profits for the companies involved and possible attrition due to such limits. And be assured that the corporations who own all of the MPAA will not allow democracy to flourish since it will threaten their fascist control of the marketplace. The MPAA vs 2600 et al fiasco is basically the sign of a new Hitler rising to threaten freedom once again. Milosevic is no Nazi compared to faceless corporate entities wishing to Balkanize Eastern Europe. And these same corporations owe their existence to people like Ford and other technocratic businessmen who profited greatly from the suffering during both World Wars and onwards, and who after World War 2, demanded and obtained compensation from the US government for 'accidental' bombings of their factories in war torn Europe. In essence, just as American corporations during the 30s collaborated with Hitler, today American corporations are collaborating with right ring governments, militarists and other threats to democracy to own the fictional entity who is created when you get a social security card. Therefore, the MPAA vs 2600 et al fiasco is a part of something even more dangerous than 6 million Jews who died because of unsound religious propaganda and political pogroms. Think of how many 3rd world people who are starving mainly because sister companies affliated with the MPAA may make arms etc. so their governments can continue the militarist mentality necessary so that they may profit. We think this is about DVD piracy, but this is about human rights in the end. > ------------ Begin Original ------------ > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Clear and Present Danger vs Bad Tendencies - SAY WHAT! > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:41:34 -0800 > > > I was reading the section on Clear and present danger in a book I have on > Constitutional Law last night. Consider this. Holmes created that test for > first amendment. What did he mean? > > Clear - obvious > Present - immediate > Danger - injury to persons, loss of life or PHYSICAL destruction of > property or loss of territory > > The cases that he dealt with involved censorship of writings opposing WWI > among other things. The SC didn't accept that doctrine but used a lesser > one that censorship was OK if there was a bad tendency to harm the > government. > > What do we have in the 2600 case. > > Clear - No cases of piracy identified > Present - Maybe in the future when everybody had 1Gb fiber to their homes > Danger - maybe somebody may possibly somewhere create a copy of something > we hold the copyright. > > That seems to miss the mark there. What about bad tendency? Well I'll > concede that Napster may be a point there But, who is we there? The > government? No. It's a cartel of companies. So what we have here is a case > where it fails a first amendment test formulated 80 yrs ago for GOVERNMENT > censorship. It fails an even less stringent test used until 60 yrs ago. > This is NOT government censorship this is censorship imposed by companies. > > NOTE: The statement that first amendment rights ends with yelling fire in > a crowded theatre OBVIOUSLY implies that there is no fire in the theater. > If there is, then the danger of getting incinerated clearly outweighs the > danger of people getting injured in the stampede to get out. (Yes Ole...I > read your admonition about feeding trolls.) > > > > ------------ End Original ------------ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 14:36:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08065 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:36:13 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA08062 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:36:11 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1MJe4f24485 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:40:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A956B0C.1565E451@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:39:56 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's References: <20010222180305.91745.qmail@web10001.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu For the version that had the feature disabled due to a "data entry error", as confirmed by the publisher: Doesn't that mean that it "fail[ed] to permit access because of malfunction", making it meet one of the two exceptions named by the LOC? If so, we can safely discover and disclose the TPM used in the reader. mickeym Larry Blunk wrote: > Here's Adobe's explanation of the "Read Aloud" > feature from the > Inside article at: > > http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=24027&pod_id=8 > > ''I'm extremely surprised that an > intellect like Lawrence Lessig would be sucked in by > the > morons on Slashdot and its ilk,'' > writes Len Kawell, director of e-book development for > Adobe Systems Inc., in an e-mail. > ''Read Aloud,'' he explains, is Adobe's brand name for > a > text-to-speech feature available on > its more advanced e-book Plus Reader. Though the > feature currently sounds quite > ''mechanical,'' Kawell continues, Adobe hopes it will > eventually enable children or the > visually impaired to read e-books. > > But then why was the feature > disabled on Alice -- and why > is it ever disabled, for that > matter? ''Our original intention > was to enable Read Aloud for all > PDF e-books,'' Kawell > replies. ''Unfortunately, the book > publishers said that they > had already sold the audio rights > to many of their titles and > didn't want to run afoul of those > agreements.... So, we > created a 'permission' that allowed > publishers with such a > worry to turn it off.'' The fact > that the Read Aloud feature > was denied to those who downloaded > Alice was merely the > result of a ''data entry error,'' > he says. (Indeed, if you download the Adobe Glassbook > version now, all of the permissions > are set to their maximally lenient -- as one might > expect > of a book that is being offered for > free.) > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 14:57:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08394 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:57:02 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA08391 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:57:00 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3E9BBB20.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.32]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793C127ABB for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:56:14 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 68BC3175195; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:59:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:59:02 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? Message-ID: <20010222205901.B11958@lemuria.org> References: <20010222192206.USVY29684.mta07.onebox.com@onebox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010222192206.USVY29684.mta07.onebox.com@onebox.com>; from clening@zdnetmail.com on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 11:22:06AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 11:22:06AM -0800, Karee Swift wrote: > On a side note, the discussion of the alteration of code -- if one character > was removed from DeCSS, would displaying it, and linking to it still > be illegal -- intrigues me. If for instance, you displayed that one > character in a comment line (as another had posted earlier) could it > still be considered questionable, or the same kind of fear as DeCSS > in its current form would be? I can see parallels to this and Toretzky's > website, and how minor alterations, while making it dysfunctional can > still have problems. want a live example? my website has a page specifically made for 2600 after it was verboten to even LINK to decss. the URL is: http://www.lemuria.org/decssREMOVEME/ the text on said page says: There are no downloads on this webpage. There are lots of other sites on the internet that contain the software, including sites on this domain. Actually, it's not exactly difficult to find one, just look at the URL line and use your brain. I'm not going to tell you more, if you didn't get it by now, you're as stupid as the MPAA. if 2600 links to this page (which was the purpose it was created for, but I don't know if they ever did it), are they violating the ruling or not? -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 15:02:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA08771 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:02:51 -0500 Received: from mail.tstonramp.com (tstonramp.com [206.55.129.9]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA08233 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:44:18 -0500 Received: from pbx (pbx.tstonramp.com [206.55.129.161]) by mail.tstonramp.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f1MJleP06322 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:47:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:50:50 -0800 From: "clening@zdnetonebox.com" <> X-Mailer: EMURL 2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] FC: Where anti-piracy goes too far: A disturbing law in Italy Message-ID: <0222101115050.0.129820@mail.tstonramp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [Got this off of Declan's POlitech newsgroup. ITs definitely worth a read. While this is an Italian issue right now, I wouldn't be so shocked if M$ and the ilk successfully managed to convince the US and others to adopt such practices. -C] Excerpt: "As a consequence, possession of computer programs on non-[official]-stamped medium, either legally or illegally, may lead to a prison sentence." So much for open-source software, eh? Thanks to Andy Oram for forwarding this. -Declan ******** http://www.softwarelibero.it/docs/siae-en.shtml The Italian law 248/2000: a menace to software professionals Associazione Software Libero February 2001 Abstract This document deals with the problems arising from an amendment to Italian copyright law (September, 2000), which in addition to going against a subsequent European Community recommendation (February, 2001), poses a potentially serious threat to the activities of independent software developers and makes it difficult to legally distribute free software in Italy. Please send any comments to mailto:. Introduction The Italian Parliament recently approved an amendment to copyright law. The new rules have been in force since September 18, 2000 as law 248/2000. The new mechanism is as yet unclear, but we suspect that it might hinder or even put a stop to the work of anyone producing software or using it in their business. The main problem of the law lies in the requirement for a compulsory stamp (the "bollino SIAE") on any physical medium containing computer programs (Art 181-bis, 1). This requirement adds to previous rules that consider any unauthorised copying of computer software a criminal offence (rather than simply a civil offence). As a consequence, possession of computer programs on non-stamped medium, either legally or illegally, may lead to a prison sentence. The scope of the new law is not limited to software, and can also be damaging to other spheres of personal freedom. We will concentrate here on the issues of computer programs, as we consider them the most serious. It has been observed that the law, in fact, introduces a sort of tax on freely distributable software. We think that these concerns are valid, but the problem as we see it is much more serious. Since we were not able to find any substantial commentary on this law on the net, we made our own research, by interviewing SIAE officers, Guardia di Finanza, Postal and Telecommunications Police, magistrates and copyright lawyers. When the stamp is needed Our sources, while sometimes agreeing on the injustice of the law, concur that the possession of any computer program on medium not marked with the SIAE stamp constitutes a crime in accordance with article 171-bis: Whoever intends to make a profit ...for commercial or business purposes, from the use of ...computer programs contained on a medium not bearing the SIAE stamp, is subject to a penalty of imprisonment from six months up to three years and to a fine from 2500 to 15000 Euros. According to this article, anyone using a computer program for business reasons, and whose medium is not marked with the SIAE stamp is committing a crime. When importing software from abroad, in order to promptly apply the stamp, the importer must notify the SIAE in advance about the entrance of the goods into state territory (Art. 181-bis, comma 6) As the importer is identified as the buyer, the need for the stamp applies even when an individual buys software from abroad for business use. A SIAE officer in Rome commented: "theres no problem if you import a game on CD, but if it's for use it in your business you must have it stamped". Since the law clearly states that the stamp is applied for the sole purpose of protecting rights related to intellectual works (Art 181-bis, comma 2), one would ask: "what if you are the author of the programs you own?". The answer, from almost all of our sources, is that "the medium must be marked if it is used for profit, regardless of whether the profit comes from the future commercialisation of the software, or for purposes otherwise related to one's work". What is written on the stamp and how to obtain it The SIAE stamp must contain enough information to identify the title of the work for which it has been requested and the name of the author, publisher, producer or copyright holder (Art 181-bis, comma 5). You can apply for the stamp in the main SIAE offices. We don't know as yet exactly which offices are authorised to issue the stamp: when we asked a local SIAE office, the officer stated that only Rome, Milan and Naples are authorised, but we verified that they can also be obtained in Florence. In any case, asking a local office is no good (to us, the officer replied: "its not our job to know, all I know is only out of personal interest"). Nor does the web site http://www.siae.it/ offer any help, as you always end up at the same "work in progress" page (hits made on January 21, 2001). In practice, in order to obtain the stamps, you should go to one of the authorised offices, fill out a host of forms only available at the office premises, pay the dues, and come back after one to three weeks in order to get your coveted little adhesive rectangle of legality. Naturally this procedure is required for each and every medium owned or imported (to enable identification of the title ...). Definition of "medium" To identify the scope of the law, we tried to get a fuller explanation of just how "medium" is interpreted. A SIAE officer in Rome affirms that "medium" is the CD or the floppy disk, thus excluding the hard disk "for obvious practical reasons". He explicitly admitted that a software consultant may travel with a hard disk in his pocket, but not a CD or a floppy disk (yet denying to sign a declaration to that effect). As we expected, both the magistrate and the lawyer with whom we spoke refused to consider the hard disk as different from other mediums. They even suggested that software consultants carrying their own laptop for use on the client's premises should apply a SIAE stamp on the laptop itself. In fact, the SIAE interpretation is not unreasonable: a hard disk contains hundreds of programs. For example, we run GNU/Linux on our computers, and there are over 800 software packages installed on each of them. Identification may be more straightforward for a proprietary operating system, but no one working with a computer has less than 10-20 programs installed on his machine. Because of that, the identification of the "title and author" of each and every program on a single stamp is just not feasible; even the idea of applying tens of hundreds of stamps on one product is not conceivable given the highly dynamic contents of a disk. A hard disk shares the same problem as a CD regarding the high number of programs, and has the same problems as a floppy with regard to dynamic contents, so in fact the "practical reasons" invoked by the SIAE officer should not be applied to hard disks alone. In principle, paper medium could be affected too. When a program is written in an interpreted language, distribution "for profit" is possible on paper, slide or transparency. For example, it is common practice for a software consultant when teaching courses, to distribute and comment on a complete source (a couple of pages, often less) of a functioning program which is effectively usable. Every demo program distributed on a magazine or during a paid course (i.e. "for profit") apparently requires the SIAE stamp, under penalty of seizure of the unstamped material and imprisonment (Art. 171-bis, comma 1). To date, we have not collected legal opinions on the applicability to paper medium. Definition of "computer program" The main problem with the new law lies in the use of the term "computer program", not defined by the law itself nor by any other legal standard. These words have a sound meaning when dealing with intellectual works, because computer programs are generally protected by copyright just like any musical or literary work. However, the program (an abstract entity) has to be given material dimensions to enable the application of a stamp. This law has obviously been written with the blinkered attitude, where "program" means "a very expensive CD, printed for mass market distribution and not legally reproducible". Only this sort of reasoning could justify the requirement for stamp application on "all mediums", given the difficulty of obtaining it. But freely redistributable programs do in fact exist: for example programs written for internal use in companies, which are repeatedly duplicated, programs used in computer courses, or free software programs, such as all the components of a GNU/Linux system. Also, programs exist which are "small", much smaller than the stamp itself. Some of the programs that we use in our everyday work are a few kilobytes long, even few lines of text, and many common utilities are small, like the popular Pkzip program. There are a number of programs that can be freely downloaded from the Internet to a user's hard disk; but this is a crime according to the new law. The members of Parliament who approved the law admit that it was born under the pressure of strong lobbying by big software companies, intentionally ignoring -- and as a consequence making them illegal -- all programs and mediums that are not distributed through the usual commercial distribution channels. The official excuse is that programmers, in order to earn what they deserve, need to be protected from the illegal copying of software for personal use. However, the lobbyists that pushed the law are the very same software companies who recently issued a TV advert, almost disguised as public information, where the act of copying a computer program is depicted as one of the worst crimes out. This spot was later condemned as misleading and its further diffusion prohibited. Non-profit use of programs does not require the stamp; however, several actions can be defined as "profit-making". The SIAE officer in Florence declares that free distribution of a demo is for profit, and thus requires application for the stamps. It may be conceivable that using a computer for browsing the web can be considered for profit, since it enables access to information useful for one's own work. So have we reached the point where even use of a network browser will require a stamp? Conclusions The mechanisms introduced by the new copyright law have the potential of paralysing or criminalising any conceivable business that uses computer programs. Compliance with the law in this respect is especially difficult. Law 248/2000 was intended as a stand against software piracy, but it now risks damaging the very authors it claims to protect. Independent programmers will incur unreasonable expenses and difficulties that will hinder their freedom of expression, while established software companies will have the chance of increasing their near monopolistic grip on users. The police have the right to inspect your office and seize material even if nobody has sued you for infringement, as the order of a judge is sufficient to take actions for this crime. It is not unlikely that Police forces will set up a nation-wide round-up in the future, to spread uncertainty and force literal application of the law to prevent further such crime. Independent software businesses are the most damaged by application of the new law. We claim that its application should be suspended until its effects are seriously studied and a new law be written. The focus of the law should be the good of society at large, rather than the mere income of big software companies. Verbatim copy and distribution of this document, in any medium, is permitted and encouraged. ---------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 15:10:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA09056 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:10:34 -0500 Received: from mta07.onebox.com (mta07.onebox.com [216.35.104.107]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA09053 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:10:33 -0500 Received: from onebox.com ([216.33.158.144]) by mta07.onebox.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010222201500.VIRU29684.mta07.onebox.com@onebox.com> for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:15:00 -0800 Received: from [128.195.178.120] by onebox.com with HTTP; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:15:00 -0800 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:15:00 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? From: "Karee Swift" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20010222201500.VIRU29684.mta07.onebox.com@onebox.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom, this isn't exactly the same. And kaplan, in his decision sort of outlined that he was only going for a specific form of linking. While they would qualify in that they knew what your page had on it, they weren't disseminating the code in any way. Remember, its no different than the news media who does it. Kaplan specifically argued that just because the link is there doesn't NECESSARILY mean its illegal. Basically, if you have content, and other links and other information, not dealing with DeCSS and you just happen to link to a site that may have DeCSS, it doesn't mean your liable. Nor is just linking to a site explaining what DeCSS is. It would have to be a link to a site where a direct download insued, - What I call Direct link, Or a link to a site with some other content, but primarily highlighting DeCSS, that you notonly knew about, but were specifically urging others to go to for the reason of acquiring DeCSS (Interactive sites). Your site is no different than the way 2600 has it set up now -- where they merely have the site addresses visible, but not hyperlinked. Apparently the Court wasn't smart enough to outlaw this when they destroyed linking privilege. ITs the sheer ease-of-use that Kaplan is trying to quash. Why he figures that the simple act of copying and pasting the web address is that much more complicated, is beyond me. -C ---- Tom wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 11:22:06AM -0800, Karee Swift wrote: > > On a side note, the discussion of the alteration of code -- if one > character > > was removed from DeCSS, would displaying it, and linking to it still > > be illegal -- intrigues me. If for instance, you displayed that > one > > character in a comment line (as another had posted earlier) could > it > > still be considered questionable, or the same kind of fear as DeCSS > > in its current form would be? I can see parallels to this and Toretzky's > > website, and how minor alterations, while making it dysfunctional > can > > still have problems. > > want a live example? > > my website has a page specifically made for 2600 after it was verboten > to even LINK to decss. the URL is: > > http://www.lemuria.org/decssREMOVEME/ > > > the text on said page says: > > > There are no downloads on this webpage. There are lots of other > sites > on the internet that contain the software, including sites on this > domain. Actually, it's not exactly difficult to find one, just look > at > the URL line and use your brain. I'm not going to tell you more, > if > you didn't get it by now, you're as stupid as the MPAA. > > > > if 2600 links to this page (which was the purpose it was created for, > but I don't know if they ever did it), are they violating the ruling > or > not? > > > -- > -- http://www.lemuria.org > -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net > -- > ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 15:59:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA10657 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:59:57 -0500 Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA10654 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:59:55 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2inihfk.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.69.244]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA05840 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:04:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:54:07 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA In-Reply-To: <20010222125251.B27171@eldritchpress.org> References: <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu We offer SDNY US Attorney Mary Jo White's "Court of Appeals Brief by Intervenor United States of America": http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-usa.htm (106KB) Pithy quote: In short, DeCSS is a digital crowbar, and "[n]one of the reasons for which speech is thought to require protection above and beyond that accorded to non-speech behavior . . . is implicated" by its distribution. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 16:04:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA10810 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:04:16 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA10800 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:04:01 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:08:34 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:08:33 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/22/2001 01:08:34 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Schulien Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's 02/22/01 09:34 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss > READ ALOUD > This book cannot be read aloud. This option disables text-to-speech converters, thus preventing blind people from using certain ebooks. >>Possitively nauseating. They don't want to cut into their sale of Audio books! You could make an argument that "copy" and "print" somehow protect exclusive rights of the copyright holder, even though they eliminate fair use, but the "GIVE", "LEND", and "READ ALOUD" options are actually technological measures that nullify the corresponding first-sale rights of the owners of copies of copyrighted (and uncopyrighted) works. They don't have the legal right to prevent loaning and resale of ebooks, but by incorporating technical restrictions that prevent resale into the same copy protection scheme that prevents copying, they can get the same effect. >>Defacto. Add DMCA and it's even more nauseating (could have been the cafeteria food) >>OK try this one. What about people Forging other peoples identities and changing privleges etc. I own a book but somebody calls them online pretends they are me and when I go to lend a book I can't. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 16:11:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11060 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:11:18 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11027 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:09:00 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:13:50 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:13:49 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/22/2001 01:13:50 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu While I may have read too much science fiction in my earlier years (nah!), it's not hard to imagine scenarios where a computer virii destroys all ebooks. Where does the knowledge go? Gone. THe knowledge doesn't exist to maintain society much less progress it. Decline and collapse. Look at the libraries at Alexandria, Rome, Byzantium as they fell to conquest and were destroyed. The Roman's built roads that can still be used today. Who could build them in the middle ages? Who could even reverse engineer how the Romans did it? Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not arvard.edu DVD's 02/22/01 10:00 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 11:34:04AM -0600, John Schulien wrote: > More details on how these facilities work. thanks, john. > .... > > They don't have the legal right to prevent loaning and resale of > ebooks, but by incorporating technical restrictions that prevent > resale into the same copy protection scheme that prevents copying, > they can get the same effect. and converting the first sale into a licensed sale or rental has the further effect of using the law to attain even more control. so we have perpetual copyright, tpm, dmca, ucita, trade secrets, patents, and trademarks. what more can the strong ipr forces ask for? how about sales to real customers for these pay-per-view events? and when the companies go bankrupt, what then with these works? -- nom:"Eric" Eric Eldred Eldritch Press mailto:Eldred@EldritchPress.org vCard3.0:http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 16:21:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11290 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:21:29 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11287 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:21:28 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:22:59 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:22:58 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/22/2001 01:22:59 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speech card yet? 02/22/01 11:15 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss >>Stuff deleted. We are in agreement. DeCSS is NONE of those things. I've come to the conclusion that lawmakers really are hot air. Just as hot air will expand to fill a vacumn lawmakers must expand the numbers of laws if there is a vacumn of laws being made. Refrigerator gauges? Didn't know about that one. What's the reasoning for that? Sounds like that is another example of whackos getting control of the fountain pen. >> The conjecture is that it has to do with the Chloro Flouro Carbons. They were widely used in refrigerators and we can't have anybody just working on the refrigerator now can we. They have to be licensed and have to know how to collect all those CFCs that are in the refrigerator. Of course, if the compressor doesn't go out, the main failure mode for refrigeration is loss of coolant, ie. CFCs. But, that's just a minor point. It's the deterant that's important I suppose. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 16:24:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11365 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:24:22 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11362 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:24:21 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:26:56 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to reprint a religious text? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:26:54 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/22/2001 01:26:56 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Stephen Kawamoto To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to arvard.edu reprint a religious text? 02/22/01 11:17 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss BTW, I did find their Plain Truth magazines more colorful and informative than Awake! and Watchtower magazines >>actually I did too. At several times, I went back to my Bible and checked out what they were saying and discovered that they had it right and the church's doctrine inwhich I was raised did not. (My lineage has had several ministers in it and several extreme skeptics). From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 16:41:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11722 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:41:56 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11719 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:41:54 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb20.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.32]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8407F27ABB for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:41:13 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2619A175195; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:44:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:44:02 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA Message-ID: <20010222224400.C12019@lemuria.org> References: <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> <20010222125251.B27171@eldritchpress.org> <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:54:07PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:54:07PM -0500, John Young wrote: > In short, DeCSS is a digital crowbar, and "[n]one of the > reasons for which speech is thought to require protection > above and beyond that accorded to non-speech > behavior . . . is implicated" by its distribution. I didn't know crowbars are illegal in the USA. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 16:49:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11921 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:49:04 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11916 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:49:03 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1MLrHf10454 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:53:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A958A43.5BE1535C@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:53:07 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA References: <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Another good quote is early in the paper: "In response to this threat, the consumer electronics and computer industries have developed technologies that protect from infringement copyrighted works in digital format by denying individuals access to such materials absent some special key or descrambling code, and by disabling users with access from making copies of a work without authorization. " According to DoJ, Even "users with access" need further authorization. Wow. mickeym John Young wrote: > We offer SDNY US Attorney Mary Jo White's "Court of > Appeals Brief by Intervenor United States of America": > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-usa.htm (106KB) > > Pithy quote: > > In short, DeCSS is a digital crowbar, and "[n]one of the > reasons for which speech is thought to require protection > above and beyond that accorded to non-speech > behavior . . . is implicated" by its distribution. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 16:53:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA12073 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:53:20 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA12070 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:53:19 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1MLvgf11117 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:57:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A958B4C.4947A8B9@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:57:32 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA References: <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Awesome! The DoJ makes the "it isn't published" argument for us! " For example, this is not a free-press case simply because defendants posted DeCSS software on their magazine's web site. Defendants did not "publish" DeCSS on the Internet in the sense of conveying a message to readers through an electronic medium. Defendants instead exploited the Internet's technical capacity to supply operable software to users through the process of downloading. In other words, defendants used the Internet as their vehicle for distributing prohibited technology, much like a delivery truck. " Just substitute "a movie" for "DeCSS", and "DVD" for "Internet".... mickeym John Young wrote: > We offer SDNY US Attorney Mary Jo White's "Court of > Appeals Brief by Intervenor United States of America": > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-usa.htm (106KB) > > Pithy quote: > > In short, DeCSS is a digital crowbar, and "[n]one of the > reasons for which speech is thought to require protection > above and beyond that accorded to non-speech > behavior . . . is implicated" by its distribution. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 16:55:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA12113 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:55:12 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA12110 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:55:10 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:59:53 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:59:51 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/22/2001 01:59:53 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu yes they are except for licensed and trained crowbarers. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA 02/22/01 01:49 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:54:07PM -0500, John Young wrote: > In short, DeCSS is a digital crowbar, and "[n]one of the > reasons for which speech is thought to require protection > above and beyond that accorded to non-speech > behavior . . . is implicated" by its distribution. I didn't know crowbars are illegal in the USA. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 17:06:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12535 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:06:06 -0500 Received: from thud.reric.net (sepp-host210.dsl.visi.com [209.98.241.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12531 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:06:04 -0500 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id QAA05937 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:10:52 -0600 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:10:52 -0600 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA Message-ID: <20010222161052.A5883@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> <20010222125251.B27171@eldritchpress.org> <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:54:07PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:54:07PM -0500, John Young wrote: > We offer SDNY US Attorney Mary Jo White's "Court of > Appeals Brief by Intervenor United States of America": > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-usa.htm (106KB) I particularly like how they insist that the rapid pace of technology demands new law to reduce the "staggering potential for copyright infringement", but when it comes to the effects on fair use of technology (namely, that supressing complex decryption tools can supress fair use), they hem and haw about traditional rules of law, and how things have always been done in the past. It's a clever bait and switch, but if you look for it it's all over the document. It's basically fast-and-furious protection of the copyright- holder's end of the bargain, mated with foot-dragging when it comes time to reinforce the public's end, including first sale and fair use. Why on earth is the federal government taking sides in this dispute, much less taking the opposite side from the _public_? Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 17:09:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12625 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:09:12 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12621 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:09:10 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb20.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.32]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FBBC27AD5 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:08:30 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 585B8175195; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:11:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:11:19 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA Message-ID: <20010222231118.H12019@lemuria.org> References: <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> <20010222125251.B27171@eldritchpress.org> <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> <20010222161052.A5883@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010222161052.A5883@thud.reric.net>; from eds@reric.net on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:10:52PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:10:52PM -0600, Eric Seppanen wrote: > Why on earth is the federal government taking sides in this dispute, much > less taking the opposite side from the _public_? money -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 17:10:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12836 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:10:17 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12686 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:10:04 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA27635 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:16:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:16:44 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA Message-ID: <20010222171644.A27356@eldritchpress.org> References: <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> <3A958A43.5BE1535C@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <3A958A43.5BE1535C@mindspring.com>; from mickeym@mindspring.com on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:53:07PM -0500 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:53:07PM -0500, mickeym wrote: > > Another good quote is early in the paper: > > "In response to this threat, the consumer electronics and computer > industries have developed technologies that protect from infringement > copyrighted works in digital format by denying individuals access to > such materials absent some special key or descrambling code, and by > disabling users with access from making copies of a work without > authorization. " > > According to DoJ, Even "users with access" need further authorization. > Wow. yep, that jibes with their interpretation of wipo at the beginning (p 6-7?): shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law. the last clause clearly adds the separate authorization part, which clearly goes beyond the rights under Paris or Berne itself--there is a distinction, somehow, between "authorized by the authors" and "permitted by law." and of course the u.s. is the only country that has a Constitution that requires Berne or WIPO to have a separate enactment and interpretation thereunder. Here we see congress and the doj throw out the constitution and claim that some alien treaty governs. When you start this way the conclusion is obvious, there are never any first amendment rights nor fair use rights nor first sale rights. the "authors" don't allow them (of course, it is the publishers, but this we are talking fiction here). From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 17:25:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA13247 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:25:52 -0500 Received: from thud.reric.net (sepp-host210.dsl.visi.com [209.98.241.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA13244 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:25:50 -0500 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id QAA06060 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:30:37 -0600 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:30:37 -0600 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA Message-ID: <20010222163037.A6039@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> <20010222125251.B27171@eldritchpress.org> <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:54:07PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I can hardly believe this! They're arguing that fair use isn't really necessary, and that even if it were the current fair-use statute certainly provides more than enough coverage. This is so biased it's incredible. Even the MPAA hasn't tried to argue that fair use isn't a required part of copyright law. Towards the end of the USA's brief: In contrast to defendants' sweeping assertions, see Appellants' Br. at 43-46, the courts have never held that the First Amendment requires a fair-use doctrine. Accord Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 556, 560 (observing that "copyright's idea/expression dichotomy strike[s] a definitional balance between the First Amendment and the Copyright Act by permitting free communication of facts while still protecting an author's expression" (citation omitted)). Indeed, the precise relationship between the First Amendment and copyright law remains unsettled, and any further definition would likely have far-reaching implications. Because defendants do not present a "flesh and blood legal problem[ ] with data relevant and adequate to an informed judgment," their overbreadth challenge is wholly inadequate to address this important constitutional issue. Ferber, 458 U.S. at 768 (citation omitted). Moreover, even if the First Amendment did command such an exception to copyright protection, that exception would surely be far more limited than the statutory right of fair-use currently afforded by 17 U-S-C. § 107. See Roy Export Co. Estab. of Vaduz, Lichtenstein v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc., 672 F.2d 1095, 1100 (2d Cir.) (positing possible First Amendment right of fair use on "the conceivable Occurrence of some 'rare,' almost unique' circumstance . in which 'it is at least arguable that the informational value of [the work] cannot be separated from the [author's] expression.'" (quoting Iowa State Univ. Research Found., Inc. v. American Broadcasting Co., 621 F.2d 57, 61 n.6 (2d Cir. 1980)), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 826 (1982); see also Los Angeles News Serv. v. Tullo, 973 F.2d 791, 795-96 & n.5 (9th Cir. 1992).18 As a result, there is no "realistic danger" that § 1201(a)(2) "will significantly compromise" anyone's "recognized" First Amendment rights, much less the rights of a substantial population of would-be fair users. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 801. Absent that threat, an overbreadth challenge is inappropriate. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 17:28:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA13326 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:28:59 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA13314 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:28:48 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA27660 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:35:33 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:35:27 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA Message-ID: <20010222173527.B27356@eldritchpress.org> References: <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> <3A958A43.5BE1535C@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <3A958A43.5BE1535C@mindspring.com>; from mickeym@mindspring.com on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:53:07PM -0500 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu p 28 would be funny if it were not so cruel: In particular, those who drafted the DMCA believed that it would "facilitate making available quickly and conveniently via the Internet the movies, music, software, and literary works that are the fruit of American genius," and would also "encourage the continued growth of the existing off-line global marketplace for copyrighted works in digital format by setting strong international copyright standards." [8] so now we have dmca and this decision, who is making all these media expressions "quickly and conveniently" available on the Internet? Isn't it the other way around--the studios are putting out locked-up dvds that consumers do not demand, since they are not convenient and not on the internet--and those who treasure the Internet are trying to make information available not only quickly but freely--but can't do so because of the dmca's restrictions. i can't think of a crueler, albeit perhaps unconscious, expression of the idea that the Internet is being made safe for e-commerce by exposing and kicking off the hackers. this idea that congress or the courts can weigh competing economic interests, find that the hackers have none, and thereby rule for the other side, must stop. the constitution already did that balancing act. let's force our government and the doj to read it and obey it. let's show congress that it needs to keep its hands off the internet--tinkering with its laws is only an invitation to corruption and campaign contributions, not wise governance or economic leadership. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 17:29:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA13339 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:29:05 -0500 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA13336 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:29:04 -0500 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA24236 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:34:01 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A95944F.53C03E8A@uic.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:35:59 -0600 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Why on earth is the federal government taking sides in this dispute, much > less taking the opposite side from the _public_? I can't imagine. BTW, have they cashed your check yet? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 17:28:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA13296 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:28:32 -0500 Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA13293 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:28:31 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2inihfk.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.69.244]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA25784 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:33:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102222233.RAA25784@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:22:40 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA In-Reply-To: <20010222231118.H12019@lemuria.org> References: <20010222161052.A5883@thud.reric.net> <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> <20010222125251.B27171@eldritchpress.org> <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> <20010222161052.A5883@thud.reric.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Others have noted that the Southern District of New York is well known for its favorable treatment of the copyright industry. Which is why so many such cases are filed there. Whether district judges, appeals court judges and US Attorneys are appointed with that agenda in mind is only known to those who host gracious public interest gatherings for tete-a-tetes musing on tit-for-tats. The NY Times reports today that New York State's US Attorneys are in a dither about reappointment. Mary Jo White is investigating Bill Clinton's pardon tit-for-tats, even as she seeks Bush's affirmation of her job title. So many rich and powerful people to please, it's no wonder that the DoJ brief falls all over itself to affirm the legacy way of protecting the "government's interest." Note that distinction from the "public's interest." And its fawning over Judge Kaplan's wisdom is Park Avenue puke. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 17:44:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA13986 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:44:39 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [209.98.6.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA13982 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:44:37 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [163.228.19.198]) by tneu.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1530935D for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:55:45 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:55:45 -0600 (CST) From: tim To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA In-Reply-To: <20010222163037.A6039@thud.reric.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id RAA13983 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu With friends like that, who needs enemies? I sure hope someone in the court of appeals knows what the heck the first amendment is. The DOJ sure doesn't. To someone who does, the implications of the brief below would be fairly obvious. (and the more they rave, the more obvious it becomes). So far, however, that theory hasn't worked one bit! One wonders how far up the money trail goes... On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Eric Seppanen wrote: > I can hardly believe this! They're arguing that fair use isn't really > necessary, and that even if it were the current fair-use statute certainly > provides more than enough coverage. This is so biased it's incredible. > Even the MPAA hasn't tried to argue that fair use isn't a required part of > copyright law. > > Towards the end of the USA's brief: > > In contrast to defendants' sweeping assertions, see Appellants' Br. at > 43-46, the courts have never held that the First Amendment requires a > fair-use doctrine. Accord Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 556, 560 (observing > that "copyright's idea/expression dichotomy strike[s] a > definitional balance between the First Amendment and the Copyright Act by > permitting free communication of facts while still protecting an > author's expression" (citation omitted)). Indeed, the precise relationship > between the First Amendment and copyright law remains unsettled, > and any further definition would likely have far-reaching implications. > Because defendants do not present a "flesh and blood legal problem[ ] > with data relevant and adequate to an informed judgment," their > overbreadth challenge is wholly inadequate to address this important > constitutional issue. Ferber, 458 U.S. at 768 (citation omitted). > > Moreover, even if the First Amendment did command such an exception to > copyright protection, that exception would surely be far more > limited than the statutory right of fair-use currently afforded by 17 > U-S-C. § 107. See Roy Export Co. Estab. of Vaduz, Lichtenstein v. > Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc., 672 F.2d 1095, 1100 (2d Cir.) (positing > possible First Amendment right of fair use on "the conceivable > Occurrence of some 'rare,' almost unique' circumstance . in which 'it is > at least arguable that the informational value of [the work] cannot be > separated from the [author's] expression.'" (quoting Iowa State Univ. > Research Found., Inc. v. American Broadcasting Co., 621 F.2d > 57, 61 n.6 (2d Cir. 1980)), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 826 (1982); see also > Los Angeles News Serv. v. Tullo, 973 F.2d 791, 795-96 & n.5 > (9th Cir. 1992).18 As a result, there is no "realistic danger" that § > 1201(a)(2) "will significantly compromise" anyone's "recognized" First > Amendment rights, much less the rights of a substantial population of > would-be fair users. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 801. Absent > that threat, an overbreadth challenge is inappropriate. > -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- What the president of the Motion Picture Association of America says about taking away your constitutional rights: "I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one of these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw out reverse engineering; he threw out linking." - Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "If you don't have the freedom to use what you / ' ) ) own - then you do not own anything." / o ______ / / _ . . No apologies to Jack Valenti or the MPAA / <_/ / / < / (_; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:54:15 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA27712 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:01:00 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:00:55 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA Message-ID: <20010222180055.C27356@eldritchpress.org> References: <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> <3A958A43.5BE1535C@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <3A958A43.5BE1535C@mindspring.com>; from mickeym@mindspring.com on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:53:07PM -0500 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu p 31-33: Furthermore, the district court found that current technology cannot "provide means of limiting access only to copyrighted materials and only for uses that would infringe the rights of the copyright holder' " Universal City Studios, 111 F. Supp. 2d at 330 n.206. This finding is dispositive.... This fact obviously negates defendants' argument that the district court "failed to consider" whether § 1201(a)(2) "does not 'burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests.' " so the fact that, when the dmca was passed the publishers did not employ technology that effectively was limited to protecting their rights, and not burdening our speech, that fact now governs whether or not we can exercise our rights under the first amendment and fair use, without our ability to complain that the law is overbroad? why not turn this around and tell the publishers they need to get the technology right, limit it to what the law can truly protect, and then come back for a decision on whether the law can protect or exclude speech without being overbroad. the brief goes on to argue against benkler and lessig's brief by invoking NAPSTER--even though the paragraph before had claimed that congress rejected basing the dmca on the ahra. this brief is vicious pandering. and in note 11 Noting the epidemic-like propagation of circumvention technology on the Internet, and its staggering potential for copyright infringement, the district court held that the functional capacity of digital technology both provided an acceptable proxy for harm and determined the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny to apply to § 1201(a)(2). See Universal City Studios, 111 F. Supp. 2d at 332-33. This conclusion is fully consistent with controlling law. again, napster and the STAGGERING POTENTIAL of users actually using those works on the net (note that "potential" "infringement" is alleged but never proven). staggering. pursuant to our discussions about eBooks in the public domain, here the doj states, Admittedly, the DMCA's prohibitions against circumvention technology may burden an individual's ability to make fair use of certain copyrighted films -- and perhaps even some films that may fall into the public domain. See Universal City Studios, 111 F. Supp. 2d at 338 & n.245. But under the current circumstances, § 1201(a)(2) "is 'not substantially overbroad,'" they quibble over the "substantial" description. in the case of eBooks it is already perhaps the majority of those works. finally, toward the end we should not overlook the outrageous claim that "the courts have never held that the First Amendment requires a fair-use doctrine" and that even the statutory right of fair use in 17C107 does not apply here. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 18:06:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA14702 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:06:01 -0500 Received: from mercury.clearway.com ([199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA14697 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:06:00 -0500 Received: by MERCURY with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <15D4S679>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:10:27 -0500 Message-ID: From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] cnn.com article Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:10:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Haven't seen this one posted yet, http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/22/media.dvd.hacker.reut/index.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 18:09:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA14776 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:09:03 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA14772 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:09:02 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17152 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:13:07 -0500 Message-Id: <200102222313.SAA17152@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: DVD Discussion List Subject: [dvd-discuss] The NYSD U.S. Attorney's intervention Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:12:37 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I am not impressed by the U.S. attorney's brief, but then I am obiously prejudiced against their position. On the other hand, the briefs of the Justice Department in Junger v. Daley struck me as being---although wrongheaded---much more persuasive. It is interesting that the brief takes issue with Kaplan's holding that computer programs are protected by the First Amendment. Certainly the defense team is more than prepared to meet any argument that the United States Attorney's office makes here. The argument was pretty sloppy, the court in Junger v. Daley did not, for example, hold that the First Amendment challenge in that case was subject to the O'Brien test. And of course in the 2600 case the defendants were not charged with any acts other than the act of publishing the code on their web sites, so the O'Brien case is not applicable. The brief probably helps the good guys, since it throws them a couple of sloppy pitches that they should be able to knock out of the ball park. And I do think that it would help in countering the brief if the defense were to talk a bit about e-books, as we discussed earlier today. But that is not what interests me at the moment. What interests me is who authorized this intervention and under what authority was it done. There was an article in the New York Time (electronic addition) during the last couple of days pointing out the the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York is a holdover from the previous administration and does not have job security. Could it be that some Assistant U.S. Attorneys are job hunting? Somehow it doesn't look as if Washington had anything to do with the intervention and the brief. The U.S. Attorney's Office for S.D.N.Y. traditionally has a lot of autonomy. I wonder if the Department of Justice even authorized the filing of the brief. Or if they read it. And is there any statutory authority for this type of intervention? None is mentioned in the docket or the brief. Maybe my nose has gotten over-sensitive, but I am smelling, if perhaps not a scandel, at least an interesting news story about decision making in the Southern District. In the Bernstein and Junger cases the attorneys for the Justice Department clearly had to answer to unnamed agents of the National Security Agency; now it looks as if the attorneys in the S.D.N.Y. U.S. Attorney's office are taking their instructions from as yet unnamed agents of the MPAA. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 18:10:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA14860 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:10:34 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA14856 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:10:32 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:15:18 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:15:14 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/22/2001 03:15:18 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Well obviously a magazine be putting something on their website isn't publishing it and obviously is conveying a BAD message.............is Kafka in the public domain? If this keeps going on nobody will want to read Kafka anymore just read the court records....I have a great idea. Maybe we should collectively write the great surrealistic novel of the 21st centurys - "DMCA" mickeym To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court arvard.edu of Appeals Brief by USA 02/22/01 02:00 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Awesome! The DoJ makes the "it isn't published" argument for us! " For example, this is not a free-press case simply because defendants posted DeCSS software on their magazine's web site. Defendants did not "publish" DeCSS on the Internet in the sense of conveying a message to readers through an electronic medium. Defendants instead exploited the Internet's technical capacity to supply operable software to users through the process of downloading. In other words, defendants used the Internet as their vehicle for distributing prohibited technology, much like a delivery truck. " Just substitute "a movie" for "DeCSS", and "DVD" for "Internet".... mickeym John Young wrote: > We offer SDNY US Attorney Mary Jo White's "Court of > Appeals Brief by Intervenor United States of America": > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-usa.htm (106KB) > > Pithy quote: > > In short, DeCSS is a digital crowbar, and "[n]one of the > reasons for which speech is thought to require protection > above and beyond that accorded to non-speech > behavior . . . is implicated" by its distribution. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 18:16:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15050 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:16:07 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15047 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:16:05 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:20:50 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:20:46 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/22/2001 03:20:50 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >From History "Your honor you must stop the introduction of the platen press because it reduces the time to print a book over Guttenberg's original press because it creates a staggering potential for copyright infringement".... "Your honor you must stop the introduction of the rotary press because it reduces the time to print a book over a platten press because it creates staggering potential for copyright infringement".... "Your honor you must stop the introduction of the linotype machine because it reduces the time to print a book over rotary press because it creates staggering potential for copyright infringement".... "Your honor you must stop the introduction of the offset lithography machine because it reduces the time to print a book over linotype press because it creates staggering potential for copyright infringement".... "Your honor you must stop the introduction of the xerox machine because it reduces the time to print a book over offset lithograghy because it creates staggering potential for copyright infringement".... Same argument different widgets. Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court arvard.edu of Appeals Brief by USA 02/22/01 02:13 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:54:07PM -0500, John Young wrote: > We offer SDNY US Attorney Mary Jo White's "Court of > Appeals Brief by Intervenor United States of America": > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-usa.htm (106KB) I particularly like how they insist that the rapid pace of technology demands new law to reduce the "staggering potential for copyright infringement", but when it comes to the effects on fair use of technology (namely, that supressing complex decryption tools can supress fair use), they hem and haw about traditional rules of law, and how things have always been done in the past. It's a clever bait and switch, but if you look for it it's all over the document. It's basically fast-and-furious protection of the copyright- holder's end of the bargain, mated with foot-dragging when it comes time to reinforce the public's end, including first sale and fair use. Why on earth is the federal government taking sides in this dispute, much less taking the opposite side from the _public_? Eric From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 18:19:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15120 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:19:37 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15117 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:19:36 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:24:28 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:24:25 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/22/2001 03:24:28 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court arvard.edu of Appeals Brief by USA 02/22/01 02:18 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss . Here we see congress and the doj throw out the constitution and claim that some alien treaty governs. Then they have failed in their oaths and should be removed from office at the earliest possible election if not impeached before then. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 19:07:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA16147 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:07:56 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA16144 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:07:44 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA27865 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:14:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:14:13 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] wearing a t-shirt makes you a terrorist in u.k. Message-ID: <20010222191413.A27772@eldritchpress.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,441314,00.html leader in The Guardian (Manchester) Feb 22, 2001 by George Monbiot, following implementation of the Terrorism Act 2000 in Great Britain. ... By such means, our new century of progressive politics will be distinguished from those which have gone before. There will be no place, for example, for violent conspiracies like the Commons Preservation Society. The CPS launched its campaign of terror in 1865, by hiring a trainload of labourers to dismantle the railings around Berkhamstead Common, thus seriously damaging the property of the noble lord who had just enclosed it. The CPS later split into two splinter groups called the Open Spaces Society and the National Trust. Under the new legislation, these subversive factions would have been banned. This discussion is particularly poignant today, when http://cryptome.org is under assault from the British intelligence services for reprinting information in the public domain concerning the British government's role in assassinating a lawyer in northern Ireland, among many other misdeeds by the FRU. (an intelligence service for which Prime Minister Thatcher is ultimately responsible. I am not saying Blair is better.) Does hacking into cryptome to determine who is reading the articles there count as anything illegal or what? This week we read about one counter-intelligence officer in Washington who faces the death penalty for helping kill some Russian double agents; and we read at cryptome about British intelligence agents who arranged for the murders of citizens of their own country and others, and who face evidently no penalty, since they firebombed the offices of the Scotland Yard head investigating their activities, to destroy evidence of their crimes, and sent e-mail revealing the identity and address of another intelligence agent who was cooperating with the investigation. Of course, in the U.S. we read about certain congresspeople who do not wish the U.S. to agree to a treaty banning war crimes, but wish instead to make hackers into terrorists-- simply for wearing a DeCSS T-shirt?-or for walking the commons, hills and paths, forgetting they have been enclosed, privatized, gone forever, in a world made safe from terror and efficient dismantling of railings. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 19:39:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA16457 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:39:11 -0500 Received: from emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com ([24.3.46.177]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA16454 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:39:10 -0500 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18894; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:44:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:44:07 -0500 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200102230044.TAA18894@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <3A954D8C.F0DD4E6E@uic.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Schulien wrote: >More details on how these facilities work. > >> COPY >> No text selection can be copied from this book to the clipboard. > >Self explanatory ... > >> PRINT >> No printing is forbidden on this book. > >Self explanatory ... I assume what was intended was to prohibit printing, but that is not what it says. Just the opposite in fact. Then again, there is that strange phrase at the end. So how would you "[print] on this [e]book" anyway? Printing is something I would normally do on paper. -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 21:59:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA17946 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:59:41 -0500 Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA17943 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:59:34 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.83.73bc470 (4232) for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:03:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <83.73bc470.27c72d1e@cs.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:03:58 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_83.73bc470.27c72d1e_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --part1_83.73bc470.27c72d1e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/22/01 4:18:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, pneves@aicompro.com writes: But that's exactly my point, we aren't "talking" to them. They are an extension of our own capabilities. They are tools that we use to facilitate daily living. > The fact is what difference does it make if we are talking to a > computer or talking to a human being --part1_83.73bc470.27c72d1e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/22/01 4:18:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
pneves@aicompro.com writes:

