[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] Going on the offense.






> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeme A Brelin [mailto:jeme@brelin.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 11:50 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Going on the offense.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Kurt Hockenbury wrote:
> > Things I'd like to see introduced:
> > 
> > A bill explicity supporting fair use, and outlining when it is
> > appropriate.
> 
> This is a terrible idea.  Fair use is everything that isn't explicitly
> forbidden.  Our freedoms MUST be defined in negative terms.
> 
> It's much more restrictive to say "These are the things you 
> can do:" than
> "These are the things that you can't do:".

However, it does not hurt to have some rights explicitly
spelled out in the positive ... as long as you have a clause
explaining "and anything else not proscribed by law is
reserved to the people".  Consider the Bill of Rights.  
Strictly speaking, all we should need is the 10th, but
they wrote the first 9 anyway.

> 
> The tenth amendment of the Constitution does a great job of 
> this.  It says
> "If we don't state that it isn't, it's a right of the people."

But they wrote the first nine anyway, didn't they?

> 
> Defining "fair use" will only create loopholes and a narrow vision of
> freedom.

Not if it is written with "including, but not limited to" phrasing.
Then at least we have a stake in the ground that they can not cross.
Right now, there is _nothing_ explicitly embodied in the fair use
concept -- it's all based on precedent, which can be ignored if
necessary.

> 
> > An "Information Preservation" act, legalizing the making of personal
> > copies of any out-of-print material.
> 
> Copyright law shouldn't extend to unpublished work or work 
> not currently
> published.

So if I snatch your manuscript and get it published first,
you're out of luck because I have the copyright?

What is the status of your book between it's first and
second printings?  (What is the definition of "currently
published"?)

> 
> "Out of print" shouldn't exist in the copyrighted world.
> 
> This can be solved several ways.  The most effective would be an
> elimination of copyright, but I don't think that'd fly just 
> yet.  One way
> is the above mentioned loss of copyright when publication is
> lacking.  Another would be reasonable copyright duration.

That last is the best approach.  A set term, regardless
of the actual state of published or not (which can be
deuced difficult to define).

> 
> Does anyone know how we can gather statistics on how long a 
> work takes to
> become profitable?
> 
> I'd like to be able to say "60% of all films earn their money 
> back in the
> first year.  75% in the first five years.  Films that do not 
> earn their
> money back in the first five years are unlikely to earn their 
> money back
> at all as the cost of continued publication decreases the return on
> investment."  Something like that.
> 
> That would be a VERY powerful argument to limit copyright to 
> 5-10 years.

The actual term needs to be determined ... but it should be
relatively short.  Certainly shorter than it is currently.

It may also be necessary to create different terms for works
based in different media (e.g. books vs. movies), but that
sort of wrangling could become difficult.  What about media
as yet uninvented?

> 
> Right now, I'm thinking of 9 years with a 6 year extension 
> for works that
> have been constantly available for the past 9, but not turned 
> profit.  And
> I'd like to give the copyright office authority to deny extension for
> works with significant public interest.

You'd probably get too much opposition w/ anything short of
a 2-digit term.  Wasn't the pre-Bono term 28 years?

> 
> > A bill protecting the public's ability to make an archival 
> of any "IP"
> > they own or license, including the creation, purchase, and use of
> > "circumvention devices".
> 
> This should be covered by fair use.  

But you deny the requirement to spell out what is covered
by fair use.  So nothing is really covered ...


>Striking down the DMCA 
> returns this
> right to the people.
> 
> > Laws requiring companies to give you a complete list of all 
> data they
> > have collected on you, and you being allowed to revise it 
> (similar to
> > credit reports, but for privacy information).
> 
> This is a good one.
> 
> > Surely there are a few sympathetic members of Congress we can get to
> > introduce the legislation we want, instead of the 
> legislation the MPAA
> > & co want?
> 
> There are a few... but the majority are in the pockets of the media
> companies... understand that media is how they get elected.
> 
> Pissing off your local broadcasters is no way to get favorable news
> coverage in your district.
> 
> The right solution is to return the public interest 
> requirements to the
> broadcast airwaves and restrict commercial broadcasting.
> 
> Advertiser-supported media CANNOT serve the public interest except in
> those rare circumstances where public interest coincides with major
> sponsor's interest.
> 


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!