Re: [DMCA-Activists] Re: DC 7/17: Tactic

[Jean-Michel Smith]

On Thursday 11 July 2002 07:41 pm, LG wrote:

> DRM could be "good enough" using the kind of system that TCPA/
> Palladium is considering (a TCB based on resonably tamper-proof
> hardware).
>
> The essential point, though, is that any DRM system that tries to
> restrict use of a work after download (i.e., not intitial [network] access
> but local access) is built on the premise that the cleartext must be kept
> in a sealed box.
>
> Even if someone makes a genuine effort to make a DRM system like
> this that tries to reach only as far as copyright law itself (that is,
> allow fair use), the premise that the plaintext must be hidden from the
> user implies that any copying of material outside the box must be prevented
> - backups, format conversions, personal copies etc have to be kept inside
> the box.
>
> This will have a direct impact on self-archiving, making sure that the
> book/movie/music you bought can be viewed on the equipment you
> have in 10 years, etc.

One must question the constitutionality of DRM, in that copyright is allowed 
only for a *LIMITED* time, and an effective DRM technology would extend 
copyright to an *UNLIMITED* time since, once the works enter the public 
domain, they would nevertheless remain unavailable.

I don't know if this is an argument that would bring any value to the 7/17 
meeting, but it is certainly something to keep in mind, and might make a very 
valid lawsuit for an injunction, should something like this ever become 
mandated by law.