[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus



Woooowwww There! The idea can not be copyrighted and the whole point is 
for you to take the ideas with you but not the exact expression of them. 
THe question is how much you do with the ideas? For example, Imitations do 
not qualify as derivative works because they are original works How many 
fictional detectives have a less smart friend, a doctor, that are always 
recording the cases? Until fairly recently others could not create 
derivative works with characters called Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson and 
set in late Victorian London. I don't know if you've ever noticed by 
Ridley Scott's "Alien" created a whole industry of clone movies that are 
essentually identical to it. Are they derivative works of the original? 
No. Are they extrememly bad imitations (most of them)? YES. Are they 
protected by copyright? Yes.






"Ballowe, Charles" <CBallowe@usg.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
05/29/2002 02:33 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus


No... I guess my biggest problem with copyright is the fact that it
now extends not only to publication/distribution of the work in
question, but also to creation/publication of derivative works. Since
the creations of others are going to effect my thought processes, 
something in the system should allow for that - this is ignored in 
legislation. Intellectual "property" is not traditional property as
just because I've seen your house, doesn't mean I can take it with
me. Once I've heard your idea or read your book, the idea is with me
whether I like it or not. Since your property obviously effects mine,
I shouldn't be held responsible for consequences of that effect.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 3:11 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
> 
> 
> Does the world really want to have the flow of ideas hampered 
> by having to 
> draw up formal licenseing agreements before even discussing 
> things? For a 
> patent it is not needed since TOTAL disclosure has already 
> occured. For 
> trade secrets, fine but society does not recognize them except when 
> misappropriated (or rather should not as Bunner winds its way 
> throught he 
> courts)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Ballowe, Charles" <CBallowe@usg.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 05/29/2002 09:06 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> 
> 
>         To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" 
> <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: someone somewhere [mailto:chaos755@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 10:47 AM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The patent laws "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by
> > rewarding innovation with a temporary monopoly. U. S. Const., 
> > Art. I, §8, 
> > cl. 8. The monopoly is a PROPERTY RIGHT (my caps); and like 
> > any property 
> > right, its boundaries should be clear.  (Festo Ussct)
> > 
>  Boundaries would be far more clear with a fixed term. 
> 
> Of course, the power of an idea/creation/intellectual matter is that
> once I've been exposed to it, it has the power to alter my thoughts.
> If somebody elses "property" is encroaching onto mine, then 
> the boundaries
> are not exactly clear. Maybe we should make creators request a ****** 
> before
> presenting their creation.
> 
> 
> (****** == the term for an agreement between neighbors, for example, 
> when one wants to put up a structure that may slightly cross 
> the property
> line - mind is drawing a blank on it right now, i want to say 
> variance,
> but it doesn't seem right)
> 
> 
>