RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus

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

The defense probably would be the Duck Defense "your honor if it walks, 
quacks, and looks like a duck, then is must be a duck"
If the section LOOK like the public domain works then it must be the 
public domain works.  Unfortunatly, I think that we have a big problem 
today because there is one group of people who want perpetual copyright 
and as such the public domain is a threat that must be eliminated. But 
also, historically our copyright system has been designed that the default 
is that works enter the public domain if one does nothing. Furthermore, it 
was up to the copyright holder to prove they have a copyright rather than 
another having to prove that they did NOT.  So the public domain has been 
this nebulous entity that as new types of copyrightable things and new 
media to fix them have been created has become increasingly difficult to 
define. The "intellectual property" community has fixated on protection 
(why? that' obvious. who pays their bills?) but not the system by which 
works enter the public domain. It's been neglected by them and by our 
legislatures.....who lobbies for the public domain in congress?




"Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold@world.std.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
05/31/2002 05:58 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

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


At 7:50 PM -0700 5/30/02, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
>On 30 May 2002 at 21:23, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
>
>...
>> 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"
>

Absent statutory language, legislative history or case law, that's 
just your opinion. I happen to agree with it, but you'll notice the 
absence of the word "Judge" in front of my name.  I can see the 
original holder making the argument that the modified work is 
copyrighted in its entirety and the only basis you have for making a 
copy is fair use. Then apply four part test. Assuming your copy is 
for commercial release, it doesn't seem clear as to what the outcome 
would be in court.

At 9:06 PM -0700 5/30/02, D. C. Sessions wrote:
>On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 18:23, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
>> 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. 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?
>
>The problem is bit rot.  Planned obsolescence of media.
>By the time the original Star Wars enters the public
>domain (even if we turn the clock back to 50 years)
>there won't be any surviving videotapes of the original,
>there won't be any surviving players for them, and there
>won't be any TV sets capable of displaying NTSC format.
>
>All of the new copies will of course have additions and
>new copyright dates.


That's what the studios hope, of course, but it's no so clear it will 
happen. Disk capacity is exploding faster than Moore's law.  See 
http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/Issues/Comsci02/Compsci2002-05.html
  for an interesting discussion. Terabyte PC's for the home are coming 
soon. Petabytes are down the road. DVD-R is here now.  Copying from 
disk to disk as you upgrade defeats bit rot.


Arnold Reinhold