But that's exactly my point, we aren't "talking" to them.  They are an
extension of our own capabilities.  They are tools that we use to facilitate
daily living.  

The fact is what difference does it make if we are talking to a
computer or talking to a human being
--part1_83.73bc470.27c72d1e_boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 22:07:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA18140 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:07:46 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA18128 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:07:44 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA305GT>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:51:43 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:51:39 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter D. Junger [mailto:junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu] > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 2:17 AM > To: DVD Discussion List > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's > > > > I got to thinking last night, which badly interrupted my sleep. > > I was thinking about two things that sort of merged: > > (i) The government's intervention in the 2600 case, supposedly > in support of the constitutionality of the anti-circumvention > provisions of the DMCA, and > > (2) A passage in the current issue of Harper's that reads in its > entirety as follows: > > > [Rights] > eVIL > > > \emph{The following restrictions appear in an ``eBook'' > edition of > \emph{Alice in Wonderland} published by VolumeOne for the Adobe > Acrobat eBook Reader.} > > > > Permissions on \emph{Alice in Wonderland} > > COPY > No text selection can be copied from this book to the clipboard. > > PRINT > No printing is forbidden on this book. > > LEND > This book cannot be lent to someone else. > > GIVE > This book cannot be given to someone else. > > READ ALOUD > This book cannot be read aloud. > Ok ... this contradicts US Code Title 17 Sec. 109 "Limitations on exclusive rights" (sorry, not familiar enough w/ the standard ref. syntax ... but here's a link ;-) http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/109.html
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord
Now ... doesn't "sell or otherwise dispose" encompass "GIVE" and "LEND", both expressly (and imo unenforcably) forbidden? These guys clearly got carried away. Especially since Alice is already in the public domain (as reflected by it's presence in the Gutenberg Project archives). -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 22:07:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA18143 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:07:46 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA18131 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:07:45 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA305HR>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:05:13 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:05:12 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Eldred [mailto:eldred@eldritchpress.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 10:00 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 11:34:04AM -0600, John Schulien wrote: > > More details on how these facilities work. > > thanks, john. > > > .... > > > > They don't have the legal right to prevent loaning and resale of > > ebooks, but by incorporating technical restrictions that prevent > > resale into the same copy protection scheme that prevents copying, > > they can get the same effect. > > and converting the first sale into a licensed sale > or rental has the further effect of using the law > to attain even more control. so we have perpetual > copyright, tpm, dmca, ucita, trade secrets, patents, > and trademarks. what more can the strong ipr forces > ask for? how about sales to real customers for these > pay-per-view events? and when the companies go > bankrupt, what then with these works? > Also remember that these restrictions are being placed on a work WHICH IS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I think this is an important thing to keep to the fore if this example is used in court. The ONLY control these folks have is enabled by the DMCA. Yes, that may sound like I am arguing for the publishers, but the same argument actually works against them -- by giving them control where none is warrented (because of the status of the work), this case clearly illustrates the primary flaw of the DMCA -- complete dismissal* of existing copyright law. *: there is probably a better word to use there ... something along the lines of overrideing of ignoring, but I couldn't make my poor sleep-deprived brain come up with it this morning ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 22:07:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA18129 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:07:45 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA18125 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:07:44 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA305GB>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:37:52 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to reprint a religious text? Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:37:51 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy Murphy [mailto:murphy@panix.com] ... > All new translations of the Bible, for example, bear > copyrights that are routinely > enforced. It has been possible to get permission to place > many 20th Century > translations on the web. One big exception is the recent New > Revised Standard > Version which is zealously guarded by the National Council of > Churches. Now how are they gonna spread the word with an attitude like that ? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 22:24:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA18882 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:24:59 -0500 Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA18879 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:24:53 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.5c.78ee138 (4232) for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:29:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5c.78ee138.27c73320@cs.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:29:36 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_5c.78ee138.27c73320_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --part1_5c.78ee138.27c73320_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That's a practical solution, not a legal one. Do I really have to go back to the car with the keys on the drivers seat analogy again? Like it or not, money has found its way to the Internet. Money is property, and the law protects property. We can't avoid it. So why don't we mitigate the damage while we still have a say? You don't NEED to put it on the internet and if the risks outweight > the benefits you DON"T DO IT. > And while I agree with you about overregulation, you still need to get over this fallacy that if source code isn't protected by the First Amendment, it becomes illegal overnight. When stop focusing on what code is and start focusing on what the code in question does, we widen the possible defenses for our code. We can use Fair Use to defend DeCSS! We can use the Second Amendment to defend encryption! The list goes on! The future of code does not hinge on whether or not it gets protected as speech! --part1_5c.78ee138.27c73320_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

That's a practical solution, not a legal one.  Do I really have to go back to
the car with the keys on the drivers seat analogy again?  Like it or not,
money has found its way to the Internet.  Money is property, and the law
protects property.  We can't avoid it.  So why don't we mitigate the damage
while we still have a say?  

You don't NEED to put it on the internet and if the risks outweight
the benefits you DON"T DO IT.

And while I agree with you about overregulation, you still need to get over
this fallacy that if source code isn't protected by the First Amendment, it
becomes illegal overnight.  When stop focusing on what code is and start
focusing on what the code in question does, we widen the possible defenses
for our code.  We can use Fair Use to defend DeCSS!  We can use the Second
Amendment to defend encryption!  The list goes on!  The future of code does
not hinge on whether or not it gets protected as speech!   --part1_5c.78ee138.27c73320_boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 22:37:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA19087 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:37:42 -0500 Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA19084 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:37:35 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.1e.11af8841 (4232) for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:41:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1e.11af8841.27c73604@cs.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:41:56 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1e.11af8841.27c73604_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --part1_1e.11af8841.27c73604_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/22/01 2:26:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, clening@zdnetmail.com writes: This is why i've been advocating looking at code based on what is does rather than what it is. It makes these problems easy to deal with. If program X provides the same functionality as program Y, treat them the same way. A small paradigm shift that alleviates most of our problems. > On a side note, the discussion of the alteration of code -- if one character > was removed from DeCSS, would displaying it, and linking to it still > be illegal -- intrigues me. If for instance, you displayed that one > character in a comment line (as another had posted earlier) could it > still be considered questionable, or the same kind of fear as DeCSS > in its current form would be? I can see parallels to this and Toretzky's > website, and how minor alterations, while making it dysfunctional can > still have problems. > --part1_1e.11af8841.27c73604_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/22/01 2:26:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
clening@zdnetmail.com writes:

This is why i've been advocating looking at code based on what is does rather
than what it is.  It makes these problems easy to deal with.  If program X
provides the same functionality as program Y, treat them the same way.  A
small paradigm shift that alleviates most of our problems.  

On a side note,  the discussion of the alteration of code -- if one character
was removed from DeCSS, would displaying it, and linking to it still
be illegal -- intrigues me.  If for instance, you displayed that one
character in a comment line (as another had posted earlier) could it
still  be considered questionable, or the same kind of fear as DeCSS
in its current form would be?  I can see parallels to this and Toretzky's
website, and how minor alterations, while making it dysfunctional can
still have problems.


--part1_1e.11af8841.27c73604_boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 22:37:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA19079 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:37:31 -0500 Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA19076 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:37:29 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp03.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06788 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:39:22 -0700 (MST) Received: from 64-212-29-192.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.29.192), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAm_aaln; Thu Feb 22 20:39:16 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA22998 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:41:45 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:41:45 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <3A9549EA.1C2BEC92@uic.edu> In-Reply-To: <3A9549EA.1C2BEC92@uic.edu> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022220414500.02670@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thursday 22 February 2001 10:18, you wrote: # Setting this bit is a deliberate action that places a technical # restriction # on all licensed ebook readers. It has nothing to do with your right to # read the # book to your child out loud, as has been suggested. Ah! But you see, that bit is a TPM: it prevents unauthorized access to the work (the owner denies the licensee text-to-speech access.) Visual-to-speech access would constitute a circumvention of the TPM and thus be illegal under the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA. In other words, because doing so might compromise the rights of publishers to control access to Lewis Caroll, reading aloud is now illegal. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 22:43:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA19318 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:43:28 -0500 Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA19304 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:43:17 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01437 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:43:09 -0700 (MST) Received: from 64-212-29-192.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.29.192), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAA82aaUc; Thu Feb 22 20:43:05 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA23050 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:48:07 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:48:07 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022220480701.02670@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thursday 22 February 2001 11:05, you wrote: # Also remember that these restrictions are being placed # on a work WHICH IS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I think # this is an important thing to keep to the fore if this # example is used in court. The ONLY control these folks # have is enabled by the DMCA. Yes, that may sound like # I am arguing for the publishers, but the same argument # actually works against them -- by giving them control # where none is warrented (because of the status of # the work), this case clearly illustrates the primary # flaw of the DMCA -- complete dismissal* of existing # copyright law. Ah, but it's NOT in the public domain. Someone wrote a new introduction for this edition, and that's original copyright. For the next 95+ years, anyway, by which time there will be a new edition out. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 22:44:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA19332 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:44:39 -0500 Received: from imo-r08.mx.aol.com (imo-r08.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA19329 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:44:37 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.76.8016677 (4232) for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:48:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <76.8016677.27c737aa@cs.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:48:58 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_76.8016677.27c737aa_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --part1_76.8016677.27c737aa_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This made the job deck the implement you used to do your job: Hardware, software, and all. > I inserted a "job run" card in the deck (see a). > I stuck the cards in the reader. > I pushed the reader start button. > Code doesn't have to run itself to not be pure speech. > --part1_76.8016677.27c737aa_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This made the job deck the implement you used to do your job:  Hardware,
software, and all.  

I inserted a "job run" card in the deck (see a).
I stuck the cards in the reader.
I pushed the reader start button.


Code doesn't have to run itself to not be pure speech.  

