RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 30 May 2002 at 21:23, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:

Date sent:      	Thu, 30 May 2002 21:23:32 -0400
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
From:           	"Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold@world.std.com>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> If the original work has passed into the public domain, you can 
> always copy that. If the additions for the new work (with new 
> copyright) are small, you should be happy to simply use the older 
> edition. 

If readily available. But what's to stop me from taking the non PD version on 
super mediacomparing it with PD version on old decrepit media and extracting 
the parts that are PD and creating a copy of the PD version in the super media.

>The only problem I see is if the new version is of higher 
> quality, say a DVD vs. VHS.  Then the question arises as to what 
> happens if you copy the from the new version only the material that 
> was in the old version. Is that fair use or even simply non 
> infringing? Is there any case law?

Neither and no case law is needed. THe copyright is on the work NOT the 
media.Copying the parts that are in the PD to create a version of the PD work 
in a new media is not infringement since those parts ARE in the PD and there is 
NO copyright. So no fair use defense is necessary. No case law is needed but 
precedent have already been set. Does a sound recording released on 78 gain 
more copyright term when released on 33, then cassette, then CD, then DVD-
Audio? (Consider Rachminoff's recording of his Second Piano COncerto with the 
Philadelphia Philharmonic directed by Leopold Stokowski in the 30s...my mother 
bought it on 78. I bought it on 33 and last year I bought it on CD <exercise 
for the alert reader. Does the mere mechanical act of equalization and cleaning 
up scratches make it eligible for further copyright protection? If so what are 
the societal consequences?) Does the reproduction of a facsimile of 
Shakespeare's works gain new copyright? I have a facsimile reproduction of the 
first english translation of Dumas' "Corsican Brothers" put out by a fairly 
well known university press. Does THAT get copyright protection? And if I give 
it to a mere photographically produced copy, why doesn't the original have 
protection? (BTW-makes a better movie than a book but it was on a book for a 
buck. The facsimile is interesting because the style of books has changed over 
the years from small type in double columns to larger type in one column)

WRT to copyright Marshall Mclune was wrong "The medium isn't the message"

> 
> Arnold Reinhold
> 
> 
> At 10:19 AM -0700 5/30/02, Richard Hartman wrote:
> >A standard similar to that of fair use should
> >apply.  If the use is small enough, it ain't
> >infringement.  If the change is small enough,
> >it ain't a new work.
> >
> >--
> >-Richard M. Hartman
> >hartman@onetouch.com
> >
> >186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:10 AM
> >> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
> >>
> >>
> >> That's another area of copyright law that needs to be
> >> reviewed, revised
> >> and reformed. Derivative works should be sequels, screenplays
> >> or plays
> >> from novels or vice versa, radio adaptions, toys, comic
> >> books, new revised
> >> editions. The essense of this is TRANSFORMATION. There should be some
> >> transformation in the derivative work. Adding new footage to
> >> an old work
> >> doesn't transform it. It's more like having a second edition
> >> of a book
> >> where somebody adds a new page to each chapter. OTOH, if
> >> someone takes a
> >> NEW SPecial 150th anniversay of Starwars produced in UltraExtremeDVD
> >> format with new rediscovered footage never before seen that
> >> was buried in
> >> the Lucus Time Capsule at the  INdustrial Light and Magic
> >> Shrine and edits
> >> all of that out to produce "StarWars-The Original Version" it
> >> should not
> >> be infringment NOR should it qualify for a copyright of its own.
> >> OTherwise, we are back to the perpetual copyright
> >> problem....well...every
> >> field has it's problems. In CS there's the halting problem.
> >> In math, there
> >> was Fermat's last theorum. Maybe here we have the perpetual copyright
> >> problem
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ernest Miller <ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu>
> >> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> >> 05/30/2002 09:32 AM
> >> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> >>
> >> 
> >>         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> >>         cc:
> >>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
> >>
> >>
> >> Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> >> > Oh...but he would argue that he's had all this time to work
> >> on it and
> >> > perfect it. Aren't you just jumping for joy? Actually even
> >> with a 28yr
> >> > term he's still have 3 more yrs to work on it. With a 50
> >> yrs term he can
> >>
> >> > finish it up using his social security and pension ;-)
> >>
> >> But he's not finished it yet.  Remember the "Special
> >> Editions"?  Rumor
> >> has it that Jar Jar will be added to Episode 4 and
> >> Queen/Senator will be
> >> added to Episode 6 (I kid you not, though this is only rumor).  Every
> >> new edition will get a new copyright.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
> >> > Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> >> > 05/30/2002 09:18 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Actually Star Wars is an argument for shorter terms.
> >> >
> >> > If Lucas were facing a shorter term on his creation,
> >> > he might've finished the $(!@ series by now!
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>