Re: [dvd-discuss] Distribution (Was: Eldred Being Argued Today)

["D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>]

On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 02:15, Sham Gardner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 11:12:34AM +0200, Tom wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 09:35:39PM -0700, D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > > One of the arguments that the Cartel advanced today (IIRC and
> > > IIUC) was that without exclusive distribution rights, nobody
> > > would distribute the old material at all.  
> > 
> > Uh, am I just being dense or is that the most stupid argument they can
> > make given the fact that the very case is about someone wanting
> > to do exactly that?
> 
> Not to mention that they're constantly complaining about their works being
> distributed by people who are explicitly prohibited from doing so.

"Your Honor, we need to keep the Defendant from publishing
this work.  If the Court allows the Defendant to publish it,
nobody will publish it."

Another interesting rebuttal would be those cases (e.g. CoS)
where copyright is specifically being used to for
censorship (too bad that one didn't make it into the A1 part)
and extended terms effectively make the censorship permanent.

-- 
| The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. |
| Because the slow, feeble old codgers like me cheat.                |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+