BTW this is how I know that code does not run itself

 --part1_76.8016677.27c737aa_boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 22:47:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA19417 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:47:07 -0500 Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA19414 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:47:06 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02405 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:46:56 -0700 (MST) Received: from 64-212-29-192.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.29.192), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAR0aGMe; Thu Feb 22 20:46:50 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA23060 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:51:53 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:51:53 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20010222192206.USVY29684.mta07.onebox.com@onebox.com> In-Reply-To: <20010222192206.USVY29684.mta07.onebox.com@onebox.com> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022220515302.02670@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thursday 22 February 2001 12:22, Karee Swift wrote: # On a side note, the discussion of the alteration of code -- if one character # was removed from DeCSS, would displaying it, and linking to it still # be illegal -- intrigues me. If for instance, you displayed that one # character in a comment line (as another had posted earlier) could it # still be considered questionable, or the same kind of fear as DeCSS # in its current form would be? I can see parallels to this and Toretzky's # website, and how minor alterations, while making it dysfunctional can # still have problems. Or for that matter, what if the entire program were enclosed in a block comment, or if each line were "# " commented? It is then not executable by even Kaplan's definition. Is it still "functional?" -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Feb 22 23:16:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA19779 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:16:57 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA19776 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:16:55 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA22128 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:21:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:21:23 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code In-Reply-To: <01022220515302.02670@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Of course this is always skirting around the question. That's why I felt that it was foolish to propose that changing one bit makes code some sort of 'not-code.' So what happens when you write a program that edges around a theoretical law governing executable or compilable code, and the Enemy writes a one-off loader program or compiler that _can_ accept it? Will programmers forever be fighting a war to obfuscate their speech in order to avoid having it become legislatable? If so, how does this promote progress? How is it not a First Amendment violation? As already harped on, someday - possibly, hopefully, someday very soon - computers will be able to act on highly abstract natural human speech. If Consilgere has his way that too will fall within the fence that the First Amendment erects around government. Seems like it would be a cruel twist of fate to have computers like HAL 9000, or Mycroft, or Star Wars droids, or most any other science fiction, but have all language be unfree b/c it can be used to write software. Me, I think of software as a series of mathematical instructions. 5 + 5 = 10 uses mathematical tokens, but it is speech that is protected as equally as 'five plus five equals ten' or 'We hold these truths to be self evident.' That there are machines that can accept them as instruction is irrelevant. I can feed a copy of the Constitution or the Bible into a computer and if the software is good (and if it isn't yet it certainly will be) it'll do something based on that. Why on earth would this mean that they are no longer uninfringable speech? I I can address a different point, however, I think that this subject is sapping a lot of our efforts. Those of us in the code is speech camp are pretty unlikely to leave (I hope!) and the one or two people here who are arguing otherwise have not as far as I see changed their opinion throughout this debate. I say that we assess the opinion of the list, accept it as a working defintion and move on from there. If the other group really wishes to continue, then that's fine. It can't hurt to have developed defenses under both premises but attempting to determine which is absolute truth and which is not is clearly getting us nowhere. If there's enough of a split that it's necessary to do so, we can have a Wave camp and a Particle camp and they can still work together towards common goals. And if there's anyone who is against defending the ability to privately decode, view and use DVDs altogether this is probably the wrong list for them to be on. Unless I've been misinterpreting our aims all this time at least. Whether the MPAA and/or DVDCCA have public mailing lists for development of offensive tactics, I can't say. On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, D. C. Sessions wrote: > On Thursday 22 February 2001 12:22, Karee Swift wrote: > # On a side note, the discussion of the alteration of code -- if one character > # was removed from DeCSS, would displaying it, and linking to it still > # be illegal -- intrigues me. If for instance, you displayed that one > # character in a comment line (as another had posted earlier) could it > # still be considered questionable, or the same kind of fear as DeCSS > # in its current form would be? I can see parallels to this and Toretzky's > # website, and how minor alterations, while making it dysfunctional can > # still have problems. > > Or for that matter, what if the entire program were enclosed in a block > comment, or if each line were "# " commented? It is then not executable > by even Kaplan's definition. Is it still "functional?" > > -- > | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| > +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 00:15:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA20622 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:15:33 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA20619 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:15:21 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA28126 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:22:10 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:22:05 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's Message-ID: <20010223002205.D27772@eldritchpress.org> References: <01022220480701.02670@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <01022220480701.02670@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com>; from dcs@lumbercartel.com on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 08:48:07PM -0700 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 08:48:07PM -0700, D. C. Sessions wrote: > On Thursday 22 February 2001 11:05, you wrote: > > # Also remember that these restrictions are being placed > # on a work WHICH IS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I think > # this is an important thing to keep to the fore if this > # example is used in court. The ONLY control these folks > # have is enabled by the DMCA. Yes, that may sound like > # I am arguing for the publishers, but the same argument > # actually works against them -- by giving them control > # where none is warrented (because of the status of > # the work), this case clearly illustrates the primary > # flaw of the DMCA -- complete dismissal* of existing > # copyright law. > > Ah, but it's NOT in the public domain. Someone wrote a new > introduction for this edition, and that's original copyright. For > the next 95+ years, anyway, by which time there will be a > new edition out. i don't remember that there was any new introduction. do you have a link so we can find out? in any case, alice was only one example. there are dozens of others. they are entirely in the public domain, i am sure. but even if they did have a new introduction, that would not affect the public domain text included in the ebook, and the whole thing is protected by the tpm and dmca, in the sense that sharing any information about how to access the work without permission from the publisher is likely to be a crime since it could be used to access other, encrypted copyrighted works without permission too. i probably agree with both of your opinions, but i suppose the facts are important sooner or later. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 01:16:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA21146 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:16:38 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA21143 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:16:38 -0500 Received: from seltzerw ([204.243.92.112]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.9.3 (PHNE_21697)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA08559 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:21:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010223005708.01b9b1d0@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:21:16 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code In-Reply-To: References: <01022220515302.02670@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 11:21 PM 2/22/01 -0500, cpt@gryphon.auspice.net wrote: [...] >I I can address a different point, however, I think that this subject is >sapping a lot of our efforts. Those of us in the code is speech camp are >pretty unlikely to leave (I hope!) and the one or two people here who are >arguing otherwise have not as far as I see changed their opinion >throughout this debate. Thanks. I think it's about time for this discussion to move on, at least on dvd-discuss. The debate has helped me (and others I hope) to see the complexities of the issue, but by now both sides seem to be beating our heads against one another rather than focusing on our shared goal -- to come up with compelling reasons why the posting of DeCSS must not be prohibited, to defend speech and fair use rights against "anticircumvention." Whether you view DeCSS as "expressive" in itself, as conveying information, or as a necessary tool for the exercise of speech and use rights, we still have to demonstrate to a court that one or more of those values outweighs the supposed dangers of the "digital crowbar." We can make arguments on all those points without having to determine that one is the "right" description of code. Right, for our purposes here, is what will convince the judges. --Wendy >I say that we assess the opinion of the list, accept it as a working >defintion and move on from there. If the other group really wishes to >continue, then that's fine. It can't hurt to have developed defenses under >both premises but attempting to determine which is absolute truth and >which is not is clearly getting us nowhere. If there's enough of a split >that it's necessary to do so, we can have a Wave camp and a Particle camp >and they can still work together towards common goals. > >And if there's anyone who is against defending the ability to privately >decode, view and use DVDs altogether this is probably the wrong list for >them to be on. Unless I've been misinterpreting our aims all this time at >least. Whether the MPAA and/or DVDCCA have public mailing lists for >development of offensive tactics, I can't say. Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 01:27:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA21337 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:27:01 -0500 Received: from mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA21332 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:27:00 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010223063152.VSJG25888.mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:31:52 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:46:11 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" References: <76.7f5edff.27c5b310@cs.com> In-Reply-To: <76.7f5edff.27c5b310@cs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022223455800.05319@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id BAA21333 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Are there? I'd like you to list those differnces please. As far as I know the only difference between computer code and speech in the physical world is that one you are saying something to a person and the other you are talking to a machine. Just because a machine doesn't talk back doesn't change anything your still talking. Just because a judge can't understand it doesn't make a difference either what if a judge can't understand french does that mean all the french people in the US don't have rights? (In this case I'm not saying computers should have the rights but the people who write the code.) If you look at computer code and the parts that make up a computer you would notice something. Yes, a computer is made up of transistors, resistors, capacitors and integrated Circuits. But ask yourself how are those things configured. Those parts are configured in such a way that we can manipulate information. That information is stored as 1's and 0's in memory, on the hard drive, or even on a DVD. To perform such operations the computer needs functionality that will allow it to make decisions. In fact some of the actual machine operations at the IC level are even logical operators that we use every day. Words like "and",. "or", and "not" are hard coded operations in the CPU. That means the computer can make decisions based on the input it's given and based on the program it is executing. Programs are a unique form of data. A program is loaded into memory in the exact same way as any other data but one difference. A pointer is set that points to the first instruction in the program. The computer then begins execution of the program. Iterates through each instruction in the sequence executing each instruction as it goes along. The program doesn't do the work the computer does. The program just tells it what to do and how. (This may sound a little simplistic compared to what goes on in a real system but the principals are the same.) So you see saying that a program is not speech is like saying that a cat is not part of the feline family. On Thursday 22 February 2001 00:10, you wrote: > In a message dated 2/20/01 11:38:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, > pneves@aicompro.com writes: > > Except you're mixing mediums. Speech in the context of the physical world > is not a direct equivalent to programs on a computer. There are extremely > obvious differences. So why would we treat them as though they were the > same? > > << instruction > procedure > statement > command > > These are all words used when talking about speech or communicating. These > words are why we can make a strong statement that software is speech. >> From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 01:51:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA21626 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:51:48 -0500 Received: from mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA21623 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:51:47 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010223065640.VXQO25888.mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:56:40 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:11:07 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" References: <76.7f5edff.27c5b310@cs.com> In-Reply-To: <76.7f5edff.27c5b310@cs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022300110702.05319@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id BAA21624 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu To add one more thing. I don't compare code to some one talking. I compare it to a printed text in a book or on a news paper. And as this email is proof a document that is encoded electronically. On Thursday 22 February 2001 00:10, you wrote: > In a message dated 2/20/01 11:38:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, > pneves@aicompro.com writes: > > Except you're mixing mediums. Speech in the context of the physical world > is not a direct equivalent to programs on a computer. There are extremely > obvious differences. So why would we treat them as though they were the > same? > > << instruction > procedure > statement > command > > These are all words used when talking about speech or communicating. These > words are why we can make a strong statement that software is speech. >> From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 02:33:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA22037 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:33:27 -0500 Received: from mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA22034 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:33:25 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010223073812.WGKJ25888.mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:38:12 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] yelling fire ... Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:52:34 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: <3A954618.98799E7@uic.edu> In-Reply-To: <3A954618.98799E7@uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022300523403.05319@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id CAA22035 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes but I don't think its the actual fact that yelling fire is the offence but rather the causing the people to run toword the door. I think you would get the same effect if you were to fire a weapon in the movie theater as well. In this case the weapon was the persons voice yelling fire. Besides this is a completly different problem then the one at hand. One is a problem of scaring unexpecting people in a dark theater the other is saying something that someone else finds offensive. On Thursday 22 February 2001 17:02, you wrote: > > I am aware of yelling fire in a crowded movie > > theater but that isn't a free speech problem thats a > > problem of disturbing the peace ). > > Sigh. This is a pet peeve of mine. > > It's NOT a matter of disturbing the peace. It's very > different from that. > > At the time the quote was written, theatre fires were > very common and killed hundreds of people at a time > in a matter of minutes. Theatre fires were the airline > disasters of the time. The buildings and sets were > made of wood and flammable fabric, painted with oil > paint. Open arc lamps and gaslights were used for > illumination. Theatres often had locked exits, and no > fire suppression systems. They were deathtraps if a > fire broke out. > > If someone stood up in a theatre and yelled fire, > it was very likely that everyone in the theatre > would rush for the exits, and many people would be > injured or killed in the stampede. > > Contemporary theatres are extremely safe, and if you > were to stand up in a modern movie theatre and yell, > "FIRE", people would probably just look at you and > ask you to sit down. > > A better modern day analogy would be if you snuck > up behind someone peering down an open elevator > shaft and yelled "BOO!", causing them to involuntarily > leap to their death. All that Justice Holmes was saying > is that you couldn't claim "freedom of speech" if your > speech was calculated to cause involuntary panic > leading to injury or death, not that the first amendment > doesn't shield annoying or disruptive speakers from > prosecution. That's sort of the point of the first > amendment. > > Unfortunately, the quote no longer has any > meaningful context, so people interpret it as meaning > something very different then it was intended to. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 05:36:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA23439 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 05:36:42 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA23436 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 05:36:34 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04883; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:41:29 GMT Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:41:29 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] cnn.com article To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Leland Ray wrote: > Haven't seen this one posted yet, > http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/22/media.dvd.hacker.reut/index.html > This looks like a clear example of the first stirrings of the studios' predicted public FUD campaign in favour of their case. 1) Attempt to get the public/judges linking the 2600 case with the Napster case even though they have almost nothing in common. 2) Attempt to convince readers that deCSS will lead to piracy and the death of the studios (despite the fact that IIRC, the original court case never claimed that CSS was there to prevent piracy). 3) Attempt to paint internet at being home to 'technology maverics' and pirates and other bogeymen. Who owns CNN anyway? Whatever - getting this sort of press release out early is fully expected behaviour. We'll see plenty more of them I'm sure. Studio bosses, Jack Valenti, and maybe even recognisable movie directors will soon be doing the chat-show circuit I would suspect too. Is the EFF planning to take their side of the story into the public eye like this, or will they have to try and fight the whole thing out in court in front of judges who will (unwittingly) have been well indoctrinated by the time the case starts? -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 06:29:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA23970 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:29:31 -0500 Received: from myrealbox.com (mail.myrealbox.com [192.108.102.201]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA23967 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:29:29 -0500 Received: from pigpen [63.230.7.66] by myrealbox.com with Novonyx SMTP Server $Revision: 2.76 $; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 04:29:18 -0700 (MDT) Message-ID: <001401c09d8d$20063080$0201a8c0@pigpen> From: "Phill" To: References: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 04:38:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu ----- Original Message ----- > > . > Here we see congress and the doj throw out the > constitution and claim that some alien treaty governs. > > > Then they have failed in their oaths and should be removed from office at > the earliest possible election if not impeached before then. > I have been cotemplating this. What it takes to educate politicians running for office and push for their election. If our present legal battles fail us, we are left with the circuitous route of changing the law. I exchanged emails with Scott Howell who was running against Senator Hatch in this last election (he didn't stand a chance). I was struck by how totally nonobligatory he was torwards doing anything about bad copyright law. This being said, I feel like Senator Hatch is vulnerable, and should be the first one held responsible for the CTEA/DMCA. We shouldn't be waiting to lose these court cases. We need to be looking to replace politicians now. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 07:47:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA24521 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:47:34 -0500 Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA24518 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:47:29 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld4e1.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.145.193]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA16046 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:52:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A965C24.2CE24468@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:48:38 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] cnn.com article References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "The studios filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York on Tuesday" Is their brief available online? mickeym Leland Ray wrote: > Haven't seen this one posted yet, > > http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/22/media.dvd.hacker.reut/index.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 07:58:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA24683 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:58:05 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA24680 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:58:04 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19556; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:02:11 -0500 Message-Id: <200102231302.IAA19556@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:29:36 EST." <5c.78ee138.27c73320@cs.com> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:01:41 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Consilgere@cs.com writes: : And while I agree with you about overregulation, you still need to get over : this fallacy that if source code isn't protected by the First Amendment, it : becomes illegal overnight. When stop focusing on what code is and start : focusing on what the code in question does, we widen the possible defenses : for our code. We can use Fair Use to defend DeCSS! We can use the Second : Amendment to defend encryption! The list goes on! The future of code does : not hinge on whether or not it gets protected as speech! It may to some extend depend exactly on that. And, of course, all the other defenses that you refer to are available if the publication of code is protected as speech or, less confusingly, by the freedom of the press that protects all publication of information. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 08:10:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA24828 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:10:16 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA24825 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:10:15 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19634; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:14:22 -0500 Message-Id: <200102231314.IAA19634@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:51:53 MST." <01022220515302.02670@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:13:52 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "D. C. Sessions" writes: : Or for that matter, what if the entire program were enclosed in a block : comment, or if each line were "# " commented? It is then not executable : by even Kaplan's definition. Is it still "functional?" Back when the LuvBug or some other well-known virus hit where the vector of infection was e-mail opened by some nasty product of Microsoft's, I got a copy on my Linux box. And I distributed it again to a mailing list, after changing its name so the MS software wouldn't act on it, and, too be doubly safe, put the characters "< " at the beginning of each line. That was in response to the claim that someone made on the list that it was illegal to distribute the source code of a virus. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 10:48:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA26613 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:48:27 -0500 Received: from attila.stevens-tech.edu (khockenb@attila.stevens-tech.edu [155.246.14.11]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA26608 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:48:25 -0500 Received: from localhost (khockenb@localhost) by attila.stevens-tech.edu (SGI-8.9.3/8.9.3/7) with ESMTP id KAA55716 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:53:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:53:23 -0500 From: Kurt Hockenbury To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA In-Reply-To: <001401c09d8d$20063080$0201a8c0@pigpen> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Phill wrote: > > Then they have failed in their oaths and should be removed from office at > > the earliest possible election if not impeached before then. > > I have been cotemplating this. What it takes to educate politicians > running for office and push for their election. If our present legal battles > fail us, we are left with the circuitous route of changing the law. Would it be possible, when the Supreme Court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, to file a public action suit against all congressional members who voted the law in for violating their oath of office? (Or all of the House or Senate in the case of a voice vote.) If we could do this, it would make Congress a bit more selective in the law that they pass. -Kurt From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 11:00:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26829 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:00:00 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA26826 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:59:57 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:04:39 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to reprint a religious text? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:04:37 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 08:04:38 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It makes me have even more respect for the Gideons. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is it fair use to reprint a religious text? 02/22/01 07:14 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy Murphy [mailto:murphy@panix.com] ... > All new translations of the Bible, for example, bear > copyrights that are routinely > enforced. It has been possible to get permission to place > many 20th Century > translations on the web. One big exception is the recent New > Revised Standard > Version which is zealously guarded by the National Council of > Churches. Now how are they gonna spread the word with an attitude like that ? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 11:01:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26880 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:01:51 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26875 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:01:48 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:06:22 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:06:20 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 08:06:21 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I like the word subversion. Copyright is one aspect of government so I think it fits. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's 02/22/01 07:13 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Eldred [mailto:eldred@eldritchpress.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 10:00 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 11:34:04AM -0600, John Schulien wrote: > > More details on how these facilities work. > > thanks, john. > > > .... > > > > They don't have the legal right to prevent loaning and resale of > > ebooks, but by incorporating technical restrictions that prevent > > resale into the same copy protection scheme that prevents copying, > > they can get the same effect. > > and converting the first sale into a licensed sale > or rental has the further effect of using the law > to attain even more control. so we have perpetual > copyright, tpm, dmca, ucita, trade secrets, patents, > and trademarks. what more can the strong ipr forces > ask for? how about sales to real customers for these > pay-per-view events? and when the companies go > bankrupt, what then with these works? > Also remember that these restrictions are being placed on a work WHICH IS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I think this is an important thing to keep to the fore if this example is used in court. The ONLY control these folks have is enabled by the DMCA. Yes, that may sound like I am arguing for the publishers, but the same argument actually works against them -- by giving them control where none is warrented (because of the status of the work), this case clearly illustrates the primary flaw of the DMCA -- complete dismissal* of existing copyright law. *: there is probably a better word to use there ... something along the lines of overrideing of ignoring, but I couldn't make my poor sleep-deprived brain come up with it this morning ... -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 11:03:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26904 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:03:03 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26899 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:02:58 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:07:32 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:07:30 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 08:07:31 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This really does sound like Eliza talking... Consilgere@cs.com Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? 02/22/01 07:06 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss In a message dated 2/22/01 4:18:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, pneves@aicompro.com writes: But that's exactly my point, we aren't "talking" to them. They are an extension of our own capabilities. They are tools that we use to facilitate daily living. The fact is what difference does it make if we are talking to a computer or talking to a human being From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 11:11:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27218 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:11:14 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27214 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:11:11 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:16:00 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:15:58 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 08:15:59 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Obviously reading aloud needs to be stopped. If one read it aloud and there are other people in the room why they won't need to purchase their own copies now would they. Worse yet. Somebody might read to a theatre of people from the ebook of "Alice and Wonderland" and charge admission.Or horror of horrors, somebody might read from the ebook of Alice and Wonderland onto a cassette or CDRom and ebooks won't get their share. Clearly reading aloud is not in the best interests of ebooks or the United States Government or ANY other country in the world. The plague of reading aloud that will lead to rampant DMCA infringement must be stopped at all costs. A corp of reading alound enforcers must be created immediatly to apprehend the miserable criminals that do that dispicable act.... "D. C. Sessions" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not arvard.edu DVD's 02/22/01 07:46 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thursday 22 February 2001 10:18, you wrote: # Setting this bit is a deliberate action that places a technical # restriction # on all licensed ebook readers. It has nothing to do with your right to # read the # book to your child out loud, as has been suggested. Ah! But you see, that bit is a TPM: it prevents unauthorized access to the work (the owner denies the licensee text-to-speech access.) Visual-to-speech access would constitute a circumvention of the TPM and thus be illegal under the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA. In other words, because doing so might compromise the rights of publishers to control access to Lewis Caroll, reading aloud is now illegal. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 11:13:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27282 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:13:40 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27278 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:13:37 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:18:29 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:18:26 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 08:18:28 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Reductio ad absurdum...... Of course Kaplan would probably say that it can be converted to functional for trivially so there is no distinction. On the really stupid side of this....is "#" now a TPM? "D. C. Sessions" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code arvard.edu 02/22/01 07:54 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thursday 22 February 2001 12:22, Karee Swift wrote: # On a side note, the discussion of the alteration of code -- if one character # was removed from DeCSS, would displaying it, and linking to it still # be illegal -- intrigues me. If for instance, you displayed that one # character in a comment line (as another had posted earlier) could it # still be considered questionable, or the same kind of fear as DeCSS # in its current form would be? I can see parallels to this and Toretzky's # website, and how minor alterations, while making it dysfunctional can # still have problems. Or for that matter, what if the entire program were enclosed in a block comment, or if each line were "# " commented? It is then not executable by even Kaplan's definition. Is it still "functional?" -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 11:15:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27416 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:15:11 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27381 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:15:03 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:19:50 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:19:49 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 08:19:49 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This whole notion of derivative works getting full copyright protecton needs to be fixed. "D. C. Sessions" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not arvard.edu DVD's 02/22/01 07:50 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thursday 22 February 2001 11:05, you wrote: # Also remember that these restrictions are being placed # on a work WHICH IS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I think # this is an important thing to keep to the fore if this # example is used in court. The ONLY control these folks # have is enabled by the DMCA. Yes, that may sound like # I am arguing for the publishers, but the same argument # actually works against them -- by giving them control # where none is warrented (because of the status of # the work), this case clearly illustrates the primary # flaw of the DMCA -- complete dismissal* of existing # copyright law. Ah, but it's NOT in the public domain. Someone wrote a new introduction for this edition, and that's original copyright. For the next 95+ years, anyway, by which time there will be a new edition out. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 11:26:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27806 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:26:10 -0500 Received: from malig.sundell.net (sundell.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.20.234]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27803 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:26:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (tingley@localhost) by malig.sundell.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA31296 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:31:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:31:09 -0500 (EST) From: Chase Tingley To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] IBM abandoning CPRM for hard drives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu A spot of good news for a Friday morning... The Register is reporting that IBM has withdrawn their proposal to put CPRM in ATA hard drives. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/17107.html ct From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 11:28:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27843 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:28:14 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27839 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:28:13 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:33:10 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:33:07 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 08:33:09 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Wendy Seltzer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code arvard.edu 02/22/01 10:23 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Whether you view DeCSS as "expressive" in itself, as conveying information, or as a necessary tool for the exercise of speech and use rights, we still have to demonstrate to a court that one or more of those values outweighs the supposed dangers of the "digital crowbar." We can make arguments on all those points without having to determine that one is the "right" description of code. Right, for our purposes here, is what will convince the judges. >>One point that should be made is that in this discussion group we have people with years of experience in software and computers and are obviously not dummies. Yet, WE can't even decide on where to draw the line-imagine a judge who knows only windows and microsoft office (NO flames. I am not excusing Kaplan. Were I he, given the first amendment concerns I would have erred on the conservative side and upheld the first amemdment over the convenience of commercial interests.). I would venture that there is no "right" description of code that is universal and inviolate but Wendy is correct. The problem is getting Judges to understand enough of what's going on here that THEY can make an informed decision. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 11:32:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28029 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:32:38 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28026 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:32:37 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:37:32 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:37:31 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 08:37:31 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu last night I was "surveyed" by a marketing service obviously hired by a candidate running for office on what his slogans and stance should be. They were trying to figure out their advertising campaign rather than issues. Rather like that 80's film Riders of the Storm with Dennis Hopper. "Phill" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court arvard.edu of Appeals Brief by USA 02/23/01 03:46 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss ----- Original Message ----- > > . > Here we see congress and the doj throw out the > constitution and claim that some alien treaty governs. > > > Then they have failed in their oaths and should be removed from office at > the earliest possible election if not impeached before then. > I have been cotemplating this. What it takes to educate politicians running for office and push for their election. If our present legal battles fail us, we are left with the circuitous route of changing the law. I exchanged emails with Scott Howell who was running against Senator Hatch in this last election (he didn't stand a chance). I was struck by how totally nonobligatory he was torwards doing anything about bad copyright law. This being said, I feel like Senator Hatch is vulnerable, and should be the first one held responsible for the CTEA/DMCA. We shouldn't be waiting to lose these court cases. We need to be looking to replace politicians now. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 11:34:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28061 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:34:42 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28058 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:34:41 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:39:28 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:39:26 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 08:39:27 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Exactly. Without that protection there is NO defense possible. It is a prerequisite. "Peter D. Junger" cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Sent by: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h played the freespeechcardyet? arvard.edu 02/23/01 05:06 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Consilgere@cs.com writes: : And while I agree with you about overregulation, you still need to get over : this fallacy that if source code isn't protected by the First Amendment, it : becomes illegal overnight. When stop focusing on what code is and start : focusing on what the code in question does, we widen the possible defenses : for our code. We can use Fair Use to defend DeCSS! We can use the Second : Amendment to defend encryption! The list goes on! The future of code does : not hinge on whether or not it gets protected as speech! It may to some extend depend exactly on that. And, of course, all the other defenses that you refer to are available if the publication of code is protected as speech or, less confusingly, by the freedom of the press that protects all publication of information. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 11:36:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28120 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:36:15 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28117 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:36:14 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:41:06 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:41:04 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 08:41:05 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In the early 90's there was a site at Uof Kentucky I think where they had copies of the source code for known virii for academic study. "Peter D. Junger" cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Sent by: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h arvard.edu 02/23/01 05:17 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss "D. C. Sessions" writes: : Or for that matter, what if the entire program were enclosed in a block : comment, or if each line were "# " commented? It is then not executable : by even Kaplan's definition. Is it still "functional?" Back when the LuvBug or some other well-known virus hit where the vector of infection was e-mail opened by some nasty product of Microsoft's, I got a copy on my Linux box. And I distributed it again to a mailing list, after changing its name so the MS software wouldn't act on it, and, too be doubly safe, put the characters "< " at the beginning of each line. That was in response to the claim that someone made on the list that it was illegal to distribute the source code of a virus. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 11:38:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28196 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:38:11 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28193 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:38:09 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:43:01 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:43:00 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 08:43:01 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The class action suit is filed on the second tuesday of November.... Kurt Hockenbury To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court arvard.edu of Appeals Brief by USA 02/23/01 08:14 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Phill wrote: > > Then they have failed in their oaths and should be removed from office at > > the earliest possible election if not impeached before then. > > I have been cotemplating this. What it takes to educate politicians > running for office and push for their election. If our present legal battles > fail us, we are left with the circuitous route of changing the law. Would it be possible, when the Supreme Court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, to file a public action suit against all congressional members who voted the law in for violating their oath of office? (Or all of the House or Senate in the case of a voice vote.) If we could do this, it would make Congress a bit more selective in the law that they pass. -Kurt From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 11:37:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28141 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:37:22 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28138 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:37:20 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20339; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:41:27 -0500 Message-Id: <200102231641.LAA20339@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:19:49 PST." Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:40:57 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: : : This whole notion of derivative works getting full copyright protecton : needs to be fixed. [snip] : : : On Thursday 22 February 2001 11:05, you wrote: : : # Also remember that these restrictions are being placed : # on a work WHICH IS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I think : # this is an important thing to keep to the fore if this : # example is used in court. The ONLY control these folks : # have is enabled by the DMCA. Yes, that may sound like : # I am arguing for the publishers, but the same argument : # actually works against them -- by giving them control : # where none is warrented (because of the status of : # the work), this case clearly illustrates the primary : # flaw of the DMCA -- complete dismissal* of existing : # copyright law. : : Ah, but it's NOT in the public domain. Someone wrote a new : introduction for this edition, and that's original copyright. For : the next 95+ years, anyway, by which time there will be a : new edition out. The example is not of a derivative work; it is an example of a compilation. And the problem was (potentially at least) fixed by the concept such works are protected only by a ``thin'' copyright announced in Feist v. Rural Telephone Co. One does not infringe the copyright by copying the unprotected parts of a work covered by a thin copyright. But the trouble is that, while the fix works pretty well for copyright law, it doesn't work at all for the Anti-Circumvention provisions of the DMCA. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 11:53:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28579 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:53:54 -0500 Received: from attila.stevens-tech.edu (khockenb@attila.stevens-tech.edu [155.246.14.11]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28575 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:53:52 -0500 Received: from localhost (khockenb@localhost) by attila.stevens-tech.edu (SGI-8.9.3/8.9.3/7) with ESMTP id LAA10957 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:58:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:58:51 -0500 From: Kurt Hockenbury To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > The class action suit is filed on the second tuesday of November.... > Oh, I do vote, and encourage my friends to do so as well. My point though, is they are not doing the job they swore to do -- uphold the constitution of the US. If someone doesn't do the job they were hired for, there should be penalties beyond just a once every 2 (or 6) year performance review. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 12:12:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29027 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:12:51 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA29023 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:12:49 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA29273 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:17:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:17:48 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Kurt Hockenbury wrote: > On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > > > > The class action suit is filed on the second tuesday of November.... > > > > Oh, I do vote, and encourage my friends to do so as well. > > My point though, is they are not doing the job they swore to do -- uphold the > constitution of the US. > > If someone doesn't do the job they were hired for, there should be penalties > beyond just a once every 2 (or 6) year performance review. And there are-- the legislative houses have the power to discipline their own members. Quite frankly, I don't think the courts are empowered to step in-- nor should they. In addition, such thinking presupposes a favourable disposition towards our understanding of copyright issues by the higher courts. Such a disposition comes with a well reasoned legal brief, not with idle dreams of media conspiracy. Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 12:50:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA29529 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:50:52 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA29524 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:50:38 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28697 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:57:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:57:29 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's Message-ID: <20010223125729.C28133@eldritchpress.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 08:15:58AM -0800 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 08:15:58AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > Obviously reading aloud needs to be stopped. reading aloud was the norm for probably thousands of years. i think it was st augustine or st jerome who amazed everyone by this feat. even today the scribes who make new torahs say each letter as they write it. check it out in manguel's 'a history of reading,' a wonderful book. i believe computers will also change the way we approach texts. it doesn't take a lot of research to see that the way texts were produced affects writing, for example. hawthorne used a dip pen; he frequently smudged a word before the ink dried, then wrote another right over it. since he had to dip the pen frequently, that process established a rhythm to his writing; reading his words aloud allows even modern readers to rediscover that hidden rhythm and more meaning in the text. of course henry james was one of the first to dictate to a stenographer who then typed up a draft to be edited. and kerouac and burroughs took that to an extreme by the most rapid typing and flow of words they could, in a continuous long session. the typewriter did not allow instantaneous correction, so they blundered on. today texts are burdened with spelling errors that fall through computer spell checking programs. it is almost too late to try to assert a difference between "it's" and "its". i mentioned that computer input via our customary keyboards has already had an impact on the memory and ability of both english-speaking and chinese-writing people to spell and draw glyphs. we can say the same thing about the rapid adoption of cellular telephone. wireless with tiny keypads is obviously user unfriendly. we await the computer power to be able to use voice entirely instead of keypads. the human voice is so much more expressive and can carry so much more meaning in the same bandwidth; our brains have been tuned by millions of years of evolution to get the most from speech. in the days of homer or the icelandic sagas, there was a long history of oral literature. lord and others have rediscovered in some places, such as the former yugoslavia, remnants of such cultures. it appears that the tradition was bound by brain function: it required rhyme and rhythm, and a set of algorithms for generating lines that might not be exactly the same as previously, but fit exactly into the meaning and import of the text. just like jazz, in music, a very controlled improvisation. this type of improvisation is really a new creative work of its own, but of course it is entirely derivative at the same time. as our culture fills up with works that are created but never disappear, it will be more and more necessary to recycle these old works, with a spark of creativity to make them appear new. pure piracy, copying of one digital product to the same commodity, might not be what happens. humans like variety and something novel, to spark interest and dialog. our laws ought to be flexible enough to allow such a free process to develop our culture. if not, everything will be the same, like McDonald's, and nothing will have taste or nourish us, just give more profits to the big corporations. instead, please let us read aloud. and read aloud to our families, a quaint custom that is so easy, yet so powerful a mechanism for turning off the t.v. (hint: read some Eldritch Press text--print it out with larger fonts, or use a larger font to display it on your screen.) -- nom:"Eric" Eric Eldred Eldritch Press mailto:Eldred@EldritchPress.org vCard3.0:http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 14:07:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA30282 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:07:55 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA30279 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:07:53 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA306R1>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:12:56 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:12:56 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] ... > > > Reductio ad absurdum...... > > Of course Kaplan would probably say that it can be converted > to functional > for trivially so there is no distinction. On the really stupid side of > this....is "#" now a TPM? > Yes. Precisely equivilant to the safety on a gun -- it's presence prevents the code from being compiled & executed. And as a TPM it can not be legally bypassed if the code has been copyrighted. :-D -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 14:29:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA30584 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:29:20 -0500 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA30581 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:29:16 -0500 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06636 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:34:14 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A96BBA0.F46B13F5@uic.edu> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:36:00 -0600 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > this case clearly illustrates the primary flaw of the > DMCA -- complete dismissal* of existing copyright law. > > *: there is probably a better word to use there ... > something along the lines of overrideing of ignoring, > but I couldn't make my poor sleep-deprived brain come > up with it this morning ... The word "circumvention" comes to mind ... From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 14:31:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA30621 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:31:21 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA30618 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:31:19 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1NJZPf26077 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:35:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A96BBA6.A0C13363@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:36:06 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd Subject: [dvd-discuss] What's up with 2600's site? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Most of the main page has been replaced with a different Chinese symbol each day for the past week. Looking at the filename of the image, I noticed that one was named "gori" and another was "preksbauv", which are the birthplaces of Stalin and Pol Pot. Am I too bored, or what? mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 15:08:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA31184 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:08:02 -0500 Received: from mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.85]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA31179 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:07:55 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010223201247.QZQR585.mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:12:47 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:27:15 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022313271500.09451@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id PAA31180 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu There is one other defence that can be used against the DMCA. The Idea of enforceability doesn't seem to come up in the court documents. This law is unenforceable because right now only the US has a law like this and it is highly doubtable that other countries will adopt it. Given the capabilities of the internet there is no way that this law can ever be enforced. People who want to distribute DeCSS could just set up a web site somewhere else in the world and distribute it from their. If they think the can scuttle distribution of this software by preventing companies from linking to it think again. If enough material is banned in the US companies will stop setting up shop in the here because they don't have access to the materials they need to compete. A situation that would be very destructive to the US. On Friday 23 February 2001 16:39, you wrote: > Exactly. Without that protection there is NO defense possible. It is a > prerequisite. > > > > "Peter D. Junger" > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu u> cc: > junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Sent by: Subject: > Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h > played the freespeechcardyet? arvard.edu > > > 02/23/01 05:06 AM > Please respond to > dvd-discuss > > Consilgere@cs.com writes: > : And while I agree with you about overregulation, you still need to get > > over > > : this fallacy that if source code isn't protected by the First Amendment, > > it > > : becomes illegal overnight. When stop focusing on what code is and start > : focusing on what the code in question does, we widen the possible > > defenses > > : for our code. We can use Fair Use to defend DeCSS! We can use the > > Second > > : Amendment to defend encryption! The list goes on! The future of code > > does > > : not hinge on whether or not it gets protected as speech! > > It may to some extend depend exactly on that. And, of course, all the > other defenses that you refer to are available if the publication > of code is protected as speech or, less confusingly, by the freedom > of the press that protects all publication of information. > > -- > Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH > EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu > NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 15:17:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA31367 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:17:51 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA31364 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:17:48 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:20:39 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:20:38 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 12:20:39 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In the bizarrest sense of DMCA, I concur. Reductio ad absurdum but then that seems to describe Congress quite well. So...lets see If I import the program into Microsoft word and tell it to replace # with , word is now a device for circumventing TPM. You can do the same thing with microsoft excel and delete column 1 and resave the file. I'm beginning to like this idea. Lets prosecute Microsoft for provided millions of circumvention devices. Even at a measly $1000 per violation this is B I L L I O N S Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code 02/23/01 11:16 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] ... > > > Reductio ad absurdum...... > > Of course Kaplan would probably say that it can be converted > to functional > for trivially so there is no distinction. On the really stupid side of > this....is "#" now a TPM? > Yes. Precisely equivilant to the safety on a gun -- it's presence prevents the code from being compiled & executed. And as a TPM it can not be legally bypassed if the code has been copyrighted. :-D -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 15:22:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA31539 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:22:41 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA31536 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:22:39 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1NKQtf01087 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:27:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A96C7B7.FF39953C@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:27:35 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA References: <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Another fine point: "Again, insofar as Florida Star's holding solely addressed the publication of truthful information -- not the distribution of operable software -- this argument is likewise flawed." A claim that software is a lie? mickeym John Young wrote: > We offer SDNY US Attorney Mary Jo White's "Court of > Appeals Brief by Intervenor United States of America": > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-usa.htm (106KB) > > Pithy quote: > > In short, DeCSS is a digital crowbar, and "[n]one of the > reasons for which speech is thought to require protection > above and beyond that accorded to non-speech > behavior . . . is implicated" by its distribution. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 15:37:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA31935 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:37:30 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA31932 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:37:24 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:42:02 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:42:00 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 12:42:01 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Oh but you've missed the MPAA game plan. If they can get the DMCA into the EU and everywhere else They CAN enforce it. To give Kaplan credit, even he recognized that - the 39,000 Kayaker's going down the Hudson. The next thing the MPAA can do is a class action suit against everybody that has even heard of DeCSS, downloaded it or what. And then they can make it up to YOU to prove that you didn't do anything with it....no even better...that you merely possessed a circumvention device. "Philip V. Neves" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone arvard.edu played the freespeechcardyet? 02/23/01 12:15 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss There is one other defence that can be used against the DMCA. The Idea of enforceability doesn't seem to come up in the court documents. This law is unenforceable because right now only the US has a law like this and it is highly doubtable that other countries will adopt it. Given the capabilities of the internet there is no way that this law can ever be enforced. People who want to distribute DeCSS could just set up a web site somewhere else in the world and distribute it from their. If they think the can scuttle distribution of this software by preventing companies from linking to it think again. If enough material is banned in the US companies will stop setting up shop in the here because they don't have access to the materials they need to compete. A situation that would be very destructive to the US. On Friday 23 February 2001 16:39, you wrote: > Exactly. Without that protection there is NO defense possible. It is a > prerequisite. > > > > "Peter D. Junger" > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu u> cc: > junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Sent by: Subject: > Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h > played the freespeechcardyet? arvard.edu > > > 02/23/01 05:06 AM > Please respond to > dvd-discuss > > Consilgere@cs.com writes: > : And while I agree with you about overregulation, you still need to get > > over > > : this fallacy that if source code isn't protected by the First Amendment, > > it > > : becomes illegal overnight. When stop focusing on what code is and start > : focusing on what the code in question does, we widen the possible > > defenses > > : for our code. We can use Fair Use to defend DeCSS! We can use the > > Second > > : Amendment to defend encryption! The list goes on! The future of code > > does > > : not hinge on whether or not it gets protected as speech! > > It may to some extend depend exactly on that. And, of course, all the > other defenses that you refer to are available if the publication > of code is protected as speech or, less confusingly, by the freedom > of the press that protects all publication of information. > > -- > Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH > EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu > NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 15:58:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA32288 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:58:05 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA32285 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:58:03 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:02:58 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not DVD's To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:02:57 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 01:02:57 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Think ebooks, not arvard.edu DVD's 02/23/01 09:58 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss instead, please let us read aloud. and read aloud to our families, a quaint custom that is so easy, yet so powerful a mechanism for turning off the t.v. (hint: read some Eldritch Press text--print it out with larger fonts, or use a larger font to display it on your screen.) >>Actually you bring up on other aspect of digital medium that should not get lost as corporations hustle to lock up control. Font Size. As silly as that may sound it's one big benefit that you can change it. My vision is worse than 20/800 uncorrected but it can be corrected to 20/20 but only a for a small circle of vision. Even so, I do not read small type well and it causes me considerable eyestrain after short periods. Several years ago I got into a spat with our xerox people because a doctoral dissertation I ordered from Michigan microfilms was reduced to 6"x7" from the original 8 1/2" x 11" - reducing the the original 12 point type to 8point ) I wanted it blown up to the original size so I could read it more easily. I got the lecture on copyright infringement etc. They finally relented when because they were dealing with a mild visual handicap. Is that copyright infringment? Technically yes. Practically no. I haven't gotten any commercial gain from it nor have I distributed any copies. Similiarly, a coworker has a rare eye defect and is legally blind. He can read a memo but only after his secretary enlarges it to 11x17 and he reads it letter by letter from about 2" away from his face (Somebody once criticized him after a presentation because he didn't make eye contact with the audience. I told his critic that he couldn't SEE tha audience!). But, here's another aspect of this digital medium that really is unique to it and unprecedented - changing a font size on a computer screen. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 16:00:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA32348 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:00:16 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA32343 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:00:15 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:05:11 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:05:09 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 01:05:10 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It's a lie that it was "operational software" that was being distributed. mickeym To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court arvard.edu of Appeals Brief by USA 02/23/01 12:29 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Another fine point: "Again, insofar as Florida Star's holding solely addressed the publication of truthful information -- not the distribution of operable software -- this argument is likewise flawed." A claim that software is a lie? mickeym John Young wrote: > We offer SDNY US Attorney Mary Jo White's "Court of > Appeals Brief by Intervenor United States of America": > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-usa.htm (106KB) > > Pithy quote: > > In short, DeCSS is a digital crowbar, and "[n]one of the > reasons for which speech is thought to require protection > above and beyond that accorded to non-speech > behavior . . . is implicated" by its distribution. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 16:13:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA32646 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:13:10 -0500 Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA32641 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:12:57 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa042.pool007.at001.earthlink.net [216.249.78.42]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21281 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:17:52 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010223131049.00aa8100@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: jstyre@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:18:10 -0800 To: From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA In-Reply-To: References: <001401c09d8d$20063080$0201a8c0@pigpen> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 10:53 AM 2/23/2001 -0500, Kurt Hockenbury wrote: >Would it be possible, when the Supreme Court strikes down a law as >unconstitutional, to file a public action suit against all congressional >members who voted the law in for violating their oath of office? (Or all of >the House or Senate in the case of a voice vote.) Anything is possible, but you'd have to amend the Constitution first, or get the Supreme Court to reverse a fairly long line of its own cases, and neither is likely to happen. Legislators have absolute immunity against lawsuits based on how they voted, under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 6. See, e.g., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 This man, who seems to have led a life of unrelieved insignificance, must have been astonished to find himself suddenly putting the Government of the United States in such fear that it was afraid to tell him why it was afraid of him. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) (Jackson, J., dissenting) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 16:50:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA00605 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:50:52 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA00600 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:50:45 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:55:38 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:55:34 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 01:55:37 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yes. They are answerable to the people at election time. That's how the system was set up. "James S. Tyre" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court arvard.edu of Appeals Brief by USA 02/23/01 01:20 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 10:53 AM 2/23/2001 -0500, Kurt Hockenbury wrote: >Would it be possible, when the Supreme Court strikes down a law as >unconstitutional, to file a public action suit against all congressional >members who voted the law in for violating their oath of office? (Or all of >the House or Senate in the case of a voice vote.) Anything is possible, but you'd have to amend the Constitution first, or get the Supreme Court to reverse a fairly long line of its own cases, and neither is likely to happen. Legislators have absolute immunity against lawsuits based on how they voted, under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 6. See, e.g., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 This man, who seems to have led a life of unrelieved insignificance, must have been astonished to find himself suddenly putting the Government of the United States in such fear that it was afraid to tell him why it was afraid of him. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) (Jackson, J., dissenting) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 17:01:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA00816 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:01:05 -0500 Received: from attila.stevens-tech.edu (khockenb@attila.stevens-tech.edu [155.246.14.11]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA00813 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:01:04 -0500 Received: from localhost (khockenb@localhost) by attila.stevens-tech.edu (SGI-8.9.3/8.9.3/7) with ESMTP id RAA33928 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:06:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:06:03 -0500 From: Kurt Hockenbury To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010223131049.00aa8100@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, James S. Tyre wrote: > Legislators have absolute immunity against lawsuits based on how they > voted, under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, Article I, > Section 6. See, e.g., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). Actually, I can see the reason for this. Oh well, back to the ballot box! -Kurt From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 17:02:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA00834 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:02:22 -0500 Received: from mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.85]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA00831 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:02:20 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010223220714.RXOF585.mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:07:14 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:21:42 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022315214201.09451@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id RAA00832 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It will never work. First of all it would be an uphill battle getting Canada for instance to adopt such an act. Canada has already rewritten their laws so that they deals with software and they did it right to begin with. The Canadian government consulted the computer industry and it would take a lot of pressure from many different groups to change their mind. As for europe the french would ruin it all. On Friday 23 February 2001 20:42, you wrote: > Oh but you've missed the MPAA game plan. If they can get the DMCA into the > EU and everywhere else They CAN enforce it. > To give Kaplan credit, even he recognized that - the 39,000 Kayaker's going > down the Hudson. > > The next thing the MPAA can do is a class action suit against everybody > that has even heard of DeCSS, downloaded it or what. And then they can make > it up to YOU to prove that you didn't do anything with it....no even > better...that you merely possessed a circumvention device. > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 17:27:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA01252 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:27:52 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA01249 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:27:49 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1AA306ZW>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:32:52 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:32:52 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I like your enhancement! MSWord as a circumvention device under the letter of the DMCA! Wonderful! -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 12:21 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code > > > > In the bizarrest sense of DMCA, I concur. Reductio ad > absurdum but then > that seems to describe Congress quite well. So...lets see If > I import the > program into Microsoft word and tell it to replace # > with , > word is now a device for circumventing TPM. You can do the > same thing with > microsoft excel and delete column 1 and resave the file. I'm > beginning to > like this idea. Lets prosecute Microsoft for provided millions of > circumvention devices. Even at a measly $1000 per violation > this is B I L L > I O N S > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code > > > > > 02/23/01 11:16 AM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > ... > > > > > > Reductio ad absurdum...... > > > > Of course Kaplan would probably say that it can be converted > > to functional > > for trivially so there is no distinction. On the really > stupid side of > > this....is "#" now a TPM? > > > > Yes. Precisely equivilant to the safety on a gun -- it's presence > prevents the code from being compiled & executed. And as a TPM it > can not be legally bypassed if the code has been copyrighted. > > :-D > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 19:03:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA02655 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:03:26 -0500 Received: from qwe3.math.cmu.edu (crosby@QWE3.MATH.CMU.EDU [128.2.32.155]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA02510 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:49:21 -0500 Received: from localhost (crosby@localhost) by qwe3.math.cmu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15252; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:54:11 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: qwe3.math.cmu.edu: crosby owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:54:10 -0500 (EST) From: Scott A Crosby X-Sender: crosby@qwe3.math.cmu.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: dst@cs.cmu.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] A criticque of the USA brief. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hello, I've read some of the brief, and I believe I've found a few flaws. *** Expressiveness of code *** Here is the submission to NIST for the encryption cypher AES. Note that it is highly expressive describing an encryption algorithm. It includes mathemtical code to describe primitive operations (pages 3-7) Pseudocode to describe the round structure (page 10). C-style code to describe the key expansion (page 14-15). More pseudo-C code for an optimized version (page 16). More pseudo-C code (pages 19-21). [1] http://www.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/~rijmen/rijndael/rijndaeldocV2.zip I note that if they had used Rijndael as the encryption algorithm, creating such a document similar to the above is free speech, but likely in violation of the DMCA as it distributes information to bypass a circumvention device. ** Presumably, the statement just after footonte 17: `` A party may not invoke the overbreadth doctrine unless there is "a realistic danger" that a statute "will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court." Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 801 (emphasis added). Defendants cannot satisfy this condition. '' Set's a precedent that make such a technical report as the rijndael [1] or [2] illegal to write or distribute. (Which is overbroad in my book.) [2] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/english-and-c.html *** Inconsistencies *** ``And even though the Supreme Court "has allowed a party to assert the rights of another without regard to the ability of the other to assert his own claims," it has never extended the overbreadth doctrine to include attacks upon a statutory provision that is not even alleged to have been violated.'' [[ III, paragraph 5]] ``In any event, the district court did consider evidence that pirated copies of plaintiffs' encrypted DVD films were available from Internet sources, and that copies of such films had been downloaded and exchanged online..... Universal City Studios, 111 F. Supp. 2d at 314-15, 342. Based on the record, the district court also found that DeCSS was the "superior product" as compared to other decryption programs, and that the "apparent availability of pirated motion pictures shot up . . . dramatically upon introduction of DeCSS."'' [II,A, paragraph 7] Strange, that something never alleged to have been violated is being used as an explanation for supposed increased availability of downloadable films. (Personally, I think that the addional claimed availability could be explained a result of bigger hard drives capable of holding such films, more widespread availability of high-bandwidth connections, and easy availibility of cheap CD-writing drives.) **** False statements **** ``The district court found that "all or substantially all motion pictures available on DVD are also available on video tape," and are thus are "readily available" for fair use purposes.'' [[ Just above footnote 16]] Not all material on a DVD is available on the corresponding VCR tape. For example, with ``The Matrix'', they use a special camera effect for slowing down time. They also have a half-hour suppliment discussing the design and use of this effect. As a researcher or educator, I can see wanting to make a composite explanation of this effect by showing snippets of ``The Matrix.'' and snippets of the supplimentary video. Such a fair use is undoable without DeCSS. May I suggest using this as an example, or that someone construct the aforementioned tape to use as an example. ``The tape that cannot be constructed without breaking the law.'' ** One can construct many such examples easily if one uses the supplementary material frequently found on a DVD. For example, a discussion on how foriegn voice dubbing is subtlely timed so that it lines up with the lips moving in the foriegn language. For example, someone who wishes to illustrate the difference between formal and colloquial written foriegn languages by extracting snippet's of captioned video from a multi-language DVD. Or an analysis of marketing promotions on DVD's as judged by similar trailers. Or a discussion on translation errors frequently made when translating between two or more languages. **** Unsubstantiated statements **** Just above {I.B.3} ``In sum, given the vast scientific, cultural, and economic capital threatened by the illicit use of circumvention technology, both 1201(a)(2) and its specific application to defendants' conduct undeniably serve a substantial governmental concern'' Information technology includes more than access control for copyrighted works. Footnote #8 is irrelevant. Similarily, electronic commerce includes more than the purchase of copyrighted works online. Also irrelevant. There is already a marketplace for copyrighted works. The most that is threatened is a seperate market for copyrighted works. I note the widespread availability of books, VHS tapes, and CDDA disks. Nor is the DMCA necessary for the online market. Market's follow customers, regardless of other considerations. I note that despite the lack of access-control and with the ease of reading CDDA disks, for the last 3 years, the music industry still manufacctures them and has not released an alternative. Because that is what customers desire. It is hard to understand what is even meant by the above statement. Thus, any claim that an online market requires either the restriction of circumvention technology, or requires access-control techniques must be clearly substantuated. **** Scott [[ Please CC me on any responses. ]] -- No DVD movie will ever enter the public domain, nor will any CD. The last CD and the last DVD will have moldered away decades before they leave copyright. This is not encouraging the creation of knowledge in the public domain. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 20:14:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA03445 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:14:03 -0500 Received: from emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com ([24.3.46.177]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA03442 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:14:02 -0500 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23629; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:19:03 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:19:03 -0500 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200102240119.UAA23629@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] IBM abandoning CPRM for hard drives Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Chase Tingley wrote: > >A spot of good news for a Friday morning... The Register is reporting that >IBM has withdrawn their proposal to put CPRM in ATA hard drives. > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/17107.html Only to be replaced by a very similar proposal. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17132.html -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 20:34:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA03771 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:34:26 -0500 Received: from mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA03768 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:34:25 -0500 Received: from swbell.net ([208.190.215.237]) by mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0G9800H0QN37XJ@mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:35:31 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:32:20 -0600 From: Jolley Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <3A970F24.252A7255@swbell.net> Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-SBI-NC472 (Win98; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en References: <20010222105137.A26867@eldritchpress.org> <200102222104.QAA05840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu What is the point of this. DVDs are not works readily available over the internet and never intended for that purpose. DeCSS, on the other hand, is distributed best over the internet. I would like to twist this around and point out that the MPAA, who doesn't want their DVDs readily available on the internet, is using the DMCA to prevent a copyright owner from distributing "the fruit of their genious." The DMCA in this case is doing exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do. The DMCA easily satisfies the second prong of the constitutional analysis. "Due to the ease with which digital works can be copied and distributed worldwide virtually instantaneously," Congress was acutely aware that "copyright owners [would] hesitate to make their works readily available on the Internet without reasonable assurance that they will be protected against massive piracy." Senate Report at 8. Congress therefore enacted the DMCA to "provide[ ] this protection and [to] create[ ] the legal platform for launching the global digital on-line marketplace for copyrighted works." Id. Indeed, Congress was firmly convinced that the importance of the treaties implemented by the DMCA "to the protection of American copyrighted works abroad cannot be overestimated." Id. at 10. In particular, those who drafted the DMCA believed that it would "facilitate making available quickly and conveniently via the Internet the movies, music, software, and literary works that are the fruit of American genius," and would also "encourage the continued growth of the existing off-line global marketplace for copyrighted works in digital for mat by setting strong international copyright standards." Senate Report at 8. They consequently believed that the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions would "facilitate the robust development and world-wide expansion of electronic commerce, communications, research, development, and education." Id. at 1.8 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 21:13:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04389 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:13:10 -0500 Received: from inconnu.isu.edu (root@inconnu.isu.edu [134.50.8.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA04386 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:13:06 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07570 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:18:06 -0700 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:18:06 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Copies-to: galt@inconnu.isu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Recall petitions...There are few states that don't recognize recalls anymore. On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Kurt Hockenbury wrote: >On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > >> >> The class action suit is filed on the second tuesday of November.... >> > >Oh, I do vote, and encourage my friends to do so as well. > >My point though, is they are not doing the job they swore to do -- uphold the >constitution of the US. > >If someone doesn't do the job they were hired for, there should be penalties >beyond just a once every 2 (or 6) year performance review. > -- If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming John Galt (galt@inconnu.isu.edu) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 22:50:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA05221 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:50:31 -0500 Received: from imo-r14.mx.aol.com (imo-r14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA05218 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:50:30 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.8c.2d0c936 (4321) for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:53:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8c.2d0c936.27c88a57@cs.com> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:53:59 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8c.2d0c936.27c88a57_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --part1_8c.2d0c936.27c88a57_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A judge may not understand the intricacies of how an automatic rifle works. But in a posession case it doesn't matter exactly how it works, what matters is how it functions. And I'm sure it didn't matter to the legislators who illegalized them. In a message dated 2/23/01 1:35:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, pneves@aicompro.com writes: > Just because a judge can't understand it doesn't > make a difference either what if a judge can't understand french does that > mean all the french people in the US don't have rights? --part1_8c.2d0c936.27c88a57_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A judge may not understand the intricacies of how an automatic rifle works.  
But in a posession case it doesn't matter exactly how it works, what matters
is how it functions.  And I'm sure it didn't matter to the legislators who
illegalized them.  

