Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights

[Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Ernest Miller wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
> To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:40 AM
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
> 
> 
> > >
> > > Would it be a violation to sell a sub-titled version if you
> > > bought and destroyed an original for every sub-titled copy
> > > you distributed?
> > >
> >
> > If you have license to a copy, and the right to do what
> > you wish with your own copy, then that plan should work.
> 
> The subtitles would be a derivative work and illegal.  Copyright law
> prohibits copying.  If you make a copy and destroy the original, you still
> have violated copyright law.

I don't think so, not if you have a right to space shifting (transferring
to a different media).  It is supposed to prohibit _illegal_ copying only.

>  I agree that this makes no sense, which is why
> I advocate eliminating the "right to copy" as part of copyright law.
> 
> > It is similar to a plan executed by someone who was fed
> > up w/ all the (unnecessary) sex in movies.  He offered
> > a service whereby he edited a movie to make a clean version.
> > IIRC either the customer had to send in their copy of
> > the tape to be edited, or they bought a copy from him
> > (as they would from any other reseller) that he had already
> > edited.  He did not _make_ copies, he edited existing
> > ones.

Yes, but editing is still copying, if you skip a scene, you are copying
from later in the tape to earlier in the tape, etc.  For legal purposes
this shouldn't be copying because you have one lisence and you end up with
one copy.


 -- noah silva 
 > > > >
> > --
> > -Richard M. Hartman
> > hartman@onetouch.com
> >
> > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> 
>