Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: Perpetual Copyright via revision (was: Eldred Amicus)

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

But the real tantilizing question is "How do I know what are the public domai 
material so I can remove them?" Digital media does have a solution to that...

On 1 Jun 2002 at 20:58, Ernest Miller wrote:

Date sent:      	Sat, 01 Jun 2002 20:58:35 -0400
From:           	Ernest Miller <ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: Perpetual Copyright via revision (was: 
Eldred
	Amicus)
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> You raise some very interesting questions.  However, it is likely that 
> many will have to be raised in the courts.  For a restoration, I would 
> imagine courts would tend to opposed copyright extension, but that is 
> not clear.  Star Wars, on the other hand, had creative work done to it, 
> with plenty of new material.
> 
> Matt Perkins wrote:
> > Hello -- me new guy.  IANAL.  You've stumbled onto
> > something very interesting with the "Star Wars"
> > question, whether the versions released in 1995, 1997
> > or 2006 (?) qualify as new "works" wrt/term length.  
> > 
> > It's been industry-standard practice for distributors
> > to include two copyright notices on most catalog DVDs:
> > the year of first publication, and the year of DVD
> > release.  This is typically in movies called "special
> > editions," or "remasters"/"restorations."  It's almost
> > never clear from the packaging exactly what the
> > greater copyright date applies to.  The possibilities
> > I can think of are:
> > 
> > 1.) the (remastered) film as a whole,
> > 2.) newly-inserted/modified elements of the film,
> > 3.) special features & supplements as a whole,
> > 4.) presentation of special features & supplements (if
> > compiled from works *fixed* well before first
> > publication, like never-before-seen, on-the-set
> > footage),
> > 5.) DVD authorship content (and/or disc navigation
> > programming).
> > 
> > Obviously (1) is of the most danger.  If Congress was
> > content (and federal judges complicit) with enacting
> > CTEA for film preservation, it's not a far step to
> > suggest that a "new edition" copyright granted ONLY to
> > keep an extant work in the marketplace might be
> > understood as a legitimate exercise of the copyright
> > power.  That defies the whole point of adding 20 years
> > to the term (giving content owners an opportunity to
> > recoup restoration costs), but it wouldn't be the
> > first time Congressional intent has been ignored to
> > advance an encroaching copyright power (COUGH!!
> > elcomsoft).
> > 
> > We won't really know how all of this plays out until
> > an old movie, say the 1996 restored "Vertigo," falls
> > into the public domain.  That could be any of 
> > 
> > 2091 (CTEA, restoration defeats P.D.)
> > 2071 (nixed CTEA, restoration defeats P.D.)
> > 2053 (CTEA)
> > 2052 (nixed CTEA, nixed '76, restoration defeats P.D.)
> > 2033 (nixed CTEA)
> > 2014 (nixed CTEA, nixed '76)
> > 
> > Given that the '76 Act is in no danger and most
> > Senators will be dead before anyone begins to wonder,
> > I'm sure Congress is in no particular rush to clarify
> > this little question and risk PO'ing their benevolent
> > patrons.  
> > 
> > --mattperkins/minneapolis
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
> > 
> 
> 
>