In a message dated 2/23/01 1:35:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
pneves@aicompro.com writes:


Just because a judge can't understand it doesn't
make a difference either what if a judge can't understand french does that
mean all the french people in the US don't have rights?
--part1_8c.2d0c936.27c88a57_boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 22:52:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA05254 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:52:08 -0500 Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA05251 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:52:07 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.8d.2d0cc36 (4321) for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:56:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8d.2d0cc36.27c88aed@cs.com> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:56:29 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8d.2d0cc36.27c88aed_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --part1_8d.2d0cc36.27c88aed_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/23/01 2:00:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, pneves@aicompro.com writes: Except this document was created for the express purpose of exchanging speech. If you think DeCSS was created for that purpose, you're lying to yourself. Again, it goes to what it's used for, not what it "is". > And as this email is proof a > document that is encoded electronically. --part1_8d.2d0cc36.27c88aed_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/23/01 2:00:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
pneves@aicompro.com writes:
Except this document was created for the express purpose of exchanging
speech.  If you think DeCSS was created for that purpose, you're lying to
yourself.  Again, it goes to what it's used for, not what it "is".  

And as this email is proof a
document that is encoded electronically.
--part1_8d.2d0cc36.27c88aed_boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 23:11:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA05578 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:11:43 -0500 Received: from imo-r17.mx.aol.com (imo-r17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA05575 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:11:43 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.29.10ead318 (4321) for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:14:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <29.10ead318.27c88f1b@cs.com> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:14:19 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_29.10ead318.27c88f1b_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --part1_29.10ead318.27c88f1b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/23/01 11:43:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: Doesn't that seem contradictary to you? DeCSS is a tool that allows people to engage in Fair Use practices, but it's not actually a tool? It begins to sound more like excuse fishing than legal reasoning. Call me a purist, but when your arguments for supporting something start to contradict each other, you tend to lose credibility. > It may to some extend depend exactly on that. And, of course, all the > other defenses that you refer to are available if the publication > of code is protected as speech or, less confusingly, by the freedom > of the press that protects all publication of information. > --part1_29.10ead318.27c88f1b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/23/01 11:43:09 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes:

Doesn't that seem contradictary to you?  DeCSS is a tool that allows people
to engage in Fair Use practices, but it's not actually a tool?  It begins to
sound more like excuse fishing than legal reasoning.  Call me a purist, but
when your arguments for supporting something start to contradict each other,
you tend to lose credibility.  

It may to some extend depend exactly on that.  And, of course, all the
other defenses that you refer to are available if the publication
of code is protected as speech or, less confusingly, by the freedom
of the press that protects all publication of information.


--part1_29.10ead318.27c88f1b_boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 23:25:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA05753 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:25:32 -0500 Received: from imo-r20.mx.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA05750 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:25:31 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.b1.78d7b1c (4321) for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:28:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:28:22 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_b1.78d7b1c.27c89266_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --part1_b1.78d7b1c.27c89266_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Wrong. If we adopt a legal view of code as a "device", (which is certainly the way the more technically inept legislators and judges look at it) then we can argue the non-speech defenses AND concede that code is not speech. But arguing code is "a Fair Use device" and "not a device at all" makes us look like we're talking out of both sides of our mouths. Again, call me a purist, but if someone argued that to me while I were sitting in judgment (hypothetically) they'd lose alot of credibility. > Exactly. Without that protection there is NO defense possible. It is a > prerequisite. > --part1_b1.78d7b1c.27c89266_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Wrong.  If we adopt a legal view of code as a "device", (which is certainly
the way the more technically inept legislators and judges look at it) then we
can argue the non-speech defenses AND concede that code is not speech.  But
arguing code is "a Fair Use device" and "not a device at all" makes us look
like we're talking out of both sides of our mouths.  Again, call me a purist,
but if someone argued that to me while I were sitting in judgment
(hypothetically) they'd lose alot of credibility.  

Exactly. Without that protection there is NO defense possible. It is a
prerequisite.
--part1_b1.78d7b1c.27c89266_boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Feb 23 23:40:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA05961 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:40:51 -0500 Received: from imo-r20.mx.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA05957 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:40:45 -0500 From: Consilgere@cs.com Received: from Consilgere@cs.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.45.2bb8be3 (4321) for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:43:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <45.2bb8be3.27c895fa@cs.com> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:43:38 EST Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Nonfunctional code To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_45.2bb8be3.27c895fa_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --part1_45.2bb8be3.27c895fa_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/22/01 11:25:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, cpt@gryphon.auspice.net writes: If Consilgere has his way, we'll stop splitting these hairs (which are for the most part purely academic) and come up with a reasonable legal model on which we can interpret all software. Not based on what some two-bit CS/philosopher thinks the fundamental nature of code is, but based on how code affects the real world. > . If > Consilgere has his way that too will fall within the fence that the First > Amendment erects around government. --part1_45.2bb8be3.27c895fa_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/22/01 11:25:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
cpt@gryphon.auspice.net writes:

If Consilgere has his way, we'll stop splitting these hairs (which are for
the most part purely academic) and come up with a reasonable legal model on
which we can interpret all software.  Not based on what some two-bit
CS/philosopher thinks the fundamental nature of code is, but based on how
code affects the real world.

. If
Consilgere has his way that too will fall within the fence that the First
Amendment erects around government.


