|
|
Posted by Goro on 02/23/06 12:23
Jeff Rife wrote:
> Goro (evilninjax@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> > excuse me if i'm dense, but isn't it the case that they would need to
> > show that DISABLING HDCP allows unauthorized duplication?
>
> It's pretty much the same thing. If they prove that disabling HDCP
> allows unauthorized duplication, they also prove that not disabling
> it prevents unauthorized duplication.
>
> But, it might be enough for them to show that even though disabling HDCP
> doesn't automatically allow unauthorized duplication, it might make it
> more likely, thus HDCP would be thought to "prevent unauthorized
> duplication".
Well, i think they are not equivalent statements as there are alternate
methods of illegal duplication that don't include HDCP, however, if
HDCP is diabled, there is then another method of duplication that
exists.
I agree that they SHOULD have to prove your statment (that HDCP
prevents piracy) but with they lobbying power/money it's unlikely that
they'll actually have to prove anything
> So, the studios could win and not necessarily have anything definitive
> stated about HDCP and its effectiveness.
Except that they'll say more outlandish, hypcritical things. Like how
$5.4B gets thrown into this issue. As if they've lost ANY money b/c of
Samsung's player.
> If the studios *lose*, however, and fail to prove in any way that HDCP
> prevents unauthorized duplication, then disabling HDCP is thus *not*
> subject to DMCA rules about "disabling methods that effectively control
> copying".
Someone should sue the MPAA...
-goro-
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|