SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT v PAUL OWEN & ORS (2002)

[Skywatch]

Jeremy,

Thanks for such a comprehensive response. I have the following to add.
>This is called the "Analog(ue) Gap" and the recording industry would like 
>nothing
>better then to see it plugged.

This would require D-A converters inside the speakers/ headphones to stand 
a chance. There is always inductive coupling to get around that too........ 
I guess that this is harder to plug than they think?

>The fact that people have being doing something does not mean it is 
>permissible.

I agree. but adding laws to something that cannot currently be enforced 
seems like a waste of public money to make the media conglomerates feel secure.

>I agree, but the UK parliament decided not to give you that right.  In 
>most other
>countries you have that right.

When was this?  Which government brought it in?

>Most other countries allow this sort of copying and impose a royalty charge on
>blank recording media which is fed back through the rights management 
>societies
>to compensate the copyright owners for lost licensing income.  The UK has 
>always
>opposed this approach on the grounds that people who use blank media for other
>purposes are paying a royalty charge unnecessarily.  When a blank media 
>royalty
>charge was proposed in the UK some of the most vociferous opponents were
>charities helping blind people.

Is there any such royalities on video tapes or recordable DVD? what about 
the machines themselves?

>An excellent point.  And there is also the problem that the "protected" 
>CDs will
>not play in a DVD player (which will play real CDs) or in some CD players that
>use the same error-correction chips as computer CDROM drives.

So where does the purchaser of a DVD or CD that doesn't play these stand? 
The 'suitable for its given purpose' clause could be envoked here could it 
not? (does not meet standards for playing material according to red/green book)

>The proposals that were bandied about for IDE devices did not of themselves
>restrict copying.  In effect all they did was embed read-only data in the 
>device
>that could be used by rights management software to encrypt data stored 
>using the
>device so that only software with access to the same device could decrypt it.
>Unless the software cooperated the drive would work exactly like any 
>other.  You
>need to bear in mind that the proposals were for removable-media devices 
>and were
>aimed at making it impossible to record something on one device then take the
>media to a different device to replay it.

So I couldn't download a piece of media on one PC then whizz it on the 
network to another?
I wonder how long it will be before a CD or DVD will ONLY play in the first 
player it is inserted to? With all devices seemingly being internet enabled 
this should be easy. This would boost sales and stop people lending them 
out and reducing sales.
It would stop Blockbuster and co. dead in their tracks. But would it 
increase sales?

It seems that with better marketing ans value for money they could 
encourage people to buy more units. Being heavy on them is like constantly 
telling a child 'no'. It will result in a backlash/.

Skywatch




**** British Internet Privacy - Now twinned with China ! ****

(Terrorists note - You should now use the post instead!)