Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

The question is commercial vs private copying. To do that commercially is 
creating a derivative work. To do so privately should not be the concern 
of the law despite the fact that The MPAA, RIAA etc view ALL copying as 
piracy. It makes sense if one gives the copyright holder the ability to 
control derivative works commercially. The question is if I do it 
privately and transmit the results to another party. My own feeling is 
that I should be allowed to do that to someone I know but not otherwise 
(e.g., napster etc)





"Ernest Miller" <ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
02/28/02 08:43 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights



----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:40 AM
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights


> >
> > Would it be a violation to sell a sub-titled version if you
> > bought and destroyed an original for every sub-titled copy
> > you distributed?
> >
>
> If you have license to a copy, and the right to do what
> you wish with your own copy, then that plan should work.

The subtitles would be a derivative work and illegal.  Copyright law
prohibits copying.  If you make a copy and destroy the original, you still
have violated copyright law.  I agree that this makes no sense, which is 
why
I advocate eliminating the "right to copy" as part of copyright law.

> It is similar to a plan executed by someone who was fed
> up w/ all the (unnecessary) sex in movies.  He offered
> a service whereby he edited a movie to make a clean version.
> IIRC either the customer had to send in their copy of
> the tape to be edited, or they bought a copy from him
> (as they would from any other reseller) that he had already
> edited.  He did not _make_ copies, he edited existing
> ones.
>
>
> --
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
>
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!