Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus

[Tom <tom(at)lemuria.org>]

On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 10:24:14PM -0700, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> copyright but freedom of speech has had millions already. Copyright is a form 
> of property in that it can be sold but unlike property they are not real or 
> personal. It sits twixt and between the two. 

We agree on that.

> Creators have moral rights over 
> their works (e.g., the NAME of who created it) but if they choose to sell their 
> legal rights (<D/A> assuming a fair market place. If not then that is another 
> problem that should be corrected rather than attempting band-aids.), attempting 
> to restore them is as well intentioned but misguided as the restoring copyright 
> to works in the public domain (see Golan v. Ashcroft) for those poor 
> unfortunate people who couldn't figure out how to copyright things in another 
> country or just were stupid (e.g., Night of the LIving Dead)

No discussion there, but that wasn't the point.

Here's my point: Copyright being treated as a property is a major
source of trouble. The MPAA wouldn't be that posessive if it were
clear that their (C) isn't a posession, hm? :)

Like a right, (C) is assigned. A whimsical change in copyright law and
you lose it, or it changes. That ain't true of property, my bread is a
bread no matter what some legal eagle says.



-- 
New GPG Key issued (old key expired):
http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
pub  1024D/2D7A04F5 2002-05-16 Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
     Key fingerprint = C731 64D1 4BCF 4C20 48A4  29B2 BF01 9FA1 2D7A 04F5