RE: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 21 Nov 2002 at 11:00, Richard Hartman wrote:

Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech
Date sent:      	Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:00:50 -0800
From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Copies to:      	<owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> A fine formulation of the issue.  Now, can we get it to someone who can
> state it in those terms before Congress?  


Needs a good sound bite "must be copiable for copyright"?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman 
> hartman@onetouch.com 
> 
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW! 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:30 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Cc: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech
> 
> 
> 
> Being copiable, is a necessary condition for the work to enter the public domain
> at the end of copyright. If it cannot be copied, then it cannot enter the public
> domain and so cannot also be given the privledge of copyright. 
> 
> 
> 
>  "Steve Hosgood" <steve@caederus.com> 
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 
> 
> 
> 11/21/2002 08:46 AM 
> Please respond to dvd-discuss 
> 
> 
> 
>         To:        dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 
>         cc:         
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Rolenz writes:
> > THe copyright clause does not EXIST for the purpose of maximizing profits.
> > Maximizing profits is a consequence of the monopoly granted but not the reason
> > for its existance.
> >
> 
> Ok, I see the point. 
> 
> > To state that the copyright clause exists to 
> > maximize profits is counter to the Constitutional phrase "promote science and
> > the arts...".
> >
> 
> It's a bit of both though isn't it? Copyright "promotes science and the arts.."
> by helping convince creators of works to make them available and profit from
> whatever can be made from them (over a limited period).
> 
> Shakespeare of course did all his creative work without such protections, but
> pirating a play was rather hard to do. Having said that, they *did* get pirated
> eventually, and that's why Shakespeare's company printed official versions so
> I've heard.
> 
> 
> > IN some ways that is the whole crux of Eldred. The 
> > governments is arguing profits and Eldred is arguing promoting.
> >
> 
> Really? I though the (US) government is arguing "profits for ever" or "profits
> for as long as we say so". Compounded by "OK, so we told Walt he could have
> 50(?) years copyright on the Rat in 1927, but now we're changing our minds".
> 
> > You'll get no argument from me that a work distributed with a DRM is not
> > copyrighted....I think I advanced that argument earlier.
> > 
> 
> Oops, sorry.
> 
> What about my other theory, that in order to be copyrighted a work must
> be copyable?
> 
> I hate it when everyone else has my good ideas first... :-)
> 
> --
> 
> Steve Hosgood                               |
> steve@caederus.com                          | "A good plan today is better
> Phone: +44 1792 203707 + ask for Steve      |   than a perfect plan tomorrow"
> Fax:   +44 70922 70944                      |              - Conrad Brean
> --------------------------------------------+
>        http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve         |  ( from the film "Wag the Dog" )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>