RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 8 Aug 2002 at 9:14, 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:      	Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:14:29 -0700 
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 7:41 PM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Good questions, and important too.  Note, for example,
> that "Joust" in particular is not abandoned.  Versions have
> been created for the Color Gameboy, and now for the
> Game Boy Advanced.  Some of the other old arcade games
> have modern re-issuances ... but some don't, and are
> unlikely to.  Moreover, depending upon the length of
> time we settle on to indicate "abandoment" of the property
> it might have even been too long for "Joust" to have
> been kept in the back room ...


I have fond memories of Joust...my best friend and I used to play it in a bar 
near campus waiting for his wife to finish her evening classes in computer 
science.

All that aside. Despite proposing it I do not believe that the concept of 
abandoned intellectual property is one that should be put into practice. I 
believe that setting reasonable time limits for the various types of 
intellectual property is the only approach that makes sense. As has been 
pointed out 120 yrs for Windows2000 is either arrogant or asinine or both. If 
there is some time when terms need to be extended for somethings because of 
dramatic changes in lifespan ("AGING has been REVERSED...you can live to be 167 
 yrs but while your golf game will improve for the last 80 yrs of your life we 
know for a fact that your ability to write meaningful prose will diminish and 
for the last 10 yrs you won't beable to sign a check but will be able to beat 
any 10 yr old around the block...") or other reasons (other than 
protectionism). But surely we possess enough to create a transition plan that 
is fair to the authors, publishers and public without creating a huge windfall 
such as has been for the last 26 yrs....



> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!