Re: [dvd-discuss] "limited times" selectively the gov't"gets it"

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

The AARP angle is an interesting one.  Certainly the content of the
AARP's youth is being held hostage.  The AARP demographic is the least
likely to be online, and the publication of 40's and 50's music has been
relegated to the "Time-Life Series" 19.99/disc.  BTW the quality of the
releases is often terrible, as their is no benefit to restoring them,
and no competitive product against which quality can be judged.

Freeing that content would:

(a) reduce the cost to the customers
(b) increase the total number of works from their youth available

(and from my POV as a technologist)
(c) draw a new demographic online
(d) create a new group interested in internet radios, broadband, network
"appliances" 

"Our youth is being held hostage!" "Why should Disney own my youth!" ---
that's a rallying cry.  I can see the sad TV ad campaign featuring a
grandmother and grandchild sitting still, sad, and silent-- "locked in
the silence of copyright run amok" or with adults wincing at
Eminem/Britney-esque MTV and the contrast of "being able to share freely
the works that moved you in your youth" of a cross-generational party
atmosphere.  With "sharing the values of a quieter generation" gunk to
swelling strains of emotional, but copyrighted music.

Further if restoration works were granted a new (but still short)
copyright, then there would be an incentive to commercial interests for
restored and remastered works, with real competition from the free (and
freely restored ) copies to force up the quality and down the price.

78v3rc001@sneakemail.com wrote:
> 
> I was thinking this exact same thing when NPR had a sound bite with Bush
> talking about generic drugs. I imagined the word "patent" replaced with the
> word "copyright".
> 
> The drug companies have developed expansive legal tactics (shenanigans?) to
> extend profitable expiring drug patents.
> 
> The reason that it is a noticable issue is that this affects seniors
> directly who love to vote. So it really is hard for a politician to ignore
> their voice.
> 
> http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2002-May/003069.html
> 
> So when it comes to medicine, politicians listen. Copyright goes to the
> highest bidder^errr  campaign contributor^errr political supporter.
> 
> Phill
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Zulauf johnzu-at-ia.nsc.com
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:15 PM
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] "limited times" selectively the gov't "gets it"
> 
> > Compare and contrast to copyright:
> >
> > New rules proposed to keep down the costs of prescription drugs, and
> > limit the abuse of the Copyright Clause.
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/bush.generic.drugs/index.html
> >
> > Perhaps we need something similar to the prescription drug issue:
> >
> > The cost of education due to textbooks and other royalty fees?  (most 20
> > year math books would make at good reference for extra math.  Calculus
> > hasn't change much in that time, nor have the first year of college
> > chemistry, physics, et. al.)
> >
> > Global competitiveness -- "little Johnny U. Ess  can't compete with
> > (name foreign country to fear economically here) because all of his
> > multimedia tools are all locked down with DRMs."
> >
> > The choir directors and community orchestras don't seem to have made an
> > impact in Eldred (in terms of the public debate) -- maybe the
> > "education" issue could be used more effectively.
> >
> >
> > ..002 -- as he wonders aloud yet again, if the reason few care about
> > copyrights is that (a) it's still easy to scofflaw copyright and (b)
> > none of this stuff is related to food, clothing, shelter level survival
> > issues (like prescription drugs are).
> >
> >