--part1_45.2bb8be3.27c895fa_boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 24 00:08:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA06330 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:08:04 -0500 Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA06325 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:07:59 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa042.pool007.at001.earthlink.net [216.249.78.42]) by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA07466 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:12:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010223210351.00b9c100@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: jstyre@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:13:05 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: [dvd-discuss] The studios' brief on appeal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [I don't recall anyone posting a link to it before; apologies if I am in error.] http://www.mpaa.org/Press/BRIEF2.htm Either they wrote a long brief with no footnotes, or the notes got omitted. Even if the latter, though, it is clear what they argue. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 This man, who seems to have led a life of unrelieved insignificance, must have been astonished to find himself suddenly putting the Government of the United States in such fear that it was afraid to tell him why it was afraid of him. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) (Jackson, J., dissenting) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 24 05:40:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA08595 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 05:40:30 -0500 Received: from mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.85]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA08592 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 05:40:28 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010224104523.WWQD585.mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 02:45:23 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:59:48 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022403594800.14760@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id FAA08593 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Not speech as in the spoken word but speech as in a written text. Which it is, and if you can prove this to the judge then software would be protected by the first amendment. Look we all know that a picture doesn't actually say something its just a picture. But in the eyes of the court it is speech because a picture can convey a message. What we're saying is that software can also convey a message. In this case the message is a set of instructions to a machine on how to decode a DVD. Look if you go for the Fair use defence then you have to prove to the court that their is a fair use in this software. You also have to ask them to define a statute as to what is fair use. They may not vote in your favour and judging by the decision against napster the courts have not been very willing to set those definitions. With the first amendment argument the law would be thrown out altogether. On Saturday 24 February 2001 04:28, you wrote: > > Wrong. If we adopt a legal view of code as a "device", (which is certainly > the way the more technically inept legislators and judges look at it) then > we can argue the non-speech defenses AND concede that code is not speech. > But arguing code is "a Fair Use device" and "not a device at all" makes us > look like we're talking out of both sides of our mouths. Again, call me a > purist, but if someone argued that to me while I were sitting in judgment > (hypothetically) they'd lose alot of credibility. > > > Exactly. Without that protection there is NO defense possible. It is a > > prerequisite. ---------------------------------------- Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"; name="Attachment: 1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: ---------------------------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 24 09:49:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA11443 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 09:49:11 -0500 Received: from hall.mail.mindspring.net (hall.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.60]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA11440 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 09:49:09 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2inij4e.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.76.142]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA07905 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 09:54:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102241454.JAA07905@hall.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 09:42:36 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Court of Appeals Brief In-Reply-To: <3A96BBA6.A0C13363@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id JAA11441 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu We offer the MPAA Court of Appeals brief with 47 footnotes: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bpa.htm (138KB) A footnote: 28 Although several of Corley's amici from the field of cryptography, including cryptographer Bruce Schneier, criticize the scope of the encryption research exemption of the DMCA, § 1201(g), ironically, even Mr. Schneier has voiced strong personal opposition to the public dissemination of "exploits" (i.e., computer programs "that make[] use of a vulnerability to attack a system" (A1056)), like DeCSS, stating that "I believe that it is irresponsible, and possibly criminal, to distribute exploits. Reverse-engineering security systems, discovering vulnerabilities, and writing research papers about them benefits research; it makes us smarter at designing secure systems. Distributing exploits just make [sic] us more vulnerable. . . Handing computer weaponry to clueless teenagers is part of the problem." See Bruce Schneier, Publicizing Vulnerabilities, Crypto-Gram, Feb. 15, 2000 (available at http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0002.html). From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 24 10:18:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA11713 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:18:29 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA11710 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:18:28 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22694; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:22:38 -0500 Message-Id: <200102241522.KAA22694@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The studios' brief on appeal In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:13:05 PST." <4.3.2.7.2.20010223210351.00b9c100@mail.earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:22:07 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "James S. Tyre" writes: : [I don't recall anyone posting a link to it before; apologies if I am in : error.] : : http://www.mpaa.org/Press/BRIEF2.htm : : Either they wrote a long brief with no footnotes, or the notes got : omitted. Even if the latter, though, it is clear what they argue. : I just skimmed it. I didn't get any feeling that footnotes were missing. As I recall the practice in New York City was, and may still be, to keep footnotes in briefs to a minimum. Or rather, I suppose, that that was one of many diverse practices and the one that my old office followed. As to the brief, they rather hurt my feelings, for there is no mention of Junger v. Daley. I suppose with good reason from their point of view. Their major argument seems to turn on the claim that the defendant's actions involve conduct as well as speech and that O'Brien is thus applicable. But speech is, of course, conduct---as is publishing, which is protected by the freedom of the press. The fatal weakness in their argument, as I see it, is that the defendant's conduct consists only in publishing the text. There is no unprotected conduct that would permit the application of O'Brien, unless one argues that the publication of the code was also an incitement to perform illegal acts, or something like that, which strikes me as somewhat far-fetched. I also noted that they keep describing DeCSS as a ``device,'' which suggests that they are sensitive to the weakness of their claim when applied to the publishing of software, which is not when published a device, but rather a ``text'' or ``information.'' (A computer on which software is run is, of course, a device, but a computer has a lot of other uses besides circumventing the DMCA so that hardly helps the MPAA.) Nowhere do they argue that the use of DeCSS by the owner of a DVD would be a violation of 1201(a)(1), which would be hard for them to claim since the owner of a DVD, who acquired it mediately or immediately from the copyright owner, clearly does have the copyright owner's permission to access it. But if it is not a violation of 1201(a)(1) to use DeCSS, it can't be a violation of 1201(a)(2) to distribute DeCSS (or to write it). -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 24 10:50:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA11997 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:50:21 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA11994 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:50:20 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22838 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:54:30 -0500 Message-Id: <200102241554.KAA22838@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: DVD Discussion List Subject: [dvd-discuss] So I was wrong, there were footnotes Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:54:00 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I see from the version at Cryptome that the MPAA's brief did contain footnotes and that Junger v. Daley was mentioned by them. I still stand behind my original impressions, however, having a yet no others. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 24 14:27:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA13657 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:27:09 -0500 Received: from chmls20.mediaone.net (chmls20.mediaone.net [24.147.1.156]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA13654 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:27:03 -0500 Received: from DeuceCoupe (h0050bab000a1.ne.mediaone.net [66.31.128.60]) by chmls20.mediaone.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f1OJW6626443 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:32:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005801c09e98$a5d82f40$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net> From: "Ron Gustavson" To: References: <200102241522.KAA22694@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The studios' brief on appeal Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:33:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > "James S. Tyre" writes: > > : [I don't recall anyone posting a link to it before; apologies if I am in > : error.] > : > : http://www.mpaa.org/Press/BRIEF2.htm > : > : Either they wrote a long brief with no footnotes, or the notes got > : omitted. Even if the latter, though, it is clear what they argue. > : re fair use: "Corley and his amici erroneously assert that the permanent injunction, and the DMCA's trafficking proscriptions in general, sound the death knell for fair use of copyrighted works delivered on DVDs. Contrary to those claims, however, the public now has a far greater body of commercially-released films from which to make fair use, and a greater scope for fair use of each of those films, than was ever available prior to the commercial launch of VCRs in the 1970s. In the pre-VCR era and since, the First Amendment has not been violated by the fact that the fair uses that could have been made of films always have been necessarily impacted by the Studios' decisions about how frequently, and in what cities and theaters, to release their films. " So it is the 1970s that are to be the high point of free speech, now that the VCR era is ebbing. They still can't accept the fact that they are publishers(!) "...Studios distributed their works for decades in this manner before the advent of DVDs, or even of videocassettes, and fair uses for film criticism, comment, teaching, scholarship, and research were as common as crabgrass." Common as crabgrass on a putting green. In the pre-television era, fair use of movies was limited to the memory capacity of the audience. This capacity was of course much greater in those days, before the glow of the TV illuminated the average hearth. In the television era, would-be fair users could now tape the soundtrack and take a snapshot of the screen (1/15 sec @ f5.6 on Tri-X.) In the VCR era--now known as L' Age D' Or-- entire films could be archived. This provided a means for extensive study of detail--plot, continuity, lighting, historical accuracy, and pure artistic relevance. Remember to tell your grandchildren what a time that was. "Nothing in the DMCA or the First Amendment gives courts the duty or power, in the abstract, to create a new fair use "right" to optimal copies of a copyright owner's works, when Congress already has weighed the competing interests and come to a different balance. Yet, it is only in this diminished ease of access to such optimal copies - anecdotally suggested here and there in the record, with no reference to specific users or specific works - that Corley grounds his sweeping assertion that fair use is being "eliminated." Even if his constitutional arguments were not otherwise defective, Corley's claims about fair use should be rejected because of their sheer factual inaccuracy and his failure of proof." I agree that optimal copies are not a right--but when CSS comes packaged with Macrovision and region codes, it's an assault on the accepted fair uses of the day--which are certainly greater than they were in some pre-electronic age. Or should we view Macrovisioned stills as an acceptable but sub-optimal version and view the scrambled image as one way to study? Perhaps we just need to learn to appreciate these rather abstract versions. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 24 14:39:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA13889 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:39:52 -0500 Received: from web510.mail.yahoo.com (web510.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA13884 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:39:51 -0500 Message-ID: <20010224194453.2602.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.81.113.151] by web510.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:44:53 PST Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:44:53 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The studios' brief on appeal To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu In-Reply-To: <200102241522.KAA22694@samsara.law.cwru.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- "Peter D. Junger" wrote: > Their major argument seems to turn on the claim that the defendant's > actions involve conduct as well as speech and that O'Brien is thus > applicable. But speech is, of course, conduct---as is publishing, > which is protected by the freedom of the press. The fatal weakness in > their argument, as I see it, is that the defendant's conduct consists > only in publishing the text. There is no unprotected conduct that > would permit the application of O'Brien, unless one argues that the > publication of the code was also an incitement to perform illegal acts, > or something like that, which strikes me as somewhat far-fetched. It sort of begs for an application of some kind of "merger principle". I think they're on very thin ice with this argument -- they admit that software is speech, but claim that distributing speech is non-speech conduct. This is little more than a repackaging of the rejected argument used by NYC in Bery v. New York City, where NYC banned unlicenced street vendors and were sued by street artists. The city claimed they were targeting the conduct of "peddling" and not the art itself. The court ruled that "The sale of protected materials is also protected." Of course, selling is just a special kind of distribution. It would only have weakened NYC's case had they banned the more general "distribution". Distribution of speech is called "speaking". The 2nd circuit also stated that "street marketing is in fact a part of the message of appellants' art". Here's a link to more info about the Bery v NYC case: http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg07054.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 24 14:52:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA14117 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:52:55 -0500 Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA14114 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:52:54 -0500 Received: from DeuceCoupe (h0050bab000a1.ne.mediaone.net [66.31.128.60]) by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f1OJvuS05906 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:57:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002301c09e9c$425f4300$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net> From: "Ron Gustavson" To: References: <200102241522.KAA22694@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The studios' brief on appeal Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:59:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [Second try for legibility...] > "James S. Tyre" writes: > > : [I don't recall anyone posting a link to it before; >apologies if I am in > : error.] > : > : http://www.mpaa.org/Press/BRIEF2.htm re fair use: "Corley and his amici erroneously assert that the permanent injunction, and the DMCA's trafficking proscriptions in general, sound the death knell for fair use of copyrighted works delivered on DVDs. Contrary to those claims, however, the public now has a far greater body of commercially-released films from which to make fair use, and a greater scope for fair use of each of those films, than was ever available prior to the commercial launch of VCRs in the 1970s. In the pre-VCR era and since, the First Amendment has not been violated by the fact that the fair uses that could have been made of films always have been necessarily impacted by the Studios' decisions about how frequently, and in what cities and theaters, to release their films. " So it is the 1970s that are to be the high point of free speech, now that the VCR era is ebbing. They still can't accept the fact that they are publishers(!) "...Studios distributed their works for decades in this manner before the advent of DVDs, or even of videocassettes, and fair uses for film criticism, comment, teaching, scholarship, and research were as common as crabgrass." Common as crabgrass on a putting green. In the pre-television era, fair use of movies was limited to the memory capacity of the audience. This capacity was of course much greater in those days, before the glow of the TV illuminated the average hearth. In the television era, would-be fair users could now tape the soundtrack and take a snapshot of the screen (1/15 sec @ f5.6 on Tri-X.) In the VCR era--now known as L' Age D' Or-- entire films could be archived. This provided a means for extensive study of detail--plot, continuity, lighting, historical accuracy, and pure artistic relevance. Remember to tell your grandchildren what a time it was. "Nothing in the DMCA or the First Amendment gives courts the duty or power, in the abstract, to create a new fair use "right" to optimal copies of a copyright owner's works, when Congress already has weighed the competing interests and come to a different balance. Yet, it is only in this diminished ease of access to such optimal copies - anecdotally suggested here and there in the record, with no reference to specific users or specific works - that Corley grounds his sweeping assertion that fair use is being "eliminated." Even if his constitutional arguments were not otherwise defective, Corley's claims about fair use should be rejected because of their sheer factual inaccuracy and his failure of proof." I agree that optimal copies are not a right--but when CSS comes packaged with Macrovision and region codes, it's an assault on the accepted fair uses of the day--which are certainly greater than they were in some pre-electronic age. Or should we view Macrovisioned stills as an acceptable but sub-optimal version and view the scrambled image as one way to study? Perhaps we just need to learn to appreciate these rather abstract versions. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 24 16:34:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA14901 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:34:46 -0500 Received: from mercury.clearway.com ([199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA14898 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:34:44 -0500 Received: by MERCURY with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:39:13 -0500 Message-ID: From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The studios' brief on appeal Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:39:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It looks to me that the studios are going to leave the headier constitutional issues to the DoJ. A few random comments... For a reply, I would like to see a coherent argument of CSS as a system. The studios love to talk about why they should protect DVD content, but avoid the thorny tying issues that is the core of their "system." In other words, a description of CSS as a system that binds player manufacturers to arbitrary restrictions and inhibits consumer choice. That could be followed by a description of what happens with the DeCSS code freely available -- that with such code available, systems integrators will be able to make DVD players using off the shelf hardware and video cards exactly the way they can build computers. -- It is very interesting how at some points it is claimed that this case is about copy protection and piracy, but at other times it is about circumvention. The court should be clear that either this case is about copyright "after sale" or it is about commerce. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 24 22:12:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA18390 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:12:18 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA18387 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:12:06 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA30278 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:19:21 -0500 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:19:16 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] dutch coyote ugly in 2view Message-ID: <20010224221915.A30139@eldritchpress.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu http://www.videostoremag.com/news/html/Industry_article.cfm?sec_id=2&article_id=811 (unwrap as needed) Videostore magazine reports Disney will be test marketing a Dutch VHS edition of "Coyote Ugly" that plays only twice; then it can be recorded over. The video rental stores are not happy, comparing it to Circuit City DIVX. Anybody know anything more about this "2View" technology? If it becomes widespread, it would seem to do away with the argument that fair use of DVDs is not needed because users could still freely access VHS tapes. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Feb 24 23:39:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA19236 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 23:39:06 -0500 Received: from exegrnnts005.seattleu.edu (exegrnnts001.seattleu.edu [206.81.198.91]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA19233 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 23:39:05 -0500 Received: from compaq1687x (172.17.64.75 [172.17.64.75]) by exegrnnts005.seattleu.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FRPYV4PJ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:43:37 -0800 From: "David Petteys" To: "DVD Discussion List" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Timeline Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:43:40 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C09EA2.7B6B6420" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C09EA2.7B6B6420 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anyone willing to hazard a guess as to when the decision is likely to be rendered in this case. It seems to me that 6 months after arguments might be within the realm of possibility. Also, there is a "Recent Cases" article in the Feb. 2001 Harvard Law Review on the case that is worth a quick read, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 1390. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C09EA2.7B6B6420 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Anyone = willing to=20 hazard a guess as to when the decision is likely to be rendered in this=20 case.  It seems to me that 6 months after arguments might be within = the=20 realm of possibility. 
 
Also, = there is a=20 "Recent Cases" article in the Feb. 2001 Harvard Law Review on the = case that=20 is worth a quick read, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 1390. =20
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C09EA2.7B6B6420-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 25 00:07:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA19915 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:07:42 -0500 Received: from exegrnnts005.seattleu.edu (exegrnnts001.seattleu.edu [206.81.198.91]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA19912 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:07:35 -0500 Received: from compaq1687x (172.17.64.75 [172.17.64.75]) by exegrnnts005.seattleu.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FRPYV4TZ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:12:08 -0800 From: "David Petteys" To: "DVD Discussion List" Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD Burners Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:12:17 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C09EA6.787D2100" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C09EA6.787D2100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is the use of a device similar to a CD burner feasible to make copies of DVDs? This seems to be overlooked by the defense both at trial and on appeal, (although raised by the ACLU in their amicus brief) but it seems significant as to the issue of irreparable harm. Presumably CSS would be incapable of distinguishing between a authorized and unauthorized "burned" copy. This would certainly be a much more significant threat than the infeasible process of trying to make copies with DeCSS and Divx. To the extent such a threat exists, it would significantly undermine the claim that the existence of DeCSS presents the risk of irreparable harm. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C09EA6.787D2100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Is the = use of a=20 device similar to a CD burner feasible to make copies of DVDs?  = This seems=20 to be overlooked by the defense both at trial and on appeal, (although = raised by=20 the ACLU in their amicus brief) but it seems significant as to the issue = of=20 irreparable harm.  Presumably CSS would be incapable of = distinguishing=20 between a authorized and unauthorized "burned" copy.  This would = certainly=20 be a much more significant threat than the infeasible process of trying = to make=20 copies with DeCSS and Divx.  To the extent such a threat exists, it = would=20 significantly undermine the claim that the existence of DeCSS presents = the risk=20 of irreparable harm.   
------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C09EA6.787D2100-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 25 00:24:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA20111 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:24:21 -0500 Received: from mail.iinet.net.au (symphony-01.iinet.net.au [203.59.24.16]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA18986 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 23:17:06 -0500 Received: (qmail 5106 invoked by uid 666); 25 Feb 2001 04:22:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO GIMILI) (203.59.189.215) by mail.iinet.net.au with SMTP; 25 Feb 2001 04:22:01 -0000 Message-ID: <003601c09ee2$9fc59ee0$0101020a@GIMILI> From: "Don & Dianne Hore" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] dutch coyote ugly in 2view Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:22:53 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'm rather skeptical about this. It's probably vapourware. This could only be done by making the cassette of really poor quality so it will fail aftyer 2 views. It would not be rerecordable after this. I can see a lot of these being returned as faulty if it is true. (Here in Australia shops MUST give refunds on faulty goods, with a very limited number of exceptions) -----Original Message----- From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Sunday, 25 February 2001 11:20 Subject: [dvd-discuss] dutch coyote ugly in 2view >http://www.videostoremag.com/news/html/Industry_article.cfm?sec_id=2&articl e_id=811 > >(unwrap as needed) > >Videostore magazine reports Disney will be test marketing >a Dutch VHS edition of "Coyote Ugly" that plays only twice; >then it can be recorded over. The video rental stores >are not happy, comparing it to Circuit City DIVX. > >Anybody know anything more about this "2View" technology? >If it becomes widespread, it would seem to do away with >the argument that fair use of DVDs is not needed because >users could still freely access VHS tapes. > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 25 00:55:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA20491 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:55:35 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA20488 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:55:25 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA13893 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 01:00:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 01:00:29 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: DVD Discussion List Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Burners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, David Petteys wrote: > Is the use of a device similar to a CD burner feasible to make copies of > DVDs? This seems to be overlooked by the defense both at trial and on > appeal, (although raised by the ACLU in their amicus brief) but it seems > significant as to the issue of irreparable harm. Presumably CSS would be > incapable of distinguishing between a authorized and unauthorized "burned" > copy. This would certainly be a much more significant threat than the > infeasible process of trying to make copies with DeCSS and Divx. To the > extent such a threat exists, it would significantly undermine the claim that > the existence of DeCSS presents the risk of irreparable harm. Actually, the CSS sytem is theoretically capable of determining whether a DVD is recorded by a consumer or an original prepared at a pressing plant. It's a rather simple sytem and is based on the fact that cerain sectors in consumer media are preburnt-- those sectors would normally contain key blocks to decode CSS. Recoradble DVD media is rather expensive right now, though. Economic defenses (and offenses) are always predicated on unrealistic assumptions anyway-- that bandwidth is vast and free or conjested and rather expensive, that storage space is either uneconomical or not, or that growth in one sector will display exponential growth, (with n >> 1). CD-R's used to be hugely expensive. Now, you can record a 17.99 CD onto 50 cents worth of media. Does that mean that CD burners are a threat to the American way of life-- not neccesarily. Remeber, too, that most media companies are working to ensure that the cost to the consumer, and the cost to themselves are driven in opposite directions. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 25 03:15:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA21622 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 03:15:55 -0500 Received: from waltz.rahul.net (postfix@waltz.rahul.net [192.160.13.9]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA21619 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 03:15:53 -0500 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4001) id C9C8899C80; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:20:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4A1938C0 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:20:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:20:55 -0800 (PST) From: Ken Arromdee To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] dutch coyote ugly in 2view In-Reply-To: <003601c09ee2$9fc59ee0$0101020a@GIMILI> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Don & Dianne Hore wrote: > I'm rather skeptical about this. It's probably vapourware. > This could only be done by making the cassette of really poor quality so it > will fail aftyer 2 views. > It would not be rerecordable after this. They could always put two copies of the video on the tape and stick a magnet on the inside of the tape to erase the tape as it plays. If they want it to be rerecordable later, use a latch that is triggered by the tape ending and that permanently locks the magnet in a far enough back position that it doesn't erase the tape a second time. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 25 05:40:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA22913 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 05:40:19 -0500 Received: from myrealbox.com (mail.myrealbox.com [192.108.102.201]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA22910 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 05:40:16 -0500 Received: from pigpen [63.230.7.66] by myrealbox.com with Novonyx SMTP Server $Revision: 2.76 $; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 03:42:04 -0700 (MDT) Message-ID: <000f01c09f18$998f22e0$0201a8c0@pigpen> From: "Phill" To: References: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] dutch coyote ugly in 2view Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 03:49:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'd be willing to bet that there is a custom IC that detects the end of the tape (perhaps optically). After two times through the chip energizes a coil above the tape (thus erasing it). After the coil is energized once the chip disarms itself. If they can put chips in greeting cards they could put one in a VHS tape package. I really hope they roll it out big time in the US. I really do. Then _everybody_ will know what we are fighting. Phill ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Arromdee > On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Don & Dianne Hore wrote: > > I'm rather skeptical about this. It's probably vapourware. > > This could only be done by making the cassette of really poor quality so it > > will fail aftyer 2 views. > > It would not be rerecordable after this. > > They could always put two copies of the video on the tape and stick a magnet on > the inside of the tape to erase the tape as it plays. > > If they want it to be rerecordable later, use a latch that is triggered by the > tape ending and that permanently locks the magnet in a far enough back > position that it doesn't erase the tape a second time. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 25 06:17:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA23197 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 06:17:26 -0500 Received: from myrealbox.com (mail.myrealbox.com [192.108.102.201]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA23194 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 06:17:24 -0500 Received: from pigpen [63.230.7.66] by myrealbox.com with Novonyx SMTP Server $Revision: 2.76 $; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:18:49 -0700 (MDT) Message-ID: <000b01c09f1d$c9fad1e0$0201a8c0@pigpen> From: "Phill" To: References: <200102241454.JAA07905@hall.mail.mindspring.net> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Court of Appeals Brief Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:26:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu So, it's convenient that they do not mention here that it was a "teenager" that reverse-engineered CSS. ----- Original Message ----- From: John Young mailto:jya@pipeline.com> > We offer the MPAA Court of Appeals brief with 47 footnotes: > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bpa.htm (138KB) > > A footnote: > > 28 Although several of Corley's amici from the field of > cryptography, including cryptographer Bruce Schneier, > criticize the scope of the encryption research exemption > of the DMCA, § 1201(g), ironically, even Mr. Schneier > has voiced strong personal opposition to the public > dissemination of "exploits" (i.e., computer programs > "that make[] use of a vulnerability to attack a system" > (A1056)), like DeCSS, stating that "I believe that it is > irresponsible, and possibly criminal, to distribute > exploits. Reverse-engineering security systems, > discovering vulnerabilities, and writing research > papers about them benefits research; it makes us > smarter at designing secure systems. Distributing > exploits just make [sic] us more vulnerable. . . > Handing computer weaponry to clueless teenagers > is part of the problem." See Bruce Schneier, > Publicizing Vulnerabilities, Crypto-Gram, Feb. 15, > 2000 (available at > http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0002.html). From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 25 09:21:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA24406 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 09:21:01 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA24401 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 09:20:59 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA31056 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 09:26:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 09:26:04 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] An OpED piece essentially attcking fair use Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49105-2001Feb23.html I've already sent in a letter pointing out that the American judicial understanding of copyright differs markedly from that of the authors, and concepts such as fair use long predate Napster. (The defense of Napster on fair use grounds is iffy, but Bromwich seems prepared to assert that "fair use" istelf violates some right of the author.) Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 25 13:07:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA26897 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:07:27 -0500 Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA26894 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:07:26 -0500 Received: from DeuceCoupe (h0050bab000a1.ne.mediaone.net [66.31.128.60]) by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f1PICVS03869 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:12:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002801c09f56$b418c560$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net> From: "Ron Gustavson" To: References: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] An OpED piece essentially attcking fair use Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:13:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49105-2001Feb23.ht ml > > I've already sent in a letter pointing out that the American judicial > understanding of copyright differs markedly from that of the authors, and > concepts such as fair use long predate Napster. (The defense of Napster on > fair use grounds is iffy, but Bromwich seems prepared to assert that "fair > use" istelf violates some right of the author.) This is a strange piece. He supports the integrity of art in support of an industry that has routinely steamrolled over it. Did "With the Beatles" want to be taken in true stereo with all of its songs intact (EMI version,) or regurgitated with lots of reverb as two albums for Capitol Records? Do 45RPM singles still want to be taken in some ideal netherworld? Is his main attack against radio DJs who are the most likely creators of the pastiches he mentions? (Lately DJs in some markets have edited their own version of rap songs to fit their station's worldview.) What does he want? Should we enforce regulations for museums and galleries because paintings want to be seen from 8'-20' and smaller venues must be closed? I tend to think that worthwhile art commands its own space. Its integrity is intrinsic and will survive no matter how shoddily Capitol Records treats it. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 25 13:26:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA27170 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:26:15 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27167 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:26:03 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA30849 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:33:26 -0500 Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:33:21 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] An OpED piece essentially attcking fair use Message-ID: <20010225133321.B30404@eldritchpress.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu on Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:26:04AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:26:04AM -0500, Jeremy A Erwin wrote: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49105-2001Feb23.html > > I've already sent in a letter pointing out that the American judicial > understanding of copyright differs markedly from that of the authors, and > concepts such as fair use long predate Napster. (The defense of Napster on > fair use grounds is iffy, but Bromwich seems prepared to assert that "fair > use" istelf violates some right of the author.) > > Jeremy interesting. i am surprised at the hatred. but this English professor fails to understand napster. once they start charging a subscription fee and make money for the record companies, his complaints will continue to have the same validity. it's not really a matter of 'stealing,' it is rather that he doesn't want "the spectator as producer" at all, only a passive consumer. he also fails to distinguish music recordings from other art, such as writings. should all works be covered by compulsory licensing? neither the mpaa nor the riaa recognizes the moral rights of the author, to the integrity of the work that Bromwich claims as the role of art and artist. he fails to recognize that the technology of napster can allow the artist instead of the record company to reassert control. no artist can survive for long by insulting and vilifying his audience as bromwich does here. if he had to make money from his writings he would understand that he can't deny fair use all the time and still reach the audience. he is only pandering to the corporate sponsors of the chairs in his academic department, i fear. and his logic is frightfully incoherent, just a blast of words. when the washington post starts reporting news about Eldred v. Reno and the CTEA then i will wake up. silence so far, since an editorial against it 4 or 5 years ago. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 25 13:47:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA27483 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:47:16 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27480 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:47:14 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (unknown [217.80.6.60]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C22027ABB for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:46:22 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 219C4175195; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:49:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:49:14 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] dutch coyote ugly in 2view Message-ID: <20010225194914.E18925@lemuria.org> References: <003601c09ee2$9fc59ee0$0101020a@GIMILI> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <003601c09ee2$9fc59ee0$0101020a@GIMILI>; from ddhore@wantree.com.au on Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:22:53PM +0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:22:53PM +0800, Don & Dianne Hore wrote: > I'm rather skeptical about this. It's probably vapourware. > This could only be done by making the cassette of really poor quality so it > will fail aftyer 2 views. > It would not be rerecordable after this. > I can see a lot of these being returned as faulty if it is true. I'd probably get one, view it twice and return it, just for the message. a manufactured-in defect is still a defect. unless it states VERY clearly on the OUTSIDE of the box that it'll self-destroy after viewing, there's no question who'd win this if goes to court. > (Here in Australia shops MUST give refunds on faulty goods, with a very > limited number of exceptions) same here in germany, except that they do have the right to exchange it with a working replacement first before they must refund. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 25 20:21:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA31035 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:21:51 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA31032 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:21:49 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id RAA18005 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:26:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma017816; Sun, 25 Feb 01 17:25:53 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:27:44 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id SAA27013; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:25:52 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The studios' brief on appeal Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:34:33 -0700 Message-ID: <000c01c09f94$45a39ae0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <005801c09e98$a5d82f40$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-WSS-ID: 16876E9A172242-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > "Nothing in the DMCA or the First Amendment gives courts the > duty or power, in the abstract, to create a new fair use > "right" to > optimal copies of a copyright owner's works, when Congress > already has weighed the competing interests and come to a > different balance. Yet, it is only in this diminished ease of > access > to such optimal copies - anecdotally suggested here and there > in the record, with no reference to specific users or specific > works > - that Corley grounds his sweeping assertion that fair use is > being > "eliminated." Even if his constitutional arguments were not > otherwise > defective, Corley's claims about fair use should be rejected > because > of their sheer factual inaccuracy and his failure of proof." Actually one of the amici quoted a case that explicitly stated that fair use of A/V materials *had to include* access to the actual work itself. In digital works this would mean the digital content. Anybody recall that precedent. We should send a not of thanks to the MPAA for the "publish the combo to a safe" and "optimal copies" -- the case law is extant and in Corley's favor. > > I agree that optimal copies are not a right--but when CSS comes > packaged with Macrovision and region codes, it's an assault on > the > accepted fair uses of the day--which are certainly greater than > they were > in some pre-electronic age. > > Or should we view Macrovisioned stills as an acceptable but > sub-optimal version and view the scrambled image as one way to > study? Perhaps we just need to learn to appreciate these rather > abstract versions. Fair use requires access to the clear text period. It's like a requirement that photocopy machine smear a thin coat of vaseline over the underside of the glass -- or not copy in more that 256 colors or ... you name it. For the film student or digital image student it is the exact image that is required -- nothing else constitutes true fair use. When one compares to a requirement of degradation in any other sense -- only 95% of the words in the copy may be legible or you can copy the ascii text only if you delete every 256th character at random -- this idea that mangled access can be considered fair is exposed as both novel (it not the optimal copy is the new idea) and nonsensical. John Zulauf private netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 25 20:26:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA31091 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:26:08 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA31088 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:26:07 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id RAA18449 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:31:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma018366; Sun, 25 Feb 01 17:30:42 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:32:33 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id SAA27162; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:30:40 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Burners Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:39:22 -0700 Message-ID: <001101c09f94$f1a56b20$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-WSS-ID: 16876DBB172548-01-01 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01C09F5A.45469320" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C09F5A.45469320 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Burners are not necessary to show this as the greatest risk to the movie industry comes from the self-same plants that in the morning crank out the legal copies and on 3rd shift... well maybe just a few more for the back door. John Zulauf private netizen -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of David Petteys Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 10:12 PM To: DVD Discussion List Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD Burners Is the use of a device similar to a CD burner feasible to make copies of DVDs? This seems to be overlooked by the defense both at trial and on appeal, (although raised by the ACLU in their amicus brief) but it seems significant as to the issue of irreparable harm. Presumably CSS would be incapable of distinguishing between a authorized and unauthorized "burned" copy. This would certainly be a much more significant threat than the infeasible process of trying to make copies with DeCSS and Divx. To the extent such a threat exists, it would significantly undermine the claim that the existence of DeCSS presents the risk of irreparable harm. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C09F5A.45469320 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Burners are not necessary to show this as the = greatest=20 risk to the movie industry comes from the self-same plants that in the = morning=20 crank out the legal copies and on 3rd shift... well maybe just a few = more for=20 the back door.
 
