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

RE: [dvd-discuss] [Off-topic] Eldred v. Ashcroft.

I think it is interesting that nowadays, if you want to refute somebody, you
just declare their thesis to be a "myth."
While I understand his motivation, I think Mr. Martin would not have to
resort to name calling if he had stronger arguments
to support his position.  A differing opinion on the scope of copyright law
is hardly a "myth".  :)

Of particular interest is "Myth #10:"

"The Bono Term Extension Act was the worst kind of Special Interest
engineered by Disney to satisfy its insatiable corporate greed."

To refute this, on Page 122 Mr. Martin claims that those who opposed this
extension of copyright are espousing a Marxist position, and may have had
unhappy childhoods.  Would I be wrong to compare Scott Martin's arguments to
those of Mr. Joe McCarthy? He appears to desire more to discredit his
opposition than to discuss the merits of the law.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
[mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 4:41 PM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] [Off-topic] Eldred v. Ashcroft.

I saw this too. You need to have a gasbag to kick around anyway. He is legal
counsel for paramount, so it's his job. He lists "ten myths" about copyright
extension/public domain. I thought that it would be good to have "ten myths
refuted" if there was an audience for it.

Phill K.

----- Original Message -----
From: "microlenz@earthlink.net

> Check out the link there
> http://llr.lls.edu/
> Loyala is putting together a synmposium but one strikes my eye and offends
> The Mythology Of The Public Domain:
>     Exploring The Myths Behind Attacks On The
>     Duration Of Copyright Protection
>     Scott M. Martin