Re: [dvd-discuss]YAATEA-Yet Another Anti-Term Extension Argument

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

Good points. I think that there are multiple sides to their greed. 
Destruction of the public domain keeps them in control (e.g., 
Mickey Mouse). Keeping the oldies but goodies not only provides 
them with steady revenues (e.g., $500,000/yr to Gershwin's heirs), 
BUT also keeps these works that people DO want out of the public 
domain. Right now the internet is clammering for content but where 
is it? Still locked up in copyright term extensions and soon to be 
locked behind TPMs. Keeping public domain material off the 
internet also means that they have more time to perfect their 
mischief. 

Date sent:      	Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:33:55 -0700
From:           	"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss]YAATEA-Yet Another Anti-Term Extension
	Argument
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> 
> microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> > Of course, we all know why they want to keep their 1%. In true
> > Hollywierd Accounting "Winners pay for losers". THe longer terms
> > merely mean that they can create more losers. That hardly
> > promotes progress either but then if Hollywierd can't have it
> > summarized on a sheet of paper, they don't understand it.
> 
> Longer terms are not about winners v. losers -- it's about assuring that
> their is no public domain in the modern media types to undercut the
> pricing and profitability of current works.  I've said it before
> 
> "if all music older than 28 years is in the public domain -- the music
> industry cannot charge $18 for current works"  Public domain CD
> transcriptions of pre-74 music (available on the internet no less)
> create a replacement good for the majority of the listening public's
> "music-ear-hours".  A viable replacement good is something the RIAA
> members business model cannot tolerate
> 
> The other two reasons are (1) that public domain modern media works
> constitute and "commercially significant non-infringing use" for Napster
> et. al. and (2) a short duration brings the "horribles" of TPM'd
> quasi-publication (a thing cannot be restricted and public
> simultaneously) in from the intangible distant future of "science
> fiction" into the tangible world of "current affairs".  
> 
> If I buy a DVD of a movie produced in 1975.  Under a 28 year term, next
> year I will "have standing" to challenge the anticircumvention
> provisions.  While I don't have a 1A right to infringe, I certainly have
> a 1A right to public domain works.
> 
> It's not about the money older copyrights yield, it's about the monopoly
> (cartel) control and ensuring that the tools of fair use can be
> restricted as tools of infringement.
> 
> .002
>