Re: [dvd-discuss] Distribution (Was: Eldred Being Argued Today)

["Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold(at)world.std.com>]

The Copyright lobby would claim that, on the whole, they are better 
positioned to keep works in circulation and argue that it is within 
Congress' legislative discretion to accept with that claim. A better 
counter argument might be that the Copyright Clause only mentions 
"Authors and Inventors" and the Framers clearly had in mind promoting 
"the Progress of Science and useful Arts" through new works.

Reading the excerpted transcript in todays New York Times suggests 
that the Justices see it that way and would strike down the Sonny 
Bono Copyright Extension if they could find a way to distinguish it 
from previous extensions, particularly the 1976 one.

Here's one quote the Times attributes to Justice Kennedy:

"I think this is a really important question and, as Justice O'Conner 
points out, if we have to ask what is the most plausible explanation 
for this rule, to reward existing vested interests or to stimulate 
new works, it seems to me that it is probably the former. ... I mean, 
we know that."

The Court seems to "get it." I have to wonder if dropping the 2600 
appeal was a big mistake.

Arnold Reinhold


At 11:15 AM +0200 10/10/02, Sham Gardner wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 11:12:34AM +0200, Tom wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 09:35:39PM -0700, D. C. Sessions wrote:
>> > One of the arguments that the Cartel advanced today (IIRC and
>> > IIUC) was that without exclusive distribution rights, nobody
>> > would distribute the old material at all. 
>>
>> Uh, am I just being dense or is that the most stupid argument they can
>> make given the fact that the very case is about someone wanting
>> to do exactly that?
>
>Not to mention that they're constantly complaining about their works being
>distributed by people who are explicitly prohibited from doing so.
>
>--
>http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/
>
>"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it to peace"
>(Michael Franti)