Sunday, February 09, 2003


From Derek Slater's blog,A Copyfighter's Musings, this post (and a lot of the later ones, as well) provides commentary and response to a December interview with Jack Valenti, Mr. MPAA. The interview itself was published in the Harvard Political Review (registration required).

Scary excerpts:

' "HPR: The MPAA has backed several bills mandating copy prevention technologies. Critics have lambasted these bills for curbing consumer's "fair use" rights, including the ability to make back-up copies. How can we balance the interests of consumers and the movie industry?
JV: What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law." '

Valenti continues:

' "Right now, any professor can show a complete movie in his classroom without paying a dime--that's fair use. What is not fair use is making a copy of an encrypted DVD, because once you're able to break the encryption, you've undermined the encryption itself."
[ . . . ]
"HPR: Even if breaking the encryption is for a legitimate purpose, to make a back-up copy?
JV: But you've already got a DVD. It lasts forever. It never wears out. In the digital world, we don't need back-ups, because a digital copy never wears out. It is timeless."

Sure, he's got a point (even though DVDs do not last forever; they scratch, they break, they get juice spilled on them by toddlers). I guess a better question, from my end, would have been, "Why should the movie industry get to determine what 'legitimate purpose' means?" They say making a backup isn't legitimate. Many others disagree with that. The question is: how do we determine who's right? '

The commentary is interesting and entertaaining - certainly worth checking out.

Link courtesy of Slashdot.

- posted by laurie @ 2/09/2003 01:00:00 PM
Comments: Post a Comment