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

[Ernest Miller <ernest.miller(at)aya.yale.edu>]

Make diff or delta files a requirement?

microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
>