[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?
- To: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?
- From: John Galt <galt(at)inconnu.isu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:14:17 -0700 (MST)
- In-Reply-To: <E6A0E6DC7BF4D411B3180008C786FAAC115AAE65@corpmail.usg.com>
- Mail-Followup-To: galt@inconnu.isu.edu
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Ballowe, Charles wrote:
>Agreed -- but if a company (Disney?) still wishes to hold rights to
>something, wouldn't letting them do so and requiring a fee based on
>sales be potentially useful, particularly if that fee went directly
But then we get back to the real problem: AA Milne's daughter-in-law (Mrs.
Christopher Robin--CR's dead) is recieving nothing from the
soon-to-be-rereleased Winnie the Pooh. AA Milne signed away all rights
many years ago, so what possible promotion of progress is being served
when the author's family recieves nothing from a multi-million-dollar
franchise? Any sliding scale of copyright renewal MUST take into account
that holders of copyrights are not necessarily authors, so a renewal of a
copyright should not happen at all if the author is not recieving any
portion of royalties.
>into a program promoting arts and and science in schools? I'd prefer
>copyright to be short, but if that's not going to happen, the people
>should receive something to help promote the arts.
>
>-Charles Ballowe
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
>> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?
>>
>> Which of course invalidates the whole point of "promoting progress" --
>> if only the unvaluable works enter the public domain, then
>> the public's
>> benefit and reason for providing the monopoly in the first
>> place. Works
>> must still be contemporary, relevant, and valuable when they enter the
>> public domain, or the constitutional mandate of "promoting
>> progress" is
>> not met, and the term of the copyright is unconstitutional.
>>
>> .002
>>
>
--
You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny
you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the
immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money?
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!