Re: [dvd-discuss] Slashdot article - Canadian Tariffs

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

I have to disagree.  I think that by accepting  these levys on blank media
we lose more than we could possibly gain by decreasing certain copyrights.
After all, accepting such is a tacit admission that personal use copying is
wrong.  Furthermore, these payments always increase media industry
conglomeration - one of the main evils of expansive copyright as it is.

Moreover, I don't think we should give lesser rights to those who use copy
protection.  What I object to is giving additional protection to copy
protection.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@seltzer.com>
To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slashdot article - Canadian Tariffs


> At 12:16 PM 3/12/02 -0900, Jacob Gemmell wrote:
> >I don't think it is a tariff.  Slashdot just mislabeled it.  Rather it is
> >a levy.  That being said, how is this justified in light of copy
protected
> >CDs?  Do recording companies who use copy protection schemes still get
> >thier piece of the pie?
>
> That's a neat question, and might be the first wedge at giving lesser
> copyright rights to those who use technical means to limit use beyond what
> copyright does.  Let's make them choose a range of rights in proportion to
> what they give the public -- greater compensation for the publication of
> unencumbered copies, lesser for the vending of DRM-crippled copies.
>
> I hope someone with standing to object will raise this question (although
> apportionment appears to be addressed elsewhere, in the Copyright Act).
>
> --Wendy
>
>