[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
- From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:18:53 -0800
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcLI3VKqsCrw/bBjQH2VQr3DpMjqRwAb0qvw
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
Interesting. The summary says outright that the courts
do not recognize "moral rights" per se but should nonetheless
attempt to accomodate them if they can find justification
to do so in the actual legalities (in this case, the _legal_
violation was a breach of contract).
That is, of course, my own condensation of the summary. If
one of you legal types could confirm or deny my reading of
this I would appreciate it.
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Erwin [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:57 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
> On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 10:01 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 12:51 PM, Richard Hartman wrote:
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> >>>> On 22 Jan 2003 at 14:34, email@example.com wrote:
> >>>> The
> >>>> notion that copyright controls ALL derivative works is the
> >>>> problem. It only
> >>>> should control COMMERCIAL derivative works and by commercial
> >>>> I would contend
> >>>> that applies ONLY to lost revenues that are demonstratable
> >>>> (e.g., 1000 copies
> >>>> of bootleg ). In the case of the clean Flicks, I can't see
> >>>> that they have lost
> >>>> ANY commercial revenue even with the copies of the tape.
> >> The Monty Python case demonstrated that the Lanham Act was
> >> inapplicable
> > My impression of the Monty Python case was that is involved
> breach of
> > contract
> > between the BBC and NBC(?). Monty Python sold episodes to
> the BBC with
> > certain
> > contractual arrangments. BBC sold them to NBC who did not
> honor those
> > agreements...maybe memory is wrong...
> I'm slowly going insane. A mere search for "monty python
> erwin lanham"
> will prove that I've forgotten the gist of Gilliam v. ABC.
> A summary (and link to the opinion) is available here: