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

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

"Why not just have public distribution be the crime?"

That's pretty much what Prof. Litman said about copyright. She pointed out 
that public distribtuion is how people perceive copyright infringement but 
the "intellectual property" industry views copying as the crime.




"Ernest Miller" <ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
02/28/02 08:53 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights


Space shifting is generally legal and if you subtitled a movie that you 
used
yourself you probably would be fine.  However, distribute that movie and 
you
will get in trouble (having violated both copying and distribution 
rights).

This, of course, is what does not make sense to me.  Copying is legal for
personal use (mostly) but not if you distribute it.  Why not get rid of
copying as a violation at all?  Why not just have public distribution be 
the
crime?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ballowe, Charles" <CBallowe@usg.com>
To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:50 AM
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights


> I thought space shifting was legal under fair use - or is doing so only
> legal if you do it yourself and not as a service to someone else?
>
> Where I can see some problems coming up is in laws that guarantee that
> works of art viewed in the manner that the artist originally intended.
> (I seem to remember a discussion of a law in Florida, I think, on this
> list sometime last spring maybe)
>
> -Charlie
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ernest Miller [mailto:ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:44 AM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
> >
> > 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 agree that this makes no
> > sense, which is why
> > I advocate eliminating the "right to copy" as part of copyright law.
> >