Re: [dvd-discuss] Copyright Renewal Amendment

[Steve Stearns <sterno(at)bigbrother.net>]

On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 10:42, John Zulauf wrote:

> (II) Let's all be clear on the limits of the "exclusive rights".  This
> solves huge problems with both educational use of copyright material and
> "humanitarian" use of patents.  This would also cover "free (as in
> speech or beer) software" -- it's non-commercial -- i.e. Mozilla
> wouldn't have to pay for patents, but AOL/Netscape would.  If a drug is
> patented, but made and distributed only for charitable use, then there
> is no claim.  Post first sale restrictions on use *prohited* -- the
> "death of post-first-sale DRM/TPM" clause

There's a big problem with this.  Can RedHat give away free copies of
Micrsoft Office and Windows?  Seems to me that if they are giving it
away that qualifies as non-commercial.  What if it's not RedHat, but
instead the Free Software Foundation, who's definitely non-commercial.  

Giving people unlimited ability to make copies for non-commercial use is
rather extreme.  Frankly I think the rules we have right now are pretty
reasonable.  You can make limited copies and you can even give away
those copies to others as long as it doesn't exceed a certain dollar
amount.  It strikes a pretty good balance between the interests of the
copyright holder and the public.

Also, one other thing to add.  It should be that if a company releases a
work that is elligible for copyright and then proceeds to apply security
to it that in any way limits fair use rights, that work should
immediately forfeit copyright protection.  So, go ahead and make your
unplayable CD's all you want, but if I can rip and distribute it, you
get no protection.

---Steve