Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

community_studios - [Community_studios] Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Elcomsoft hearing, April 1

community_studios AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: tom poe <tompoe AT renonevada.net>
  • To: Seth David Schoen <schoen AT loyalty.org>, free-sklyarov AT zork.net
  • Cc: "CommStudios" <community_studios AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Community_studios] Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Elcomsoft hearing, April 1
  • Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 20:38:59 -0800

On Monday 01 April 2002 19:44, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Alex Katalov writes:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Unfortunately, my English is not so good to describe all what was
> > there, but I hope that Seth will help me!
> >
> > I can say only that total discussion was not too long, and the time
> > was limited - it seems that judge had learn most from the previously
> > filed motions (you can see them at
> > http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/) and today he wants only to
> > get an additional comments and clear some small details.
> >
> > tp> Hi, Alex: Has there been any discussion that you're aware of that
> > focuses on tp> what happens with this DMCA law, in terms of governmental
> > agencies needing to tp> use your products to "backup" technical ebooks?
> > For universities that need tp> your products to "backup" research ebooks?
> > For libraries that need your tp> products to "backup" their library
> > inventories? The assumption is, that tp> Adobe intends to move down the
> > road, and have everything on its eBooks, thus tp> making much money and
> > profits, right?
> >
> > tp> I suppose the same sort of question goes to the CBDTPA, and what
> > impact it tp> has on governmental use of "cp" "cat" and other utilities.
> >
> > tp> Thanks,
> > tp> Tom
>
> I was at the hearing this morning and found the presentation of the
> first amendment and fair use arguments especially forceful; maybe I'm
> predisposed to believe them, however.
>
> There was some interesting discussion about the fact that not all
> circumvention is for the purpose of copyright infringement. The
> government argued that Congress knew this and still decided to
> prohibit all circumvention because this would help reduce the amount
> of infringement.
>
> Mr. Burton suggested that Congress did not intend to do that, and
> quoted part of the legislative history, also pointing out that the
> DMCA (if interpreted to ban _all_ circumvention) would be unique in
> Federal criminal law by completely omitting any kind of "criminal
> intent" requirement for contributory liability. (He claimed that all
> other Federal criminal statutes which hold one party responsible for
> another party's actions include some requirement along the lines of
> proving that the accused party _intended to facilitate_ a crime.)
>
> The government's silliest moments were claiming that practically all
> uses of e-books are not fair uses, because they involve copying or
> modifying a copyrighted work (which are exclusive rights of a
> copyright holder). They were led to such extremes as claiming that
> moving a book from one computer to another _is an infringement of
> copyright_. (Also, they said that the DMCA didn't apply to public
> domain works, but avoided the question of whether it's a problem if
> the DMCA bans tools you need in order to _access_ a public domain
> work.)
>
> There was a little discussion of the idea that some people need to
> circumvent technological restrictions in order to make non-infringing
> uses. Blind readers were mentioned, for example.
>
> Judge Whyte took both sides seriously and asked intelligent questions.

Hi: Well, see, that's bothersome. The Public Domain works are seemingly
left out of the equation. I know, the CTEA has pretty much eliminated that
little problem for the foreseeable next 100000000 years. And the ASCAP and
BMI have this nifty little game of "arrangements" [they hold some 40 versions
of "Row, Row, Row Your Boat", not to mention all of the Classical music"],
but there is this thing called CopyLeft, GPL, and we're working on creating a
model that can "seed" a new beginning for musical works in coming years, with
such projects as Studio For Recording, Inc., and there needs to be a way for
the general public to engage. Surely there will be accommodation for
government, corporate, and academic access to information "copying", which
this law apparently doesn't consider.
Thanks,
Tom
http://www.studioforrecording.org/
http://www.ibiblio.org/studioforrecording/



  • [Community_studios] Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Elcomsoft hearing, April 1, tom poe, 04/01/2002

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page