Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: Perpetual Copyright via revision (was: Eldred Amicus)

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 1 Jun 2002 at 22:10, Ernest Miller wrote:

Date sent:      	Sat, 01 Jun 2002 22:10:57 -0400
From:           	Ernest Miller <ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: Perpetual Copyright via revision (was: 
Eldred
	Amicus)
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Make diff or delta files a requirement?
> 


I've done and dealt with too many embedded systems over the years. I want an 
explicit table! ..."We don't need no stinking diff or delta files!"

(The problem with delta files is when you start making deltas of deltas of 
deltas of deltas....at some point errors occurs early in the delta chain and 
you are totally screwed. A classic is the Volvo warehouse. After enough time 
the occassional error in communications meant that the automated warehouse was 
putting shipments in the wrong place...after even more time they couldn't find 
anything.)

> microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > But the real tantilizing question is "How do I know what are the public domai
> > material so I can remove them?" Digital media does have a solution to that...
> > 
> > On 1 Jun 2002 at 20:58, Ernest Miller wrote:
> > 
> > Date sent:      	Sat, 01 Jun 2002 20:58:35 -0400
> > From:           	Ernest Miller <ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu>
> > To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] RE: Perpetual Copyright via revision (was:
> > Eldred 	Amicus) Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > 
> > 
> >>You raise some very interesting questions.  However, it is likely that 
> >>many will have to be raised in the courts.  For a restoration, I would 
> >>imagine courts would tend to opposed copyright extension, but that is 
> >>not clear.  Star Wars, on the other hand, had creative work done to it, 
> >>with plenty of new material.
> >>
> >>Matt Perkins wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hello -- me new guy.  IANAL.  You've stumbled onto
> >>>something very interesting with the "Star Wars"
> >>>question, whether the versions released in 1995, 1997
> >>>or 2006 (?) qualify as new "works" wrt/term length.  
> >>>
> >>>It's been industry-standard practice for distributors
> >>>to include two copyright notices on most catalog DVDs:
> >>>the year of first publication, and the year of DVD
> >>>release.  This is typically in movies called "special
> >>>editions," or "remasters"/"restorations."  It's almost
> >>>never clear from the packaging exactly what the
> >>>greater copyright date applies to.  The possibilities
> >>>I can think of are:
> >>>
> >>>1.) the (remastered) film as a whole,
> >>>2.) newly-inserted/modified elements of the film,
> >>>3.) special features & supplements as a whole,
> >>>4.) presentation of special features & supplements (if
> >>>compiled from works *fixed* well before first
> >>>publication, like never-before-seen, on-the-set
> >>>footage),
> >>>5.) DVD authorship content (and/or disc navigation
> >>>programming).
> >>>
> >>>Obviously (1) is of the most danger.  If Congress was
> >>>content (and federal judges complicit) with enacting
> >>>CTEA for film preservation, it's not a far step to
> >>>suggest that a "new edition" copyright granted ONLY to
> >>>keep an extant work in the marketplace might be
> >>>understood as a legitimate exercise of the copyright
> >>>power.  That defies the whole point of adding 20 years
> >>>to the term (giving content owners an opportunity to
> >>>recoup restoration costs), but it wouldn't be the
> >>>first time Congressional intent has been ignored to
> >>>advance an encroaching copyright power (COUGH!!
> >>>elcomsoft).
> >>>
> >>>We won't really know how all of this plays out until
> >>>an old movie, say the 1996 restored "Vertigo," falls
> >>>into the public domain.  That could be any of 
> >>>
> >>>2091 (CTEA, restoration defeats P.D.)
> >>>2071 (nixed CTEA, restoration defeats P.D.)
> >>>2053 (CTEA)
> >>>2052 (nixed CTEA, nixed '76, restoration defeats P.D.)
> >>>2033 (nixed CTEA)
> >>>2014 (nixed CTEA, nixed '76)
> >>>
> >>>Given that the '76 Act is in no danger and most
> >>>Senators will be dead before anyone begins to wonder,
> >>>I'm sure Congress is in no particular rush to clarify
> >>>this little question and risk PO'ing their benevolent
> >>>patrons.  
> >>>
> >>>--mattperkins/minneapolis
> >>>
> >>>__________________________________________________
> >>>Do You Yahoo!?
> >>>Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> >>>http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>