John=20 Zulauf
private netizen
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu=20 [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of = David=20 Petteys
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 10:12 = PM
To: DVD=20 Discussion List
Subject: [dvd-discuss] DVD=20 Burners

Is = the use of a=20 device similar to a CD burner feasible to make copies of DVDs?  = This=20 seems to be overlooked by the defense both at trial and on appeal, = (although=20 raised by the ACLU in their amicus brief) but it seems significant as = to the=20 issue of irreparable harm.  Presumably CSS would be incapable of=20 distinguishing between a authorized and unauthorized "burned" = copy.  This=20 would certainly be a much more significant threat than the infeasible = process=20 of trying to make copies with DeCSS and Divx.  To the extent such = a=20 threat exists, it would significantly undermine the claim that the = existence=20 of DeCSS presents the risk of irreparable harm.   =20
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C09F5A.45469320-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 25 20:31:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA31320 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:31:48 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA31317 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:31:47 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id RAA19024 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:36:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma018831; Sun, 25 Feb 01 17:35:28 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:37:19 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id SAA27313; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:35:27 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] dutch coyote ugly in 2view Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:44:08 -0700 Message-ID: <001601c09f95$9c60b1a0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000f01c09f18$998f22e0$0201a8c0@pigpen> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-WSS-ID: 16876CC5172937-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu If so, does a screwdriver and a pair of wire cutter constitute "circumvention technology" -- look out Craftsman/Sears Plaintiff: I do you in fact guarantee access "for life" to these nefarious tools????" Bob Villa: ;-) John Zulauf > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Phill > Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 3:49 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] dutch coyote ugly in 2view > > > I'd be willing to bet that there is a custom IC that detects the > end of the > tape (perhaps optically). After two times through the chip > energizes a coil > above the tape (thus erasing it). After the coil is energized > once the chip > disarms itself. If they can put chips in greeting cards they could put one > in a VHS tape package. > > I really hope they roll it out big time in the US. I really do. Then > _everybody_ will know what we are fighting. > > Phill > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ken Arromdee > > > On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Don & Dianne Hore wrote: > > > I'm rather skeptical about this. It's probably vapourware. > > > This could only be done by making the cassette of really poor > quality so > it > > > will fail aftyer 2 views. > > > It would not be rerecordable after this. > > > > They could always put two copies of the video on the tape and stick a > magnet on > > the inside of the tape to erase the tape as it plays. > > > > If they want it to be rerecordable later, use a latch that is > triggered by > the > > tape ending and that permanently locks the magnet in a far enough back > > position that it doesn't erase the tape a second time. > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 25 20:49:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA31635 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:49:49 -0500 Received: from myrealbox.com (mail.myrealbox.com [192.108.102.201]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA31632 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:49:47 -0500 Received: from pigpen [63.230.7.66] by myrealbox.com with Novonyx SMTP Server $Revision: 2.76 $; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:52:34 -0700 (MDT) Message-ID: <001d01c09f97$a97ea020$0201a8c0@pigpen> From: "Phill" To: References: <001601c09f95$9c60b1a0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] dutch coyote ugly in 2view Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:58:49 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Probably not the tools themselves, but the instructions on how to use them posted on your website probably would...... ----- Original Message ----- From: John Zulauf > If so, does a screwdriver and a pair of wire cutter constitute > "circumvention technology" -- look out Craftsman/Sears > > Plaintiff: I do you in fact guarantee access "for life" to these nefarious > tools????" > Bob Villa: > > ;-) > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Feb 25 23:08:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA00513 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:08:36 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [209.98.6.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA00510 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:08:34 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [163.228.19.198]) by tneu.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6AA235 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:20:04 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:20:04 -0600 (CST) From: tim To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Court of Appeals Brief In-Reply-To: <200102241454.JAA07905@hall.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It is interesting to observe some of their strengths and weaknesses by looking at their brief: 1. Authorization via First Sale doctrine. They are always very careful to always use the word "authorization" as if it means permission... This is part of their plan to make everything "seem" like an open & shut violation of the DMCA. 2. They sure do mention the WIPO obligation to provide TPM protection quite a bit. Perhaps they're a little scared about whether or not the DMCA "promote(s) the Progress of Science and useful Arts". What better way to deflect this issue than to defer to an international treaty whose members are not subject to our copyright clause? 3. Device = Software, even if that software is not runnable. Their overuse of the word "Device" is designed to shoe DeCSS in with the language of the DMCA. 4. Fair Use. They don't want to say much about it, and what they do is designed to mislead the reader that "Fair Use" is not affected, even if there is no way to perform fair use legally. They try to deflect this by telling us how many more works are now available for fair use, thanks to the incentive provided by the DMCA. This leads back to #2. They sure seem to be very afraid of the copyright clause... I wonder why? The copyright clause would be something we could use to attack the DMCA, but it would not be an easy one to prove. (how does one measure the effect of something on "Progress"? Are we missing something? 5. Overall, they are trying desparately to call things by the terms as they would like them to be in the DMCA. Authorization - Permission DeCSS - Device 6. Simplification - They are trying very hard to make the case look more simple than it actually is. It worked for Kaplan, why can't it work in the higher courts as well? I think this is their strength - and we should have SIMPLE arguments ready to show anyone why this glass slipper doesn't fit. ----------------- In or around October 1999, it was widely reported that a group of computer "hackers" in Europe had identified the encryption keys for CSS. (Tr. 619:22-621:20) These hackers -- including a Norwegian, Jon Johanssen, who testified at trial -- created and posted on the Internet an executable software program commonly referred to as "DeCSS , which, without authorization from the copyright owners, allowed motion ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ pictures on DVDs to be decrypted and copied to a computer hard drive. (Tr. 245:11-22; 622:21-23; 822:14-17) DeCSS, which was designed to run on the Windows(R) operating system, accomplishes this function by mimicking the software player key that a CSS-licensed DVD player would use to decrypt and unscramble the DVD content, thereby circumventing, without authorization, the protections afforded by ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CSS. (Tr. 214:4-5; 250:7-251:16; 628:12-629:15; Then, later on, they are very careful not to mention authorization so that it kindof sneaks in as a non-issue. (like the paragraph below). After a six-day trial, Judge Kaplan permanently enjoined Corley from trafficking in DeCSS, finding that: (1) Corley had "clearly violated [the trafficking provision of the DMCA] by posting DeCSS to [the Site]," Universal at 319; (2) Corley's conduct was not excusable under the reverse engineering (17 U.S.C. S: 1201(f)), encryption research (S: 1201(g)(4)), or security testing (S: 1201(j)) exemptions to the DMCA, id. at 319-22; and (3) Corley's "statutory fair use argument . . . [was] entirely without merit." Id. at 322-24. Judge Kaplan also held that Corley's First Amendment arguments failed because, inter alia, the trafficking proscriptions of the DMCA are content-neutral regulations -- and are, therefore, subject to no more than intermediate scrutiny under United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) which have... III. THE INJUNCTION AGAINST CORLEY'S INDISCRIMINATE TRAFFICKING IN DeCSS DOES NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ELIMINATE FAIR USE. Corley's argument (Br. 41-66) that the injunction "unconstitutionally eliminates fair use" and that the anti-circumvention and trafficking proscriptions of the DMCA should be construed to avert this purported constitutional difficulty is wrong for multiple reasons. First, Congress deliberately ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ declined to enact a fair use defense for either ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ the circumvention (S: 1201(a)(1)) or trafficking causes of action ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (S: 1201(a)(2),(b)), providing, instead, an assortment of defenses and exemptions bettertailored to the statutory plan. Second, because Corley did not seek to use DeCSS himself and distributed DeCSS to the world at large without making the slightest attempt to limit distribution to persons seeking to make what he contends would be "fair use decryption," Corley cannot defend his trafficking in DeCSS on the theory that it would facilitate fair use by others. Interesting... Just because congress deliberatly passed a law that eliminates fair use, that's OK because that's what they were trying to do! -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- What the president of the Motion Picture Association of America says about taking away your constitutional rights: "I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one of these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw out reverse engineering; he threw out linking." - Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "If you don't have the freedom to use what you / ' ) ) own - then you do not own anything." / o ______ / / _ . . No apologies to Jack Valenti or the MPAA / <_/ / / < / (_; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:22:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 22069 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2001 04:26:20 -0000 Received: from dialup-63.210.218.180.newyork1.level3.net (HELO c72fb7d1) (63.210.218.180) by mail8.wlv.netzero.net with SMTP; 26 Feb 2001 04:26:20 -0000 From: "m.e.rose" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Burners Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:28:43 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, David Petteys wrote: > Is the use of a device similar to a CD burner feasible to make copies of > DVDs? This seems to be overlooked by the defense both at trial and on > appeal, (although raised by the ACLU in their amicus brief) but it seems > significant as to the issue of irreparable harm. Presumably CSS would be > incapable of distinguishing between a authorized and unauthorized "burned" > copy. This would certainly be a much more significant threat than the > infeasible process of trying to make copies with DeCSS and Divx. To the > extent such a threat exists, it would significantly undermine the claim that > the existence of DeCSS presents the risk of irreparable harm. At the present time electronics manufacturers are divided into two camps in picking a standard for dvd's. one group, which includes phillips, already has a dvd recorder on the market. it is very expensive and operates at a different laser frequency than CD's. another group, including HP, is working on a standard that uses the same laser frequency as is now used by CD's. this one wont come to the market for a year or two. Shop online without a credit card http://www.rocketcash.com RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 02:16:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA02650 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:16:07 -0500 Received: from outgoing.themail.com (smtp.themail.com [216.38.174.37]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA02645 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:16:04 -0500 From: mw@themail.com Received: from mail.TheMail.com [216.38.174.249] by outgoing.themail.com (SMTPD32-6.06) id A981B4F02AC; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:36:49 -0500 Received-From: mail.TheMail.com To: eldred@eldritchpress.org Cc: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA enables pay-per-view books X-Priority: 3 Authorized-User: mw@TheMail.com IP-Address: 12.72.34.144 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/html Message-Id: <200102260136921.SM00192@mail.TheMail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:21:11 -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu yes, in some of the reply comments on the DMCA to the LOC, the pay per view thing became evident.

Comments by the ALA specifically mention the pay per view mentality.

I believe those comments were made in March of 2000 and can be found at loc.gov

-marcia

P.S. In Jessica Litman's book, Digital-Copyright (I guess it's due out in March) mentions pay per view (http://www.digital-copyright.com)

My cheesy book (http://www.dmcasucks.org) doesn't mention pay per view/listen/etc... but hey, I'm not a lawyer, much less a law Professor...

I think her book will be awesome!


