RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 7 Aug 2002 at 10:29, Richard Hartman wrote:

From:           	Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-
discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
Date sent:      	Wed, 7 Aug 2002 10:29:07 -0700 
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> The thing is that in many of these cases it is less
> of a matter of intentionally blocking use of the 
> property as it is just ignoring it.  Truely "abandoned
> property" as the msg I was responding to suggested.
> Should there not be a difference between intentional
> suppression and mere indifference?

The former should be an abuse of copyright since it attempts to suppress speech 
in the form of criticism and discussion (e.g., Judge BOrk held that political 
speech was the most protected of all. ). In the case of games, if one recreates 
"Donkey Kong", "Space Invaders" or "Joust" [one of my favorites] is one 
infringing copyright? And after how many years of abandonment? I've argued thsi 
before but if one must exercise REAL property rights to retain them then 
certainly some exercise less than the fat fifth generation living off 
intellectual property or the infringement lawsuits from it is needed.


> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: D. C. Sessions [mailto:dcs@lumbercartel.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 7:38 AM
> > To: DVD-Discuss
> > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 09:39, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > > Now we're talking games like the original Space Invaders, 
> > Gorf, Donkey
> > > Kong, etc.  When was the last time you saw one of these in a modern
> > > arcade?  These properties _are_ abandoned IP.  It would be 
> > interesting
> > > if one of these groups sued the owner of the copyright for 
> > one of these
> > > properties for the right to distribute it.  A "s**t or get off the
> > > pot" suit, as it were.  (I wonder if the EFF would be interested in
> > > that sort of thing ...)
> > 
> > Not going to happen without legislation.  Currently, there is
> > quite a bit of case law supporting copyright holders who use
> > copyright exclusively to block publication (Scientology, some
> > other religious groups, and record companies who keep artists
> > from performing until they finish their eight-record contract.)
> > 
> > I hope that you wouldn't be too surprised to see that there is
> > a huge amount of money in favor of keeping it that way.
> > 
> > -- 
> > | May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, |
> > |  the strength to change the things I cannot accept, and the   |
> > |    cunning to hide the bodies of those who got in my way.     |
> > +------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -----------+
> > 
> >