[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

johnzu@ia.nsc.com has written

>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.

Also this issue may help people understand the devils bargain of copyright 
and patent. We give the monopoly to encourage progress NOT protectionism 
for corporations. As .002 has pointed out there really must be some USE 
for the product when the term expires or else the term is far too long. 
And not just use for ONE single product but a large percentage of them. 
BTW ? when the question of limits for copyright and patent are discussed, 
that should be taken as an axiom (OK call it Zulauf's Axiom)

>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

But this is true for any copyright material.

>"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.

I can see it now..fade in..

"Grandma. Did you have Britney when you were growing up?"

"No..chil..we had something much better..The Beatles, The Who, The 

"Gosh. Who are they?"

"I'd really like to share them with you but I can't get a needle for my 
record player,my 8 track tape player has been busted for decades, my 
cassette player was confiscated in the RIAA Copyright Infringement Device 
Roundup of '03, my CD won't play in these new players, and I can't afford 
to buy a new computer with all the copy protection, digital rights 
managements software that really works..do you know "row row row your 
boat?"..no?..well it goes "row, row, row , your boat, gently down the 

fade out

>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.

How do you tell one restored work from another? WATERMARKING? DO people 
have to keep track of electronic watermarks to tell what is and what is 
not in the public domain? Pick up a book of antique markings (e.g., glass) 
sometime and see how difficult that is to sort out. 

So if a restored work in the public domain gets copyright protection do 
they just keep restoring it ad infinitum and eventually create so many 
copies out there that nobody can keep track of which ones are in copyright 
and which ones are not. Then the burden is on someone to show that what 
they thought was in the public domain reallyw wasn't?

As for the commercial incentive. If the work is in the public domain, then 
they get it free ? no copyright, no royalties, no negotiation. FREE. All 
they have to put up are the money to restore it and distribute it (which 
may be a lot less over the internet). <Now some restorations are extensive 
enough that they warrant copyright protection, e.g., Stravinsky's Ballet 
"The Right of Spring" but let's not let that extreme case drive all 

I don't think this is the answer. As per Eldred, the restored work is not 
really that original in many instances ? digitizing and running it through 
some signal processing software? That puts about as much originality into 
it as running it through a 12 band graphic equalizer did 20 yrs ago. It's 
mechanical and the mechanical act removes the work from the pubic domain. 
Remember that there are NO restrictions on what one can use in the public 

>78v3rc001@sneakemail.com wrote:
>> I was thinking this exact same thing when NPR had a sound bite with 
>> talking about generic drugs. I imagined the word "patent" replaced with 
>> 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 
>> 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.
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> > Perhaps we need something similar to the prescription drug issue:
>> >
>> > The cost of education due to textbooks and other royalty fees?  (most 
>> > 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 
>> > 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 
>> > issues (like prescription drugs are).
>> >
>> >