****** Original Message ******
From: Eric Eldred
Sent: Thu 02/22/2001 11:29 AM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: [dvd-discuss] DMCA enables pay-per-view books
cross-posted from the bookpeople mailing list,
>
>written by a friend:
>
>
>
>> Steven Levy has an interesting article in the
>
>> current "Newsweek"...
>
>>
>
>> This is on p. 60 of the Feb 26, 2001 issue:
>
>>
>
>> "The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Lee Tien believes that
>
>> the content industries will eventually use the laws
>
>> [Millennium Copyright Act and others] to create even more
>
>> controls over creative works, engineering a pay-per-view
>
>> model for all forms of intellectual property. Instead of
>
>> buying a record or a book and enjoying it as often as you
>
>> like, he says, you might wind up having to fork over bucks
>
>> every time you reread the book or replay the tune."
>
>>
>
>> Levy ends on an optimistic note, saying that Americans will
>
>> not stand for this kind of greed. Imagine, he says, if all
>
>> 62 million Napster users wrote their congress-people!
>
>>
>
>> I have a more negative view. Greed will win.
>
>
>
>I agree. I would like to help the EFF with
>
>a proactive suit against the DMCA. We cannot
>
>allow books to be turned into pay-per-view
>
>infotainment events. If there is any purpose
>
>for copyright law, surely it is to encourage
>
>open public debate, something that would be
>
>made impossible if all expressions were in
>
>this form. Would it be worth living in this
>
>world without used book stores, free public
>
>libraries, news and discussion that you can
>
>buy instead of rent, but only digital events
>
>you cannot share with anyone or refer to without
>
>going to jail as in '1984'? I think not.
>
>
>
>But too many of us are too enamored of techology,
>
>and think that it makes no difference what the
>
>law (right coast code, in Lessig's newspeak) is.
>
>We who understand technology and want to see it
>
>used wisely had better wake up and communicate
>
>with the legal and policy experts, and devise
>
>some political way of furthering our ideas. We
>
>are not going to be able to stay alive long if
>
>we only write our congressperson, or write code
>
>to crack sdmi or css or glassbook. they adapt
>
>faster than us and they have control now--and
>
>their greed will never be satisfied.
>
>
>
>--
>
>nom:"Eric" Eric Eldred Eldritch Press
>
>mailto:Eldred@EldritchPress.org
>
>vCard3.0:http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf
>
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________________________
Make A Buck Or Two @ TheMail.com - Free Internet Email
Sign-up today at http://www.themail.com
From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 05:37:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA04179 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:37:21 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA04176 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:37:17 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08004; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:42:22 GMT Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:42:22 GMT Subject: [dvd-discuss] Don't 'Think ebooks' :-) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This may seem controversial, but I'd like to offer a counter to Eric's arguments about ebooks (or at least, a counter to the particular example of Alice in Wonderland). I'm sure there is mileage in the anti 'ebook' arguments, but the thread started along the lines of: 1) Alice in Wonderland is public domain. 2) Someone has produced an ebook of Alice. 3) The ebook denies you the rights to 'loan', 'read aloud', 'print' (etc) 4) Everyone raves about evils of ebooks :-) I think if you tried building an analogy argument with DVDs based just on these points, you'd be in danger of undermining your own case. Playing the opposition for a minute, I'd argue as follows: Agreed that Alice in Wonderland is public domain, but as a result of that, the ebook people are perfectly entitled to publish that work (with due recognition to Lewis Caroll) any way they like. They choose to use this 'ebook' format. In doing so, though they don't have any copyright on Alice itself, they do have copyright on any extras and packaging. ( This would I believe agree with conventional printing, where the binding, typesetting, cover illustrations, etc constitute enough of a work to merit minor protections, but the text of the book does not. ) OK, so now we move to complaints about the 'restrictions' (can't loan, can't print, can't read aloud etc). I may have almost no excuse for "can't print" (but see next but one paragraph), however the "can't loan" argument is a non-issue. In the context of an ebook, "loan" is a new concept. Nothing stops you physically loaning your CD ebook of Alice to a friend, and 'first sale' supports that. The "loan" feature referred-to here is the idea of a virtual loan, where you physically keep all the media Alice arrived on, but produce a time-limited electronic copy for a friend. While that copy is still usable, yours isn't. It's like physically loaning the book, but allowing you to do this (say) over internet. This copy of Alice doesn't let you do that, so if you want to loan it, do it physically. As for "can't read aloud" - obviously nothing stops *you* reading your copy of Alice aloud off the computer screen! What is meant here is that the ebook can't read aloud for you. The publishers didn't do to the trouble of recording a sound-track, so it can't play one. That's their perogative. Finally "can't print". OK, so I'll admit I can't defend them on this one unless it can be argued that in order to let it be printed, the publishers would have had to digitise lots of illustrations, do a lot of markup on the text, and maybe include some special fonts. Again (as with read aloud) they chose not to do this. That's their perogative. If you don't like it, buy someone else's ebook of Alice. And over the top of *all* my defences above, you can quite easily go to Project Gutenberg and download a completely free copy of Alice and do what you like with it! The ebook publishers will not and can not stop you. Oh, and don't think that there's any parallel there with Jack Valenti's argument of "if you want 'fair use', then do it with the VHS copy" because the text of Project Gutenberg's Alice is going to be a perfect rendition of what is in the public domain (i.e Lewis Caroll's work). It's not a substandard rendition as a VHS tape would be. (Mind you, a DVD is hardly a pristine copy of a movie, but it is closer). ------------------------------------ So I don't get the 'ebook' argument. Unless, Eric's original idea was more along the lines of "if in future, writers only publish their books as ebooks, they'll effectively never get to enter the public domain because no-one will be able to extract the raw text". This is where the concept of a copyright library is supposed to exist. In order to clain copyright, you'd have to deposit a non-encrypted copy of your work with that library. Then in the future when it goes public-domain, the work is guaranteed to be available to all. Maybe, more now than ever, that idea will have to be revived. Maybe that's what's missing from DMCA. Maybe DMCA should only offer its protections *if* a non-encrypted copy of the work is deposited. But that's not an argument for the '2600' court. Don't try and waste their time with it. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 08:42:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA05413 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:42:05 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA05410 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:42:02 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA06319 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:47:09 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:47:09 -0500 (EST) From: Ole Craig To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? In-Reply-To: <8c.2d0c936.27c88a57@cs.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Pet peeve, sorry, I can't stand seeing it anymore without saying something: On 02/23/01 at 22:53, 'twas brillig and Consilgere@cs.com scrobe: [...] > illegalized them. ^^^^^^^^^^^ This is not a word. Perhaps "criminalized" is the word many on this list are searching for when instead they resort to the above abomination. Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 09:03:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA05669 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:03:18 -0500 Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA05666 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:03:16 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18157 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 07:02:04 -0700 (MST) Received: from 64-212-27-44.nas1.PHX1.gblx.net(64.212.27.44), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpdAAASbaGyJ; Mon Feb 26 07:01:55 2001 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA06265 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 07:08:09 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 06:03:03 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200102241522.KAA22694@samsara.law.cwru.edu> <005801c09e98$a5d82f40$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net> In-Reply-To: <005801c09e98$a5d82f40$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The studios' brief on appeal MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022606030300.03906@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Saturday 24 February 2001 12:33, Ron Gustavson wrote: # re fair use: # # "Corley and his amici erroneously assert that the permanent injunction, # and the DMCA's trafficking proscriptions in general, sound the death # knell for fair use of copyrighted works delivered on DVDs. Contrary # to those claims, however, the public now has a far greater body of # commercially-released films from which to make fair use, and a greater # scope for fair use of each of those films, than was ever available prior # to the commercial launch of VCRs in the 1970s. In the pre-VCR era # and since, the First Amendment has not been violated by the fact that # the fair uses that could have been made of films always have been # necessarily impacted by the Studios' decisions about how frequently, # and in what cities and theaters, to release their films. " # # So it is the 1970s that are to be the high point of free speech, now # that the VCR era is ebbing. They still can't accept the fact that they # are publishers(!) # # "...Studios distributed their works for decades in this manner before # the advent of DVDs, or even of videocassettes, and fair uses for film # criticism, comment, teaching, scholarship, and research were as # common as crabgrass." Nice little sleigt-of-hand there. The difference, of course, between pre-1970 and now is that they didn't publish directly to the public. What they're trying to do is have the distribution controls that they had before direct public sale with the enlarged market post public sale. Which should be no surprise to any of us: they're still trying to overturn _Betamax_. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 09:09:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA05821 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:09:31 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA05810 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:09:19 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA32030 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:16:48 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:16:43 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Don't 'Think ebooks' :-) Message-ID: <20010226091642.C30872@eldritchpress.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from steve@i2it.co.uk on Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:42:22AM +0000 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve offers some good arguments. Let me try to respond quickly, though more detail could be provided. On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:42:22AM +0000, Steve Hosgood wrote: > This may seem controversial, but I'd like to offer a counter to Eric's > arguments about ebooks (or at least, a counter to the particular example of > Alice in Wonderland). I'm sure there is mileage in the anti 'ebook' arguments, > but the thread started along the lines of: > > 1) Alice in Wonderland is public domain. > 2) Someone has produced an ebook of Alice. > 3) The ebook denies you the rights to 'loan', 'read aloud', 'print' (etc) > 4) Everyone raves about evils of ebooks :-) > > I think if you tried building an analogy argument with DVDs based just on > these points, you'd be in danger of undermining your own case. I believe this discussion originated with the point that the DMCA covers more than just DVDs. Some of suggested that the public might be able to understand books better than recorded movies. It is not necessarily a point we need to raise extensively in this 2600 appeal. But Judge Kaplan himself recognized that there was a problem with his argument, that the DMCA is supposed to protect only copyrighted works, yet it also is being used now (he thought only in the distant future) for works that enter the public domain. The suggestion then was that we follow up with another proactive suit against the DMCA, to include material such as books in the public domain. >Playing the > opposition for a minute, I'd argue as follows: > > Agreed that Alice in Wonderland is public domain, but as a result of that, > the ebook people are perfectly entitled to publish that work (with due > recognition to Lewis Caroll) any way they like. They choose to use this > 'ebook' format. In doing so, though they don't have any copyright on Alice > itself, they do have copyright on any extras and packaging. ( This would I > believe agree with conventional printing, where the binding, typesetting, > cover illustrations, etc constitute enough of a work to merit minor > protections, but the text of the book does not. ) No, they have no copyright on any of the "extras or packaging." In Great Britain they might have a copyright on the layout and typography, but not in the U.S. The entire work including the text is in the public domain. But even if a new introduction could be copyrighted, that would not be justification for the legal protection of the rest of the book and the whole tpm. > OK, so now we move to complaints about the 'restrictions' (can't loan, can't > print, can't read aloud etc). I may have almost no excuse for "can't print" > (but see next but one paragraph), however the "can't loan" argument is a > non-issue. In the context of an ebook, "loan" is a new concept. Nothing stops > you physically loaning your CD ebook of Alice to a friend, and 'first sale' > supports that. The "loan" feature referred-to here is the idea of a virtual > loan, where you physically keep all the media Alice arrived on, but > produce a time-limited electronic copy for a friend. While that copy is > still usable, yours isn't. It's like physically loaning the book, but > allowing you to do this (say) over internet. This copy of Alice doesn't > let you do that, so if you want to loan it, do it physically. The rationale for restricting fair use this way cannot be that it has anything to do with infringing copyright. Once the physical eBook copy is sold, there would be no legal basis for prohibiting the "loan" of the copy of the book in eBook form. It appears that the publishers are relying on both the tpm and the dmca to enforce some sort of implied license. But this license cannot be valid. I want to emphasize that loaning of the electronic copy of a public domain work is fair use and a first sale right, and consequently the user, even by Judge Kaplan's standard, is allowed by law to bypass the TPM. The remaining question is whether or not it is legal to "traffic" in such decryption methods by telling anybody else how to bypass the TPM. > As for "can't read aloud" - obviously nothing stops *you* reading your copy > of Alice aloud off the computer screen! What is meant here is that the > ebook can't read aloud for you. The publishers didn't do to the trouble of > recording a sound-track, so it can't play one. That's their perogative. This "read aloud" feature is the enabling of a text-to-speech capability of the eBook appliance--or, in some cases, the personal computer on which the eBook text is read. The synthesizer and software are outside the book itself. The evidence is that publishers do not wish to enable this feature, so as not to compete with their own audio recorded books, an entirely different technology. Although you are correct that publishers should not be forced by law to allow this feature, the question is rather, should consumers be prohibited from employing this technology if they have bought it, and, perhaps more importantly, if they need it in order to make any use at all of the work, as for example blind readers do. > Finally "can't print". OK, so I'll admit I can't defend them on this one > unless it can be argued that in order to let it be printed, the publishers > would have had to digitise lots of illustrations, do a lot of markup on the > text, and maybe include some special fonts. Again (as with read aloud) they > chose not to do this. That's their perogative. If you don't like it, buy > someone else's ebook of Alice. The "can't print" feature goes with the ability of blind readers to be able to "read" the text--the way most of these software players work is to print to a text-to-speech synthesizer instead of to a hardcopy printer. But publishers are afraid that if they allow the digital work to be printed at all, then the text stream can be captured and reproduced. You are correct that there is and probably should be no law requiring them to enable this feature. However, the question is rather, should the consumer be denied the right to bypass the TPM for a purchased work, in order to get full fair use of the product? The question is more specific, should the copyright law protect this, when the underlying work is in the public domain? > And over the top of *all* my defences above, you can quite easily go to > Project Gutenberg and download a completely free copy of Alice and do what > you like with it! The ebook publishers will not and can not stop you. There are several editions of Alice floating around, some with illustrations, some not, some with notes, some not. I didn't check to see if the PG edition was the best one, probably not. Often PG doesn't state which edition or which year's they use. Some of the new eBooks being sold are in the public domain but not available at Project Gutenberg or other sites online. Some of the works are hard to find, rare, or libraries don't allow us to copy the fragile editions. As more new works are issued in eBook form, and as no further works enter the public domain, the ratio of locked-up works to public domain works increases rapidly. >Oh, and > don't think that there's any parallel there with Jack Valenti's argument > of "if you want 'fair use', then do it with the VHS copy" because the text of > Project Gutenberg's Alice is going to be a perfect rendition of what is > in the public domain (i.e Lewis Caroll's work). It's not a substandard > rendition as a VHS tape would be. (Mind you, a DVD is hardly a pristine copy > of a movie, but it is closer). Well, the text of the eBook may or may not correspond exactly with another edition. In the case of "The Big Town," a work I took from the barnesandnoble.com Microsoft Reader edition (because it was not previously online) I was able to correct a number of typos in their edition. I edited the illustrations for online viewing, not with the resolution needed for the best printing. So I don't believe your argument is correct, that mine is a perfect copy. Let's say it is a new derivative work, but not substantially different from either the printed book or the b&n eBook. My point is that it is this creation of new derivative works that the DMCA is also prohibiting--not by any new permission for publishers to protect works, but rather by the DMCA's protection of the TPMs that the publishers are using to lock up public domain works with the same mechanisms as with copyrighted works. I am not concerned with the "perfect fidelity" argument for digital works. You can imagine that a book's text is hard to protect--one very easy way to copy a book, digital or not, is simply to type a new copy from what a reader can see, and take photographs of the illustrations. In many cases that is easier than decrypting the work. So, yes, I agree that publishers are certainly free under the law to do what they are doing--except they should not be free to put somebody in jail for bypassing the TPM, or telling somebody else how to do so, when the underlying work is in the public domain. I believe even Judge Kaplan has qualms about that, and it ought to serve as the basis for a new onslaught against the DMCA. > So I don't get the 'ebook' argument. Unless, Eric's original idea was more > along the lines of "if in future, writers only publish their books as ebooks, > they'll effectively never get to enter the public domain because no-one will > be able to extract the raw text". Yes. But we are already there now. Some eBooks are not being issued printed on paper at all. > This is where the concept of a copyright library is supposed to exist. In > order to clain copyright, you'd have to deposit a non-encrypted copy of your > work with that library. Then in the future when it goes public-domain, the > work is guaranteed to be available to all. Maybe, more now than ever, that > idea will have to be revived. Maybe that's what's missing from DMCA. Maybe > DMCA should only offer its protections *if* a non-encrypted copy of the > work is deposited. Sounds good. I think we made a mistake in allowing object code to be copyrighted, not the entire source code for a work. But I agree it would be hard to go back now. It might be difficult or impossible to deposit analog versions of digital works, or the works in some human-readable form. It would be a good idea, but I understand the Library of Congress receives many more bytes of multimedia data, as for example television, than it does analog data, as for example printed books. And it can't archive very much of the new digital data; it is essentially being lost right now. > But that's not an argument for the '2600' court. Don't try and waste their > time with it. Heck, I hope I wasn't wasting anybody's time, was I? But what do you think about another suit to attack this weakness of the DMCA? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 09:29:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA06014 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:29:22 -0500 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA06010 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:29:16 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 14XOjF-0000yU-00; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:34:21 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 14XOjH-0005IY-00; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:34:23 +0100 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:34:23 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA brief formalities Message-ID: <20010226153422.F9874@inka.de> References: <20010226091642.C30872@eldritchpress.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010226091642.C30872@eldritchpress.org>; from eldred@eldritchpress.org on Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 09:16:43AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I've been browsing the MPAA's brief and noticed that it several times mentions Judge Kaplan by name. James Tyre mentioned in this posting: http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg08407.html That he should always be referred to as "The Court" or suchlike. Are the plaintiffs being horribly sloppy or is there some other technicality that I've missed? Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 10:47:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA07025 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:47:57 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA07022 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:47:47 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26213; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:52:01 -0500 Message-Id: <200102261552.KAA26213@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Court of Appeals Brief In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:20:04 CST." Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:51:31 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu tim writes: : : It is interesting to observe some of their strengths and weaknesses by : looking at their brief: [snip] : 3. Device = Software, even if that software is not runnable. Their : overuse of the word "Device" is designed to shoe DeCSS in with the : language of the DMCA. They seem to be afraid of the word ``software'' and they don't use the word ``technology'' but insist on using the word ``device.'' I think they are afraid that if they admit that software is not a device ---that programs are not a device---they will lose on the first amendment arguments. If they just wanted to fit within the language of the DMCA, they could use the word ``technology'' rather than ``device.'' In the export regulations that were at issue in Junger v.\ Daley, the regulations applied to three things: devices, software, and technology. Technology seems to cover all information about how to do things other than software. All of Touretsky's good stuff showing that one can't draw a line beteween programs and English descriptions of how to do things isn't relevant if one treats them all as ``technology.'' Neither the Bernstein nor the Junger case challenged the export regulations on technology, although the implications of thsoe provisions are quite frightening. On the other hand, it is very hard to claim that the publication of technology, meaning ``know how,'' is not protected by the First Amendment. Note that they also describe themselves as ``manufacturing'' their flicks, they don't claim to be authors. Maybe they don't see any difference between what they do and what General Motors does. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 11:11:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07339 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:11:16 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA07336 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:11:14 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26304; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:15:28 -0500 Message-Id: <200102261615.LAA26304@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Court of Appeals Brief In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:20:04 CST." Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:14:58 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu tim writes: : : It is interesting to observe some of their strengths and weaknesses by : looking at their brief: : : 1. Authorization via First Sale doctrine. They are always very careful to : always use the word "authorization" as if it means permission... This is : part of their plan to make everything "seem" like an open & shut violation : of the DMCA. : : 2. They sure do mention the WIPO obligation to provide TPM protection : quite a bit. Perhaps they're a little scared about whether or not the : DMCA "promote(s) the Progress of Science and useful Arts". What better : way to deflect this issue than to defer to an international treaty whose : members are not subject to our copyright clause? : : 3. Device = Software, even if that software is not runnable. Their : overuse of the word "Device" is designed to shoe DeCSS in with the : language of the DMCA. : : 4. Fair Use. They don't want to say much about it, and what they do is : designed to mislead the reader that "Fair Use" is not affected, even if : there is no way to perform fair use legally. : : They try to deflect this by telling us how many more works are now : available for fair use, thanks to the incentive provided by the DMCA. : This leads back to #2. They sure seem to be very afraid of the copyright : clause... I wonder why? The copyright clause would be something we could : use to attack the DMCA, but it would not be an easy one to prove. (how : does one measure the effect of something on "Progress"? : : Are we missing something? : : 5. Overall, they are trying desparately to call things by the terms as : they would like them to be in the DMCA. : : Authorization - Permission : DeCSS - Device : : 6. Simplification - They are trying very hard to make the case look more : simple than it actually is. It worked for Kaplan, why can't it work in : the higher courts as well? I think this is their strength - and we should : have SIMPLE arguments ready to show anyone why this glass slipper doesn't : fit. Or are they trying to make the case more difficult than it actually is? I become more or more convinced that when I buy a DVD from one of the paintiffs, I must also acquire ththat plaintiff's authority to access it. And if that is so, then my using DeCSS to acess the disk is not a violation of the DMCA. And if that is so, then giving me or the other owners of DVD's a copy of DeCSS isn't a violation either. Now that is pretty simple. Of course, the requirement that one use a technological measure to prevent access before one can assert the legal right to prevent access might seem to complicate the issue. But it doesn't really. The requirement of a technological measure doesn't make matters more complicated for the defendant. And furthermore, the requirement of a technological measure, which need not in fact be effective---it is defined as being effective even if it isn't---seems to be nothing but a formality like a seal on a document or a livery of seisin. If one complies with the formality by using ROT13 then according to the clear language of 17 USC 1201(a) one has the _legal_ right to prevent access. But only in a case where, as is not the case with DVD's, the accessor has not acquired from the owner of the copyright the authority to access the work. So one never has to get to all that confusing conlaw stuff. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 11:25:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edFrom dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 11:36:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07770 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:36:29 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA07765 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:36:25 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26467; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:40:40 -0500 Message-Id: <200102261640.LAA26467@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA brief formalities In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:34:23 +0100." <20010226153422.F9874@inka.de> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:40:10 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sham Gardner writes: : I've been browsing the MPAA's brief and noticed that it several times : mentions Judge Kaplan by name. James Tyre mentioned in this posting: : : http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg08407.html : : That he should always be referred to as "The Court" or suchlike. Are the : plaintiffs being horribly sloppy or is there some other technicality that : I've missed? I believe that that remark was directed to a brief to be submitted to Judge Kaplan; in that case Kaplan is ``the Court.'' But in a brief submitted to the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals, the Appeals Court is the ``the Court,'' and Kaplan is ``the court below'' or just ``Judge Kaplan.'' -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 12:10:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA08303 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:10:22 -0500 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA08300 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:10:20 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 14XRF9-0006hZ-00; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:15:27 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 14XRFA-0006eX-00; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:15:28 +0100 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:15:28 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA brief formalities Message-ID: <20010226181528.G9874@inka.de> References: <20010226153422.F9874@inka.de> <200102261640.LAA26467@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <200102261640.LAA26467@samsara.law.cwru.edu>; from junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu on Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:40:10AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:40:10AM -0500, Peter D. Junger wrote: > Sham Gardner writes: > > : I've been browsing the MPAA's brief and noticed that it several times > : mentions Judge Kaplan by name. James Tyre mentioned in this posting: > : > : http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg08407.html > : > : That he should always be referred to as "The Court" or suchlike. Are the > : plaintiffs being horribly sloppy or is there some other technicality that > : I've missed? > > I believe that that remark was directed to a brief to be submitted to > Judge Kaplan; in that case Kaplan is ``the Court.'' But in a brief > submitted to the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals, the Appeals Court is the > ``the Court,'' and Kaplan is ``the court below'' or just ``Judge Kaplan.'' No, the posting is from Sep 18 of last year, i.e. after Kaplan's verdict was out. It was referring to our planned amicus brief to the appeals court. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 12:49:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA09899 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:49:35 -0500 Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA09896 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:49:27 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa119.pool012.at101.earthlink.net [216.249.83.119]) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14721 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:54:30 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010226093726.00bb9d00@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: jstyre@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:54:49 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA brief formalities In-Reply-To: <20010226181528.G9874@inka.de> References: <200102261640.LAA26467@samsara.law.cwru.edu> <20010226153422.F9874@inka.de> <200102261640.LAA26467@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 06:15 PM 2/26/2001 +0100, Sham Gardner wrote: >On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:40:10AM -0500, Peter D. Junger wrote: > > Sham Gardner writes: > > > > : I've been browsing the MPAA's brief and noticed that it several times > > : mentions Judge Kaplan by name. James Tyre mentioned in this posting: > > : > > : http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg08407.html > > : > > : That he should always be referred to as "The Court" or suchlike. Are the > > : plaintiffs being horribly sloppy or is there some other technicality that > > : I've missed? > > > > I believe that that remark was directed to a brief to be submitted to > > Judge Kaplan; in that case Kaplan is ``the Court.'' But in a brief > > submitted to the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals, the Appeals Court is the > > ``the Court,'' and Kaplan is ``the court below'' or just ``Judge Kaplan.'' > >No, the posting is from Sep 18 of last year, i.e. after Kaplan's verdict was >out. It was referring to our planned amicus brief to the appeals court. As one amicus brief writer wrote: "There are rules for writing code, rules of grammar, naming conventions and logical organization, just as there are rules (which are not always followed) for writing in English." ;-) One must know the rules before one can know if, when and how to break them. The September post was addressed to something Bryan Taylor wrote. As intelligent as Bryan is, he would have had no reason at the time to know the rules. Had this group ended up doing a brief, it would have been rather antagonistic to the lower court's decision. Thus, it would not be a good thing to refer to "Judge Kaplan", rather than the court (or similar), as it might be construed as a personal attack on the man, instead of a substantive attack on the decision, which is the wrong way to make a point with the appellate court. The studios, on the other hand, could praise the man and the decision. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 This man, who seems to have led a life of unrelieved insignificance, must have been astonished to find himself suddenly putting the Government of the United States in such fear that it was afraid to tell him why it was afraid of him. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) (Jackson, J., dissenting) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 13:05:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10244 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:05:49 -0500 Received: from sgi04-e.std.com (sgi04-e.std.com [199.172.62.134]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10241 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:05:48 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by sgi04-e.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA945589; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:10:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from [24.218.56.92] (h000a2792745c.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.56.92]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26110; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:10:51 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200102261552.KAA26213@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: <200102261552.KAA26213@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:10:42 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Court of Appeals Brief Cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 10:51 AM -0500 2/26/2001, Peter D. Junger wrote: >... >Note that they also describe themselves as ``manufacturing'' their flicks, >they don't claim to be authors. Maybe they don't see any difference >between what they do and what General Motors does. It would be interesting to see how they describe themselves in briefs and Congressional testimony when they are seeking First Amendment protection for themselves. Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 14:02:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA10842 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:02:39 -0500 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA10839 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:02:38 -0500 Received: from DEUCECOUPE (h0050bab000a1.ne.mediaone.net [66.31.128.60]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f1QJ7jK23778 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:07:45 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Don't 'Think ebooks' :-) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:09:07 -0500 Message-ID: <5u9l9tcp8evs78e7dvugo98q8c4v41b7hk@4ax.com> References: <20010226091642.C30872@eldritchpress.org> In-Reply-To: <20010226091642.C30872@eldritchpress.org> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id OAA10840 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:16:43 -0500, Eric Eldred wrote: >Some of the new eBooks being sold are in the public domain but >not available at Project Gutenberg or other sites online. Some >of the works are hard to find, rare, or libraries don't allow >us to copy the fragile editions. As more new works are issued >in eBook form, and as no further works enter the public domain, >the ratio of locked-up works to public domain works increases >rapidly. I'd add that this is precisely the case with public domain films: they are rare, fragile, and mostly inaccessible. And there is certainly no Project Lumiere (perhaps archive.org will become this?) >Heck, I hope I wasn't wasting anybody's time, was I? But what >do you think about another suit to attack this weakness of the >DMCA? Surf's up. Wait for the right wave. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 14:21:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA11203 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:21:47 -0500 Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA11200 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:21:45 -0500 Received: from DEUCECOUPE (h0050bab000a1.ne.mediaone.net [66.31.128.60]) by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f1QJQrS08450 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:26:53 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA Court of Appeals Brief Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:28:01 -0500 Message-ID: References: <200102261615.LAA26304@samsara.law.cwru.edu> In-Reply-To: <200102261615.LAA26304@samsara.law.cwru.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id OAA11201 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:14:58 -0500, "Peter D. Junger" wrote: >Or are they trying to make the case more difficult than it actually is? >I become more or more convinced that when I buy a DVD from one of the paintiffs, >I must also acquire ththat plaintiff's authority to access it. And if >that is so, then my using DeCSS to acess the disk is not a violation of >the DMCA. And if that is so, then giving me or the other owners of DVD's >a copy of DeCSS isn't a violation either. Kaplan made a point of obfuscating this chain of authority--no consumer buys directly from the plaintiffs, but through an outlet that gets it from a distributor, and so on. Does this make it simply complicated? __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 15:07:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11815 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:07:51 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA11812 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:07:50 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:12:52 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:12:47 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/26/2001 12:12:52 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I think you've just pointed to the "smoking gun" of subterfuge when the law was written. DVDs are not INTERNET. That's what the lawmakers wanted to cover but somebody slipped in the language that would make it apply to DVD as well. Jolley Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v. 2600 - Court of Appeals Brief by USA 02/23/01 05:45 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss What is the point of this. DVDs are not works readily available over the internet and never intended for that purpose. DeCSS, on the other hand, is distributed best over the internet. I would like to twist this around and point out that the MPAA, who doesn't want their DVDs readily available on the internet, is using the DMCA to prevent a copyright owner from distributing "the fruit of their genious." The DMCA in this case is doing exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 15:09:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11845 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:09:24 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA11842 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:09:22 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:14:26 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:14:22 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/26/2001 12:14:25 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Wrong. You omitted the word "solely" after created. That's what falsifies your argument. Consilgere@cs.com Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the free speechcardyet? 02/23/01 07:59 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss In a message dated 2/23/01 2:00:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, pneves@aicompro.com writes: Except this document was created for the express purpose of exchanging speech. If you think DeCSS was created for that purpose, you're lying to yourself. Again, it goes to what it's used for, not what it "is". And as this email is proof a document that is encoded electronically. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 15:12:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12033 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:12:33 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12025 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:12:27 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:17:18 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:17:14 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/26/2001 12:17:18 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Excuse me but your email states that Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: Doesn't that seem contradictary to you? blah blah blah.... I've written nothing of the kind. Consilgere@cs.com Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Why hasn't anyone played the freespeechcardyet? 02/23/01 08:18 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss In a message dated 2/23/01 11:43:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org writes: Doesn't that seem contradictary to you? DeCSS is a tool that allows people to engage in Fair Use practices, but it's not actually a tool? It begins to sound more like excuse fishing than legal reasoning. Call me a purist, but when your arguments for supporting something start to contradict each other, you tend to lose credibility. It may to some extend depend exactly on that. And, of course, all the other defenses that you refer to are available if the publication of code is protected as speech or, less confusingly, by the freedom of the press that protects all publication of information. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 15:18:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12199 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:18:35 -0500 Received: from mail01-oak.pilot.net (mail-oak-1.pilot.net [198.232.147.16]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12196 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:18:34 -0500 Received: from msd-gw.hitachi.com (msd.hitachi.com [206.189.5.161]) by mail01-oak.pilot.net with ESMTP id MAA16987 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:23:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from hicam-msd.hitachi.com (thunder [137.168.16.3]) by msd-gw.hitachi.com with ESMTP id MAA04677 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:17:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from karsten.hicam-msd.hitachi.com (karsten [137.168.48.210]) by hicam-msd.hitachi.com with ESMTP id MAA18453 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:17:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by karsten.hicam-msd.hitachi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1YRABAYY>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:18:44 -0800 Message-ID: From: Steve Benedict To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] dutch coyote ugly in 2view Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:18:41 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Possibly the cassette is recorded with Macrovision after the second viewing and thus a newer Macrovision enabled VCR will not play it. Then only by recording over it will the Macrovision be erased. Just a conjecture. -----Original Message----- From: Don & Dianne Hore [mailto:ddhore@wantree.com.au] Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 8:23 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] dutch coyote ugly in 2view I'm rather skeptical about this. It's probably vapourware. This could only be done by making the cassette of really poor quality so it will fail aftyer 2 views. It would not be rerecordable after this. I can see a lot of these being returned as faulty if it is true. (Here in Australia shops MUST give refunds on faulty goods, with a very limited number of exceptions) -----Original Message----- From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Sunday, 25 February 2001 11:20 Subject: [dvd-discuss] dutch coyote ugly in 2view >http://www.videostoremag.com/news/html/Industry_article.cfm?sec_id=2&articl e_id=811 > >(unwrap as needed) > >Videostore magazine reports Disney will be test marketing >a Dutch VHS edition of "Coyote Ugly" that plays only twice; >then it can be recorded over. The video rental stores >are not happy, comparing it to Circuit City DIVX. > >Anybody know anything more about this "2View" technology? >If it becomes widespread, it would seem to do away with >the argument that fair use of DVDs is not needed because >users could still freely access VHS tapes. > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 15:28:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12365 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:28:13 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12362 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:28:07 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:32:46 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The studios' brief on appeal To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:32:42 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/26/2001 12:32:46 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Ron Gustavson" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The studios' brief on arvard.edu appeal 02/24/01 11:34 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss that the VCR era is ebbing. They still can't accept the fact that they are publishers(!) >>That Should be pointed out in the arguments. That is on of the premises their arguments. >>That that away and they begin to collapse. >>Why is this any different than publishing a book? Huh? Tell us that MPAA, JackyBOots? "Nothing in the DMCA or the First Amendment gives courts the duty or power, in the abstract, to create a new fair use "right" to optimal copies of a copyright owner's works, when Congress already has weighed the competing interests and come to a different balance. Yet, it is only in this diminished ease of access to such optimal copies - anecdotally suggested here and there in the record, with no reference to specific users or specific works - that Corley grounds his sweeping assertion that fair use is being "eliminated." Even if his constitutional arguments were not otherwise defective, Corley's claims about fair use should be rejected because of their sheer factual inaccuracy and his failure of proof." I agree that optimal copies are not a right--but when CSS comes packaged with Macrovision and region codes, it's an assault on the accepted fair uses of the day--which are certainly greater than they were in some pre-electronic age. >>Yes. Here is another red herring. What's this optimal copies stuff? A new bunch of flooby dust created to cloud the issue. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 15:47:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12636 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:47:09 -0500 Received: from bur-jud-175-135 (bur-jud-175-135.rh.uchicago.edu [128.135.175.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12633 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:47:08 -0500 Received: by bur-jud-175-135 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1821D3834; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:56:11 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:56:11 -0600 From: Sam TH To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Code As Metaphor Message-ID: <20010226145611.A12957@uchicago.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I realized, while reading the gnome-hackers mailing list, what a wonderful example the following thread is: http://lists.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/2001-February/msg00461.html It actually begins a few messages earlier, but that one gives you the idea. =20 The remarkable thing (for people who don't live and breathe C) is that project management and risk assesment are being explained by comparison to code. =20 :-) =20 sam th =20 sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ GnuPG Key: =20 http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6msLqt+kM0Mq9M/wRArFLAKCohQjP7EB3Ripu6XKtAMoCO3k5MwCfbfyD Xsq4eQIicUvrc8eZ3TjWqaA= =/YZc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 16:07:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA13498 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:07:45 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA13495 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:07:43 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:12:43 -0800 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA brief formalities To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:12:38 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/26/2001 01:12:43 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Good point on Bryan's brief..... As my MOther once told me "you have to know the rules so you know WHEN to break them" (She's a commercial artist, illustrator, and watercolourist) "James S. Tyre" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA brief arvard.edu formalities 02/26/01 09:57 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 06:15 PM 2/26/2001 +0100, Sham Gardner wrote: >On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:40:10AM -0500, Peter D. Junger wrote: > > Sham Gardner writes: > > > > : I've been browsing the MPAA's brief and noticed that it several times > > : mentions Judge Kaplan by name. James Tyre mentioned in this posting: > > : > > : http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg08407.html > > : > > : That he should always be referred to as "The Court" or suchlike. Are the > > : plaintiffs being horribly sloppy or is there some other technicality that > > : I've missed? > > > > I believe that that remark was directed to a brief to be submitted to > > Judge Kaplan; in that case Kaplan is ``the Court.'' But in a brief > > submitted to the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals, the Appeals Court is the > > ``the Court,'' and Kaplan is ``the court below'' or just ``Judge Kaplan.'' > >No, the posting is from Sep 18 of last year, i.e. after Kaplan's verdict was >out. It was referring to our planned amicus brief to the appeals court. As one amicus brief writer wrote: "There are rules for writing code, rules of grammar, naming conventions and logical organization, just as there are rules (which are not always followed) for writing in English." ;-) One must know the rules before one can know if, when and how to break them. The September post was addressed to something Bryan Taylor wrote. As intelligent as Bryan is, he would have had no reason at the time to know the rules. Had this group ended up doing a brief, it would have been rather antagonistic to the lower court's decision. Thus, it would not be a good thing to refer to "Judge Kaplan", rather than the court (or similar), as it might be construed as a personal attack on the man, instead of a substantive attack on the decision, which is the wrong way to make a point with the appellate court. The studios, on the other hand, could praise the man and the decision. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 This man, who seems to have led a life of unrelieved insignificance, must have been astonished to find himself suddenly putting the Government of the United States in such fear that it was afraid to tell him why it was afraid of him. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) (Jackson, J., dissenting) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 18:55:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15691 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:55:02 -0500 Received: from exegrnnts005.seattleu.edu (exegrnnts001.seattleu.edu [206.81.198.91]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15686 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:55:00 -0500 Received: from compaq1687x (172.17.64.75 [172.17.64.75]) by exegrnnts005.seattleu.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FRPYWP7Z; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:59:38 -0800 From: "David Petteys" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Burners Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:59:53 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu My understanding is that hardware is available in China that allows DVDs to be copied onto SVDA format. Any truth to that? -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of m.e.rose Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 8:29 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Burners On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, David Petteys wrote: > Is the use of a device similar to a CD burner feasible to make copies of > DVDs? This seems to be overlooked by the defense both at trial and on > appeal, (although raised by the ACLU in their amicus brief) but it seems > significant as to the issue of irreparable harm. Presumably CSS would be > incapable of distinguishing between a authorized and unauthorized "burned" > copy. This would certainly be a much more significant threat than the > infeasible process of trying to make copies with DeCSS and Divx. To the > extent such a threat exists, it would significantly undermine the claim that > the existence of DeCSS presents the risk of irreparable harm. At the present time electronics manufacturers are divided into two camps in picking a standard for dvd's. one group, which includes phillips, already has a dvd recorder on the market. it is very expensive and operates at a different laser frequency than CD's. another group, including HP, is working on a standard that uses the same laser frequency as is now used by CD's. this one wont come to the market for a year or two. Shop online without a credit card http://www.rocketcash.com RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Feb 26 23:10:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA18292 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:10:38 -0500 Received: from mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA18289 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:10:37 -0500 Received: from swbell.net ([208.190.219.114]) by mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0G9E002STE3U0T@mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:07:07 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:03:47 -0600 From: Jolley Subject: [dvd-discuss] Associated Press has DVD story To: dvd-discuss Message-id: <3A9B2723.89F2B457@swbell.net> Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-SBI-NC472 (Win98; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I saw an Associated Press Story about Jon Johansen, DVDs and the upcoming trials. Several pictures in the printed version showing Jon Johansen and his father and their farmhouse. http://postnet.com/postnet/stories.nsf/ByDocID/4B247B71707F0B6B862569FE0045DE74 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 05:50:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA21477 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 05:50:59 -0500 Received: from mx02.uni-tuebingen.de (mx02.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA21474 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 05:50:57 -0500 Received: from jcz194 (jcz194.jura.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.35.194]) by mx02.uni-tuebingen.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA06527; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:56:02 +0100 From: "Stefan Bechtold" To: Cc: , Subject: [dvd-discuss] FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:56:03 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20001016184318.B8827@eldritchpress.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu FYI: A statement by the EU commission concerning the region coding/antitrust issue (answering a question by Glyn Ford, PSE) has been published in the Official Journal of the EU, OJ C 53E, February 20, 2001, pp. 157-158, currently available at http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2001/ce053/ce05320010220en01570157.p df and http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2001/ce053/ce05320010220en01580159.p df Stefan -- # Stefan Bechtold stef@n-bechtold.com Tuebingen, Germany # # http://www.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~s-bes1 # # Time is what prevents everything from happening at once. # From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 06:07:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA21683 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 06:07:10 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA21680 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 06:07:08 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb14.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.20]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98A727ABB for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:06:11 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E227D175195; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:09:08 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:09:08 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission Message-ID: <20010227120908.C22153@lemuria.org> References: <20001016184318.B8827@eldritchpress.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from stef@n-bechtold.com on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 11:56:03AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 11:56:03AM +0100, Stefan Bechtold wrote: > A statement by the EU commission concerning the region coding/antitrust > issue (answering a question by Glyn Ford, PSE) has been published in the > Official Journal of the EU, OJ C 53E, February 20, 2001, pp. 157-158, > currently available at any summary? I don't have a pdf reader at this machine. