Re: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Noah silva wrote:
> > Yes, but how does that realistically apply?  Let's say I own the
> > copyright because I wrote it, and I'm protected by default.  Still if
> > I post something that I know if going to a public forum, I am
> > implicitly giving permission (under my copyright control) for that
> > item to be published.  The difference is subtle (no protection rights
> > vs having and waiving them.)
> 
> The issue was related to redistributing the work.  I believe that our
> current law would require permission from each poster to print and sell an
> archive of this list.
> 
> Is that not the case?
> 
> Anyway, shouldn't be.
> J.

Would you prefer that a large corporation could package and resell the
best of your submissions to this group without your permission? 
Especially considering the "spin" they could put on the various writings
of members of this group (with context and juxtaposition of statements)
... some control over the reuse and republication of our writings
protects us all.

The important point that must be brought up is that with the term
extensions, there will be no way to archive or publish these discussions
long until after there is no way to view them.  Only illegally made and
maintained copies will exist.  The fact that the only archival evidence
of media of this period in US history will be from the pirates copies
says that their is something very wrong with copyright.

I'm very concerned that the records of this part of our history will be
held only by (and then lost by) large conglomerates, allowing them to
effectively rewrite any history they want**.  It is already happening. 
A few early Warner Bros cartoons (and wartime cartoons) have clear race
and ethnic stereotyping.  These reflect their time -- however as WB
still holds the copyright (and will long after the last reel has turned
to dust) the true history of race and entertainment is already being
lost.  Sometimes I think that the embarrasment over such egregious and
flagrant racism is a driver in the term extension craze.  Corporations
with large investments in character portfolios don't want to face the
earlier writings for these characters (and diminish their present and
future value).  They've got it all wrong though.  The shame these works
bear is a national shame, hiding them won't heal the wound.  Illegal
copies of some subset of these films (and writings about them) probably
exist.  It is the pirates that are preserving history.  This shows so
clearly that the laws are broken.

.002

**I have in my desk drawer a downloaded copy of a CNN DeCSS story which
includes a pointer to the DeCSS software. The fact that CNN is a
division of TimeWarner meant that the judgement of the premier news
network of its time was sacrificed to defending the overweaning,
litigious nature of it's parent company.  That CNN wasn't publically
shamed as "60 Minutes" was over the "tortious interferance crap" shows
that in the ephemeral world of digital media, rewriting history to fit
the needs of the powerful is easier than ever, and documentation is
fleeting (and were I to publish it) illegal.