[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: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:23:57 -0800
- In-reply-to: <22682296.1044029849643.JavaMail.root@scippl1>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On 31 Jan 2003 at 8:17, email@example.com wrote:
Date sent: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:17:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> > >> 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.
> >> >
> >And surely that's the purpose of copyright? To ensure that the author(s) get
> >their recompense for ever copy sold? If they do, then the requirements of
> >copyright are met, and there is no case.
> Modern copyright has strayed so far from this it bears no resemblance to that in
> the US Const. I think the only reason that Judge Ginsberg sees no change to the
> "contours" of copyright in the CTEA is that the bloated extra- constitutional
> elements had been in place long before CTEA. The real problem with the Eldred
> challenge is that it didn't happen in the 60's. The court couldn't figure out
> how to invalidate CTEA without rewinding the clock, and I think the impression
> is "if this is really a problem, why didn't we here about it 30 years ago" -- a
> kind of "statute of limitations" on USSC intervention.
> Maybe the correct challenge would have been against the whole stack of 11
> extensions and the DMCA on "Turner" (least restrictive means) grounds**.
> But Monday morning quaterbacking is always too easy.
I don't think any argument would have mattered. The SCOTUS just wussed out.
They also lack any set of vision about what wussing out means. It's something
of arrogance to expect a generation of people to work to convince them of the
errors of a decision that they already know to be wrong..but that's the way the
system was set up...and until a few better jurists are appointed..this is what
we have to deal with..
> ** the short form the argument is that if (per Turner) that the gov't
> may persue "important ... ends" only by means "no more restrictive
> than neccessary" -- if with 50 year terms the gov't is "promoting
> progress" successfully, then (by definition) any longer terms are
> "more restrictive" and thus not the least restrictive means to
> achieve those ends.