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 06:22:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA21879 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 06:22:28 -0500 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA21876 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 06:22:26 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 14XiI3-00038R-00; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:27:35 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 14XiI5-0005pi-00; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:27:37 +0100 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:27:37 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission Message-ID: <20010227122736.B16209@inka.de> References: <20001016184318.B8827@eldritchpress.org> <20010227120908.C22153@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010227120908.C22153@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 12:09:08PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 12:09:08PM +0100, Tom wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 11:56:03AM +0100, Stefan Bechtold wrote: > > A statement by the EU commission concerning the region coding/antitrust > > issue (answering a question by Glyn Ford, PSE) has been published in the > > Official Journal of the EU, OJ C 53E, February 20, 2001, pp. 157-158, > > currently available at > > any summary? I don't have a pdf reader at this machine. The first of the documents seems to be a mispaste or something. It's about protective fire clothing, not DVDs. The second says that region coding may possibly be used anticompetitively, but so far no consumer groups have comlained. CSS (which they describe as "strong encryption") and other forms of "copy protection" are "crucial to the future of the DVD and flm industry". The document claims "The copy protection schemes are indeed designed to prevent illegal and abusive copying, which is said to cause billion of dollars in lost revenue to the producers of films and of electronic data." Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 06:24:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA21926 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 06:24:20 -0500 Received: from mx02.uni-tuebingen.de (mx02.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA21921 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 06:24:18 -0500 Received: from jcz194 (jcz194.jura.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.35.194]) by mx02.uni-tuebingen.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA09026 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:29:28 +0100 From: "Stefan Bechtold" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] RE: FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:29:26 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20010227120908.C22153@lemuria.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > any summary? I don't have a pdf reader at this machine. No summary, but here's the fulltext: ;) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- (2001/C 53 E/203) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1509/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (12 May 2000) Subject: DVD players and free competition Is the Commission aware that DVD players are deliberately designed to prevent free competition in the pricing of DVD discs by being segregated into six global regions? That means that European Union citizens cannot benefit from purchasing cheap DVD discs available in many parts of the world? Does not the Commission feel that this anti-competitive behaviour should be prohibited? (2001/C 53 E/204) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1510/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (12 May 2000) Subject: DVD players Most purchasers of DVD players in the EU object to the deliberate installation of technologies to make them pay a premium on the price of DVD discs. Accordingly, they arrange to have them ‚chipped™ at a cost of around € 150 to remove this anti-competitive technology and to allow them to video-record DVD discs. The manufacturers then say that the guarantees are rendered void. Does not the Commission feel that such an approach by manufacturers should be declared illegal? Joint answer to Written Questions E-1509/00 and E-1510/00 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (14 June 2000) As the Honourable Member is probably aware, the digital versatile disc (DVD) technology was jointly developed in the nineties by a consortium of ten companies: Hitachi Ltd, Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Time Warner Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Victor Company of Japan, Ltd (JVC), Philips, Sony, Pioneer and Thomson. The standard specifications for this technology were established to define the DVD discs as well as the rules, conditions, and mechanisms for players to read the discs and convert them into images for screen display. The standard specifications implicate the intellectual property rights of the ten firms mentioned above. DVDs can contain far more information than other optical discs such as compact discs and can therefore deliver higher quality video, audio and multimedia. It is true that those companies are supporting a system of regional coding so that DVD producers have the option of coding new releases according to the region of the world where the DVD should be played. Six geographical regions have been identified. All the Member States of the European Economic Area (EEA), together with a number of other countries, are included in a single region. This coding enables producers of motion pictures to protect their copyrighted intellectual property and the traditional pattern of releasing their films at different times in different parts of the world. Film producers and local cinemas would be prejudiced if, for example, a DVD video released initially in the United States gained widespread distribution prematurely in Europe before theatrical distribution has commenced or been completed. To release a film at different times and at different prices in different parts of the world is an exercise by film producers of their rights under copyright law. Using regional coding to enforce these rights could not therefore be considered illicit per se, particularly if no abuse of dominant position is established. The exercise of these rights could also become a competition issue if it were established that two or more of the firms concerned (DVD producers and DVD player manufacturers) were using the pro-competitive technological co-operation involved in developing a common open standard for DVD, to engage in concerted practices consisting in aligning policies on the timing and pricing of the release of their products. The Commission has already investigated these issues in the past (in an ex-officio proceeding opened in 1996), has not found any behaviour infringing Article 81 or 82 (ex Articles 85 & 86) of the EC Treaty. It has no additional information that would enable it to change its view. In addition, some parties involved in the development of the DVD standard have jointly notified their licensing agreements. Following the publication of a notice ( 1 ) in the Official journal inviting third parties to comment, no answer has been received from any association of consumers. Concerning the question of recording video discs, the DVD standard includes several forms of copy protection, in particular a strong encryption of the data stored on the disc to which the Honourable Member refers. These protections may prevent recording from a DVD. Because of the potential for perfect digital copies offered by this new technology, this possibility for film owners to protect their data is crucial for the future of the DVD and film industry. The copy protection schemes are indeed designed to prevent illegal and abusive copying, which is said to cause billion of dollars in lost revenue to the producers of films and of electronic data. Under these circumstances, the refusal by a manufacturer to extend the guarantee of its DVD player that has been deliberately modified by the user to illegally copy DVDs cannot be seen as an anti-competitive behaviour. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- Stefan -- # Stefan Bechtold stef@n-bechtold.com Tuebingen, Germany # # http://www.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~s-bes1 # # Time is what prevents everything from happening at once. # From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 07:11:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA22426 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:11:25 -0500 Received: from mx02.uni-tuebingen.de (mx02.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA22423 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:11:22 -0500 Received: from jcz194 (jcz194.jura.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.35.194]) by mx02.uni-tuebingen.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA12296 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:16:29 +0100 From: "Stefan Bechtold" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] RE: [FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:16:29 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20010227122736.B16209@inka.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > The first of the documents seems to be a mispaste or something. It's about > protective fire clothing, not DVDs. It's no mispaste, have a look at the bottom of the page. It contains the first of two questions to which the Commission answers on the next page. Stefan -- # Stefan Bechtold stef@n-bechtold.com Tuebingen, Germany # # http://www.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~s-bes1 # # Time is what prevents everything from happening at once. # From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 09:05:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA24055 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:05:01 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA24050 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:04:59 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10438; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:10:08 GMT Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:10:08 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Don't 'Think ebooks' :-) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <20010226091642.C30872@eldritchpress.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Eric Eldred writes: > I believe this discussion originated with the point > that the DMCA covers more than just DVDs. Some of > suggested that the public might be able to understand > books better than recorded movies. It is not > necessarily a point we need to raise extensively in > this 2600 appeal. > Ah - I misunderstood the intent of the thread. Sorry. > > But that's not an argument for the '2600' court. Don't try and waste their > > time with it. > > Heck, I hope I wasn't wasting anybody's time, was I? But what > do you think about another suit to attack this weakness of the > DMCA? > No offence intended. What I meant was that there was a risk that an ebooks analogy argument would risk (unless it was very clear and obvious) being seen **by the court** as a waste of their time. That wouldn't help the cause at all. However, if there is mileage in the 'ebooks' idea, I'd suggest concentrating more on the lines of "if all future writers published ebooks only, then nothing would ever get into the public domain at the end of the term". I'd avoid the bits about complaining that the ebook of Alice doesn't let you do certain things. Surely that is the publisher's prerogative. ( A possible argument that might be run against that perogative is if, somehow, the text of the ebook version of Alice is deemed "better" or "more complete" than the best clear-text version, AND that the laws on "derived works" prevent the ebook publisher claiming copyright on these enhancements to Alice in their version. If this was the case, you'd have the situation that the best version of 'Alice' in the world (the ebook) was ruled PD, yet not accessible because of the ebook's TPM. You'd have a case then. ) ----------------------- The trouble with the 'Alice' example was that 'Alice' is already in the PD, and of course it got there because it was published in plain-text format and can now be scanned and distributed electronically (or by any other means). Can you re-craft your argument to take as an example a new work, only available in ebook form, which can be shown won't go PD at the end of its term because of the TPM? -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 09:23:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA24303 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:23:55 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f191.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.191]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA24300 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:23:54 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 06:28:33 -0800 Received: from 12.109.34.93 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:28:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.109.34.93] From: "Richard Bowers" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:28:33 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2001 14:28:33.0814 (UTC) FILETIME=[906A7360:01C0A0C9] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >From: Sham Gardner >On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 12:09:08PM +0100, Tom wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 11:56:03AM +0100, Stefan Bechtold wrote: > > > A statement by the EU commission concerning the region >coding/antitrust > > > issue (answering a question by Glyn Ford, PSE) has been published in >the > > > Official Journal of the EU, OJ C 53E, February 20, 2001, pp. 157-158, > > > currently available at > > > > any summary? I don't have a pdf reader at this machine. > >The first of the documents seems to be a mispaste or something. It's about >protective fire clothing, not DVDs. Scroll down - the first question begins at the bottom of the page. Its answered as part of the second link, though, and the answer is more interesting than the question. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 10:29:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA25059 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:29:16 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA25056 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:29:14 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:34:20 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:34:18 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/27/2001 07:34:20 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu They bought the BS. "Stefan Bechtold" To: Sent by: cc: , owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission 02/27/01 02:58 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss FYI: A statement by the EU commission concerning the region coding/antitrust issue (answering a question by Glyn Ford, PSE) has been published in the Official Journal of the EU, OJ C 53E, February 20, 2001, pp. 157-158, currently available at http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2001/ce053/ce05320010220en01570157.p df and http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2001/ce053/ce05320010220en01580159.p df Stefan -- # Stefan Bechtold stef@n-bechtold.com Tuebingen, Germany # # http://www.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~s-bes1 # # Time is what prevents everything from happening at once. # From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 11:20:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26249 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:20:24 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26246 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:20:22 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 130B027ACF; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:19:40 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:19:40 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission Message-ID: <20010227171939.B15024@lemuria.org> References: <20010227120908.C22153@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from stef@n-bechtold.com on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 12:29:26PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 12:29:26PM +0100, Stefan Bechtold wrote: > Under these circumstances, the refusal by a manufacturer to extend the > guarantee of its DVD player that > has been deliberately modified by the user to illegally copy DVDs cannot be > seen as an anti-competitive > behaviour. now that is a jump to conclusion if I've ever seen one. the modification that they're talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with copying. it removes the REGION LOCKING. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 11:40:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26554 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:40:12 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26551 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:40:10 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10950; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:45:21 GMT Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:45:21 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Richard Bowers" writes: > Scroll down - the first question begins at the bottom of the page. Its > answered as part of the second link, though, and the answer is more > interesting than the question. > ...where "interesting" means that it shows that the EU currently thinks that encryption of copyright material is justifiable (even when you've *bought* a copy), and that somehow the possibility of "perfect digital copies" threatens copyright holders more than analog copies. They then go on to talk of copies made by videotaping the output of a DVD player as if these would be these "perfect digital copies" which of course they aren't. ------------------------- Tom Vogt and Lars Gaarden suggested that we need an "Openlaw-EU". They are right. Unlike our unfortunate friends in the 'States, we still have some small hope of derailing the MPAA's foreign legion. But we'd better get on with it and quick! I had hoped I could camp out and learn from the American openlaw discussions a bit more before we were forced into action in the EU. But we can't hang around for long. Where do you sign up? Have we got any real e-lawyers amongst the Europeans on this list? -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 11:44:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26698 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:44:51 -0500 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26695 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:44:48 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 14XnJz-00049c-00; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:49:55 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 14XnK2-0000gi-00; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:49:58 +0100 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:49:58 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission Message-ID: <20010227174957.A388@inka.de> References: <20010227120908.C22153@lemuria.org> <20010227171939.B15024@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010227171939.B15024@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 05:19:40PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 05:19:40PM +0100, Tom wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 12:29:26PM +0100, Stefan Bechtold wrote: > > Under these circumstances, the refusal by a manufacturer to extend the > > guarantee of its DVD player that > > has been deliberately modified by the user to illegally copy DVDs cannot be > > seen as an anti-competitive > > behaviour. > > now that is a jump to conclusion if I've ever seen one. the > modification that they're talking about has nothing whatsoever to do > with copying. it removes the REGION LOCKING. FWIW Some of them also remove macrovision. Howver, even that has nothing to do with the perfect digital copies they seem so obsessed with. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 11:49:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26863 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:49:12 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26860 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:49:10 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10965; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:54:20 GMT Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:54:20 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <20010227171939.B15024@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom writes: > > has been deliberately modified by the user to illegally copy DVDs cannot be > > seen as an anti-competitive > > behaviour. > > now that is a jump to conclusion if I've ever seen one. the > modification that they're talking about has nothing whatsoever to do > with copying. it removes the REGION LOCKING. > Not sure what it's like in Germany, Tom, but the hack on my DVD player diables the region locking *and* removes the Macrovision. However, I've never actually tested this latter point, and it is true that the *reason* I got the hack done was to remove the region lock. As I pointed out in a previous message, even if you do gain the ability to copy DVDs to tape as a side-effect of the hack, that doesn't provide this "perfect digital copy" bogeyman referred-to earlier in the EU's response. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 11:53:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26999 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:53:48 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26996 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:53:47 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id B36A827ACF; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:53:05 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:53:05 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission Message-ID: <20010227175305.C15024@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:34:18AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:34:18AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > They bought the BS. I already wrote them. someone else care to point out the FACTUAL error that they call it "strong encryption" when in real life not only pretty much every cryptographer, but people working for the original developers said ON COURT RECORDS that it's not? come on - I can't be the only EU citizen here, right? you can grab their e-mail from the reply that I cc'ed here. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 11:56:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27180 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:56:10 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27177 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:56:09 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id C14ED27ACF; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:55:27 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:55:27 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission Message-ID: <20010227175527.E15024@lemuria.org> References: <20010227120908.C22153@lemuria.org> <20010227171939.B15024@lemuria.org> <20010227174957.A388@inka.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010227174957.A388@inka.de>; from mail@risctaker.inka.de on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 05:49:58PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 05:49:58PM +0100, Sham Gardner wrote: > FWIW Some of them also remove macrovision. Howver, even that has nothing to > do with the perfect digital copies they seem so obsessed with. yes. I considered that in my mail to the commission. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 11:55:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27166 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:55:45 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27163 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:55:43 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 5ADA327ACF; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:55:02 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:55:02 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission Message-ID: <20010227175502.D15024@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from steve@i2it.co.uk on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:45:21PM +0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:45:21PM +0000, Steve Hosgood wrote: > They then go on to talk of copies made by videotaping the output of a DVD > player as if these would be these "perfect digital copies" which of course > they aren't. good point! someone please point that out as well. can we collect a few more? I'd like to get an article published about that. so many real, factual errors in such a small reply. we've gotta get that into a magazine, and I think I know one or two that would be interested... > Tom Vogt and Lars Gaarden suggested > that we need an "Openlaw-EU". They are right. Unlike our unfortunate friends > in the 'States, we still have some small hope of derailing the MPAA's foreign > legion. But we'd better get on with it and quick! I had hoped I could camp > out and learn from the American openlaw discussions a bit more before we were > forced into action in the EU. > > But we can't hang around for long. Where do you sign up? > Have we got any real e-lawyers amongst the Europeans on this list? I can offer infrastructure, such as webhosting and mailing list service for this project. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 12:02:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA27353 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:02:02 -0500 Received: from Mailserver-4.ricardo.de (root@henry.ricardo.de [62.197.4.171]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26708 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:45:18 -0500 Received: from exchange.office.ricardo.de (stargate.ricardo.de [62.197.4.1]) by Mailserver-4.ricardo.de (8.8.8/HENRY-frank-1.4) with ESMTP id RAA06605; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:50:12 +0100 Received: from ricardo.de (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by exchange.office.ricardo.de with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id F312H1XV; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:50:09 +0100 Message-ID: <3A9BD961.57C071CB@ricardo.de> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:44:17 +0100 From: Tom X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.16 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: infocomp@cec.eu.int CC: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] errors in answers to written question E-1510/00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu dear sirs, your answers in 2001/C 53 E/204 (E/158) from 12 May 2000 contain two critical error that considerably endanger the validity of your conclusion. after discussing the purpose and features of DVDs, you finish with: Under these circumstances, the refusal by a manufacturer to extend the guarantee of its DVD player that has been deliberately modified by the user to illegally copy DVDs cannot be seen as an anti-competitive behaviour. however, there are two very important aspects to the artificial DVD technology restrictions that are ignored by this answer and do - in my opinion - damage it's believability: a) the most common modification has nothing to do with copying at all. it removes the region locking which you extensively mention in your answer but without considering it in your conclusion. a player thus modified does not allow any copying, it merely allows playback of a legally acquired DVD that happens to be from a different region. b) it can be safely assumed that considerable parts of even those modifications which do allow copying do not fall under the description of "deliberately modified by the user to illegally copy DVDs" since the user does have LEGAL copying, such as for personal use, archival or excerpts for works of his own in mind. in many EU member nations, the user has a RIGHT to these uses if he legally acquired a copy of the work in question. to assume that any copying the user may wish to engage in is automatically illegal would be to overturn about 2500 years of legal history, summed up in the latin "in dubio pro reo". and even that is already quite an assault on consumers as it assumes they already ARE "reo"s, defendants, to begin with. I respectfully request that you re-evaluate your answer in light of these points and would be very happy to see a clarification of the 12 May 2001 document. Tom Vogt Germany From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 12:39:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA27823 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:39:25 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA27820 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:39:23 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id JAA17709 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:44:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma013741; Tue, 27 Feb 01 09:36:09 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:38:03 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06171; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:36:08 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] RE: FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EUcommission Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:45:38 -0700 Message-ID: <000801c0a0e5$1861ee40$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-WSS-ID: 16853A7062410-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Steve Hosgood inscribe in the ether Tuesday, February 27, 2001 9:54 AM > Tom writes: > > > has been deliberately modified by the user to illegally copy > DVDs cannot be > > > seen as an anti-competitive > > > behaviour. > > > > now that is a jump to conclusion if I've ever seen one. the > > modification that they're talking about has nothing whatsoever to do > > with copying. it removes the REGION LOCKING. > > > > As I pointed out in a previous message, even if you do gain the ability > to copy DVDs to tape as a side-effect of the hack, that doesn't provide > this "perfect digital copy" bogeyman referred-to earlier in the EU's > response. And as always the get it exactly backwards. Digital source material is not remarkably at risk, it is the presence of inexpensive digitization and reproduction tools that put the material at risk. These of course are far harder to control, and render any copy protection or region coding moot. Plug a VCR into a MPEG card on a PC and every copy looks as good as the original did on your TV. The are forgetting that VHS copies look crappy because VHS recording of VHS playback is crappy. A good digitizer (or a D-1 tape deck) would preserve the orignal quality (flaws and all) at exactly the level of the original. What I found shocking was the contention that somehow (unlike all other products) movie producers have the "legal right" to sell the same product in to different countries at different prices and can prevent import/export business from competing with their inequitable pricing. I can understand (almost) the concept of a right from the standpoint of theatrical release -- this is performance, not publication. If I want to perform an unpublished work -- I can do so anyway I choose. Even choosing not to perform it at all. Publication is different than performance. Once I have fixed the work in a tangible medium, and recieved compensation, I only retain the rights to prevent non-fair reproduction, and public performance. I have been compensated for a copy of the work, and it is published (i.e. "available to the public"). Somehow the EU has missed this important distiction, and the movies studios don't want them to see it. The movie studios want to both publish their works, and control them as if they were not published. If the movies studios didn't want to lose the control of the work, they shouldn't have published it. If the movie studios don't want to have US DVD's compete against European theatrical release, then the should delay the US DVD release. I'm sure the studios would complain -- "we'll miss the Christmas selling season." Well, folks these are the kinds of decisions **adults** and managers in other business make all the time. If you want the US Christmas $'s then you'll sacrifice some of the EU theatrical Euro's. DUH! Why should the movie studios be allowed to avoid making these hard choices? Why should they be able to profit from publication without giving up the control implied by that publication. The studios seems to have asserted some sort of "divine right" to have their cake and eat it too, and the gov't US and EU have accepted it with utter uncriticality. Consider the release of hardback and softback books. While I'm sure publishers would prefer to be able to sell softbacks in one country while another can only get hardbacks -- no one would stand for such an obvious restraint of trade (and there are strong US precedents against it). However, the EU seems to be claiming that since it is inconvenient for the movie companies to withhold US release of films still in worldwide theatrical release, they should be able to control the import/export of a product (and fix prices) to avoid paying the consequences of their impatience to release in the US. This is palpable nonsense. If I'm in the car business, and I want to roll out the 2001's models in the EU while still trying clear the stocks of 2000 models elsewhere, one should not expect the government to prevent the export of 2001's to countries where they are withheld. Earth to the EU commission: Yes -- the studios have a right to control the release of their films for theatrical performance. Yes -- the studios have the right to decided to publish (or not publish) their films at a time of their own choosing. NO -- they don't have the right to avoid the economic and business consequences of that result from the combination of those two choices. No gov't can claim a "compelling interest" in protect a company from it's own choices. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 16:12:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA30280 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:12:09 -0500 Received: from rasputin.trustix.com (rasputin.trustix.com [195.139.104.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA30277 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:12:06 -0500 Received: from trustix.com (singsing.trustix.com [195.139.105.100]) by rasputin.trustix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91CAA61DC2 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:19:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A9C1998.4040707@trustix.com> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:18:16 +0100 From: Lars Gaarden Organization: Trustix AS User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-ac4 i686; en-US; 0.8) Gecko/20010220 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EUcommission References: <000801c0a0e5$1861ee40$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Zulauf wrote: > What I found shocking was the contention that somehow (unlike all other > products) movie producers have the "legal right" to sell the same product in > to different countries at different prices and can prevent import/export > business from competing with their inequitable pricing. Did some research on this today. Some norwegian DVD resellers have actually been put out of business due to the pressure from Norsk VideogramForening (Norwegian Videogram Union(?)). NVF consists mainly of Egmont, Universal and Scanbox. i.e., those who have the norwegian distribution right to hollywood movies. They don't want any resellers to import Zone1 movies, they're even trying to make import illegal. They are currently dragging three of the largest DVD resellers in Norway to court over this. I have also heard rumours that they are asking EFTA to make a ruling to the effect that Zone1 imports are illegal. They are also trying to stop private import of movies, by erecting a toll barrier. They want a steep tax/VAT to be applied to any goods with a value more than 200NKr (~20USD) bought from abroad by a private person. The goal being that only Zone2 movies should be available in the european market, and anyone - be it companies or individuals - who thinks otherwise should be dragged to court. -- LarsG From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 16:48:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA30668 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:48:12 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA30665 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:48:10 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb2d.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.45]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213F327AFC for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:47:28 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 33018175195; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:50:18 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:50:18 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EUcommission Message-ID: <20010227225017.B23042@lemuria.org> References: <000801c0a0e5$1861ee40$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> <3A9C1998.4040707@trustix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A9C1998.4040707@trustix.com>; from larsg@trustix.com on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:18:16PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:18:16PM +0100, Lars Gaarden wrote: > The goal being that only Zone2 movies should be available in the > european market, and anyone - be it companies or individuals - who > thinks otherwise should be dragged to court. add to this the fact that sometimes the r1 and the r2 dvds are distributed by DIFFERENT hollywood studios, and the anti-trust people should be all over them. why aren't they? -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 18:44:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA32408 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:44:13 -0500 Received: from spdmraab.compuserve.com (ds-img-rel-2.compuserve.com [149.174.206.155]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA32405 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:44:12 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id SAA15684 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:48:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from LocalHost (sfr-tgn-sfw-vty72.as.wcom.net [216.192.41.72]) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id SAA15648 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:48:51 -0500 (EST) From: "Juergen + Barbara" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission -- goto Adobe Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:48:43 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20010227120908.C22153@lemuria.org> Disposition-Notification-To: "Juergen + Barbara" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu go to www.adobe.com -- Acrobat Reader programs (freewrae) are available for a variety of platforms! Thanks, jm. -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Sent: Dienstag, 27. Februar 2001 03:09 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 11:56:03AM +0100, Stefan Bechtold wrote: > A statement by the EU commission concerning the region coding/antitrust > issue (answering a question by Glyn Ford, PSE) has been published in the > Official Journal of the EU, OJ C 53E, February 20, 2001, pp. 157-158, > currently available at any summary? I don't have a pdf reader at this machine. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 18:55:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA32589 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:55:29 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA32586 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:55:27 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb2d.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.45]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA12E27B0E for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:54:44 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2AF53175195; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:57:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:57:42 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FYI: DVD region coding / antitrust / EU commission -- goto Adobe Message-ID: <20010228005741.A23190@lemuria.org> References: <20010227120908.C22153@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jmhoraze@compuserve.com on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 03:48:43PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 03:48:43PM -0800, Juergen + Barbara wrote: > go to www.adobe.com -- Acrobat Reader programs (freewrae) are available for a variety of platforms! yes, but they all require some kind of GUI. this machine doesn't even have a mouse attached. :) no prob though, I read it at work. (my other home machine is busy with a huge rendering job) -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Feb 27 20:28:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA01349 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:28:39 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA01342 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:28:26 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA01862 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:36:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:36:09 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] pdf (was -- goto Adobe) Message-ID: <20010227203609.F1156@eldritchpress.org> References: <20010227120908.C22153@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from jmhoraze@compuserve.com on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 03:48:43PM -0800 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 03:48:43PM -0800, Juergen + Barbara wrote: > go to www.adobe.com -- Acrobat Reader programs (freewrae) are available for a variety of platforms! > xpdf works well too on gnu/linux and probably other x windows machines From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 28 01:24:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA03468 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 01:24:04 -0500 Received: from zork.zork.net (user68704@[208.41.174.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA03463 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 01:23:54 -0500 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14Y06c-000507-00; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:28:58 -0800 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:28:58 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] errors in answers to written question E-1510/00 Message-ID: <20010227222858.C13221@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: Seth David Schoen , dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <3A9BD961.57C071CB@ricardo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A9BD961.57C071CB@ricardo.de>; from tom@ricardo.de on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 05:44:17PM +0100 X-Accept-Language: en,la,eo Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom writes: > to assume that any copying the user may wish to engage in is > automatically illegal would be to overturn about 2500 years of legal > history, summed up in the latin "in dubio pro reo". Also "abusus non tollit usum". It would be fun to collect the whole set of legal maxims on the benefit-of-the-doubt and prior-restraint principles. > and even that is > already quite an assault on consumers as it assumes they already ARE > "reo"s, defendants, to begin with. I think the plural of "reus" is "rei"; "reo" is the dative singular. -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 28 01:54:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA03875 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 01:54:21 -0500 Received: from PROXY.mitswa.com.au (cust-mits.optus.net.au [202.139.53.82] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA03870 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 01:54:17 -0500 Received: from 192.168.200.12 by PROXY.mitswa.com.au (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:03:05 +0800 Received: by cbt.mitswa.com.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:48:58 +0800 Message-ID: <54A50136B6CAD3118FBD00C00D00DDEF03755C@cbt.mitswa.com.au> From: "McMeikan, Andrew" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] teenagers jailed for refusing to watch adds Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:48:57 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: text/plain Just for info, I'm sure the MPAA wont arrest anyone for skipping adds, or will they? This incident arose from religious beliefs held by the teenagers in question, perhaps this could be a DeCSS defense? http://adbusters.org/magazine/34/jail.html "When Ohio teenagers DJ and Carlotta Maurer walked out of their classrooms in October to protest the compulsory viewing of Channel One, a television program with commercials which is shown in schools across America, school officials realized they had a couple of dangerous radicals on their hands. Principal Patrick Calvin invoked the truancy provision of the school's code of student conduct, and 13-year-old DJ and 14-year-old Carlotta were whisked away to the Wood County Juvenile Detention Center, where they had all day to consider their crime. " cya, Andrew... --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: text/plain; name="InterScan_Disclaimer.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="InterScan_Disclaimer.txt" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The information transmitted is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, copying, or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have recieved this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from you system. Logica is not responsible for any changes made to the material other than those made by Logica or for the effect of the changes on the meaning of the material. --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 28 01:53:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA03860 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 01:53:56 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA03857 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 01:53:54 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb14.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.20]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5693227AD5 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:53:07 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 97A78175195; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:56:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:56:02 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] errors in answers to written question E-1510/00 Message-ID: <20010228075601.B23494@lemuria.org> References: <3A9BD961.57C071CB@ricardo.de> <20010227222858.C13221@zork.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010227222858.C13221@zork.net>; from schoen@loyalty.org on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:28:58PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:28:58PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > and even that is > > already quite an assault on consumers as it assumes they already ARE > > "reo"s, defendants, to begin with. > > I think the plural of "reus" is "rei"; "reo" is the dative singular. possible, my latin has been out of use for almost 10 years. :) -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 28 02:35:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA04356 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 02:35:05 -0500 Received: from mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.84]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA04353 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 02:35:03 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010228074009.OVLB25888.mail1.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:40:09 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Anti-trust Issues in making deCSS illegal. Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:54:09 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022800540901.05259@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id CAA04354 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Aren't their any anti-trust issues in making deCSS illegal? I mean by making this illegal doesn't this introduce some sort of unfair monopoly in the dvd player market? Since the Prosecution is making a profit on selling the CSS information to DVD player manufacturors don't they maintain control of the dvd player market if this happens? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 28 03:07:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA04721 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:07:31 -0500 Received: from PROXY.mitswa.com.au (cust-mits.optus.net.au [202.139.53.82] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id DAA04718 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:07:28 -0500 Received: from 192.168.200.12 by PROXY.mitswa.com.au (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:16:17 +0800 Received: by cbt.mitswa.com.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:02:10 +0800 Message-ID: <54A50136B6CAD3118FBD00C00D00DDEF03755F@cbt.mitswa.com.au> From: "McMeikan, Andrew" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Anti-trust Issues in making deCSS illegal. Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:02:09 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: text/plain Since no one else is trying to produce movies based on an improved CSS that can be decoded by DeCSS+ but not by MPAA approved players, then there is no competition. No competition no anti-competitive behavior, since the only movies that exist on DVD are playable on MPAA players. If a movie was published with the disc key zone blank as it is generally available DVD blanks but still with content encrypted, then I proposed that this is an improvement on CSS and will only be playable on Linux (or compatible) non-MPAA approved players and that competition will then truly exist and the commercial use of DeCSS will established beyond anyone's doubt. Once a commercial competitor exists, (even if its Joe Average selling copies of his home movie 'a day in the park') Ideally a complete Linux player could also be on the disc (not sure of tech details). I don't think the MPAA could get a competitor banned because they have a superior product, at least I hope not. cya, Andrew... > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip V. Neves [SMTP:pneves@aicompro.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 8:54 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Anti-trust Issues in making deCSS illegal. > > Aren't their any anti-trust issues in making deCSS illegal? I mean by > making > this illegal doesn't this introduce some sort of unfair monopoly in the > dvd > player market? Since the Prosecution is making a profit on selling the CSS > > information to DVD player manufacturors don't they maintain control of the > > dvd player market if this happens? --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: text/plain; name="InterScan_Disclaimer.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="InterScan_Disclaimer.txt" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The information transmitted is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, copying, or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have recieved this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from you system. Logica is not responsible for any changes made to the material other than those made by Logica or for the effect of the changes on the meaning of the material. --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 28 03:51:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA05405 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:51:12 -0500 Received: from mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com (mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com [24.2.10.85]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA05402 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:51:10 -0500 Received: from rasputan ([24.115.230.97]) by mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010228085616.FFMG585.mail2.rdc2.bc.home.com@rasputan> for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:56:16 -0800 From: "Philip V. Neves" Organization: RagingGuppy.com To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Anti-trust Issues in making deCSS illegal. Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 02:10:16 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" References: <54A50136B6CAD3118FBD00C00D00DDEF03755F@cbt.mitswa.com.au> In-Reply-To: <54A50136B6CAD3118FBD00C00D00DDEF03755F@cbt.mitswa.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022802101600.05532@rasputan> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id DAA05403 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Ya but what about knock offs. You see them all the time with other products? On Wednesday 28 February 2001 08:02, you wrote: > > Since no one else is trying to produce movies based on an improved CSS that > can be decoded by DeCSS+ but not by MPAA approved players, then there is no > competition. > > No competition no anti-competitive behavior, since the only movies that > exist on DVD are playable on MPAA players. > > If a movie was published with the disc key zone blank as it is generally > available DVD blanks but still with content encrypted, then I proposed that > this is an improvement on CSS and will only be playable on Linux (or > compatible) non-MPAA approved players and that competition will then truly > exist and the commercial use of DeCSS will established beyond anyone's > doubt. > > Once a commercial competitor exists, (even if its Joe Average selling > copies of his home movie 'a day in the park') > > Ideally a complete Linux player could also be on the disc (not sure of tech > details). > > I don't think the MPAA could get a competitor banned because they have a > superior product, at least I hope not. > > cya, Andrew... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Philip V. Neves [SMTP:pneves@aicompro.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 8:54 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Anti-trust Issues in making deCSS illegal. > > > > Aren't their any anti-trust issues in making deCSS illegal? I mean by > > making > > this illegal doesn't this introduce some sort of unfair monopoly in the > > dvd > > player market? Since the Prosecution is making a profit on selling the > > CSS > > > > information to DVD player manufacturors don't they maintain control of > > the > > > > dvd player market if this happens? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 28 04:00:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA05563 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 04:00:51 -0500 Received: from PROXY.mitswa.com.au (cust-mits.optus.net.au [202.139.53.82] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA05560 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 04:00:47 -0500 Received: from 192.168.200.12 by PROXY.mitswa.com.au (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:09:34 +0800 Received: by cbt.mitswa.com.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:55:26 +0800 Message-ID: <54A50136B6CAD3118FBD00C00D00DDEF037562@cbt.mitswa.com.au> From: "McMeikan, Andrew" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Anti-trust Issues in making deCSS illegal. Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:55:25 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: text/plain Unless you have something a bit better and separate then it will just be sued out of existence like DeCSS. A judge will end up asking why it is a *valid* product. (the fact that this would be asked to me shows what is wrong with the whole system, I have no doubts that it will be asked though) cya, Andrew... > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip V. Neves [SMTP:pneves@aicompro.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 10:10 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Anti-trust Issues in making deCSS illegal. > > Ya but what about knock offs. You see them all the time with other > products? > > On Wednesday 28 February 2001 08:02, you wrote: > > > > Since no one else is trying to produce movies based on an improved CSS > > that > > can be decoded by DeCSS+ but not by MPAA approved players, then there is > no > > competition. > > > > No competition no anti-competitive behavior, since the only movies that > > exist on DVD are playable on MPAA players. --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: text/plain; name="InterScan_Disclaimer.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="InterScan_Disclaimer.txt" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The information transmitted is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, copying, or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have recieved this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from you system. Logica is not responsible for any changes made to the material other than those made by Logica or for the effect of the changes on the meaning of the material. --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 28 04:28:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA06135 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 04:28:27 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA06132 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 04:28:22 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA31861; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 04:32:39 -0500 Message-Id: <200102280932.EAA31861@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] pdf (was -- goto Adobe) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:36:09 EST." <20010227203609.F1156@eldritchpress.org> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 04:32:09 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Eric Eldred writes: : On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 03:48:43PM -0800, Juergen + Barbara wrote: : > go to www.adobe.com -- Acrobat Reader programs (freewrae) are available for : a variety of platforms! : > : : xpdf works well too on gnu/linux and : probably other x windows machines xpdf does not work with all pdf files, there are some fonts and renderings it cannot handle. In those cases on a Linux box one has to use the free Acrobat reader from Adobe. But xpdf allows one to cut text out of of the pdf file and paste it into another file, while Acroread for Linux does not permit that in so far as I can tell. For producing pdf files on a Linux box, I find that pdflatex supplemented by hypertext does an excellent job. One thing is missing on Linux though---and this, I think, ties in with with some earlier discussions on this list---one can't produce or, as far as I know, read encrypted pdf files using non-Adobe software. The pdf encryption was no included, so I understand, because of the US export regulations on encryption. If someone were to right a free (or open) pdf reader that could handle encrypted pdf files, would the use of that program by someone who has the key that permits decryption of a file using the Adobe software be an unauthorized circumvention that would be actionable by the owner of the copyright in the encrypted file? If not, how does that differ from using DeCSS? (I'm still thinking about the problems that the DMCA presents for those who want to write open software for creating and reading ebooks.) -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Feb 28 05:16:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA07523 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 05:16:49 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA07520 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 05:16:41 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11501; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:21:52 GMT Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:21:52 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] pdf (was -- goto Adobe) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <200102280932.EAA31861@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Peter D. Junger writes: > One thing is missing on Linux though---and this, I think, ties in with > with some earlier discussions on this list---one can't produce or, as > far as I know, read encrypted pdf files using non-Adobe software. The > pdf encryption was no included, so I understand, because of the US export > regulations on encryption. > Not so, Peter! Get a newer version from a European mirror. Mine says: % xpdf --help xpdf version 0.7a (encryption) Copyright © 1996-1998 Derek B. Noonburg Encryption by Leo J.B. Smiers ....and I'm pretty sure this is no-where near the latest available. > If someone were to right a free (or open) pdf reader that could handle > encrypted pdf files, would the use of that program by someone who has > the key that permits decryption of a file using the Adobe software be > an unauthorized circumvention that would be actionable by the owner > of the copyright in the encrypted file? If not, how does that differ > from using DeCSS? > > (I'm still thinking about the problems that the DMCA presents for those > who want to write open software for creating and reading ebooks.) > Well, it's been done! AFAIK, decryption for xpdf has been there for quite a few years (my copy of xpdf has a file datestamp of Oct 1998). I don't have the source code for this one. so I can't check there. Looks like some possibilites for interesting parallels with the deCSS and ebooks threads.... -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" )