Re: [dvd-discuss] Sklyarov Motion to Dismiss Indictment

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

An EXCELLENT point! 

Since the work is in the public domain, either there is NO copyright 
holder or everybody that is and will ever be alive is the copyright 
holder. In either case, access is authorized.

 It's fatally flawed because the copyright holder authorizes but it is 
the publisher that creates and controls the TPM. In many 
instances, publishers only get the right of first publication but not 
anthology <exercise for the alert reader many short stories are 
reprinted dozens of times but copyright is not from date of 
publication of the book>. . Could get interesting with different 
publishers controlling different TPMs ..or Imagine what would 
happen if a best selling author put in his will that upon his death 
ALL works enter the public domain (and he is killed tomorrow).



Date sent:      	Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:00:43 -0800 (PST)
From:           	Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com>
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Sklyarov Motion to Dismiss Indictment
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> I think this point should be made. The statute gives the right to authorize
> access to the *copyright owner*, not to the publisher. If the copyright owner
> is the public, then access is authorized.
> 
> The statute is fatally flawed in that it assumes that "the" copyright holder is
> the authorization authority. But neither existence nor uniqueness is guaranteed
> when a TPM protects multiple works, some of which may be in the public domain.
> 
> 
> --- Michael A Rolenz <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org> wrote:
> > The case against ebooks becomes stronger when you look at specific ebooks 
> > on Adobe's site. THere are works in the public domain that are free - so 
> > what's the commercial loss there? There are public domain works that are 
> > sold for a nominal price. One has always been able to access public domain 
> > works even editions with copyrighted illustrations or introductions. Yet, 
> > Adobe's ebooks prevents that. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt 
> > that they actually paid someone to illustrate it or theypaid royalties for 
> > existing ones. BUT mere typesetting, scanning, ocring, formatting do not 
> > constitute enough value added to qualify to copyright protection. Adobe's 
> > nominal "fee" for performing such service does not give them the right to 
> > prevent fair use of the material. 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
> http://auctions.yahoo.com