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

RE: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech

A fine formulation of the issue.  Now, can we get it to someone who can
state it in those terms before Congress? 

-Richard M. Hartman

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:30 AM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Cc: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech

Being copiable, is a necessary condition for the work to enter the public domain at the end of copyright. If it cannot be copied, then it cannot enter the public domain and so cannot also be given the privledge of copyright.

"Steve Hosgood" <steve@caederus.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

11/21/2002 08:46 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

        To:        dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech

Michael Rolenz writes:
> THe copyright clause does not EXIST for the purpose of maximizing profits.
> Maximizing profits is a consequence of the monopoly granted but not the
> reason for its existance.

Ok, I see the point.

> To state that the copyright clause exists to
> maximize profits is counter to the Constitutional phrase "promote science
> and the arts...".

It's a bit of both though isn't it? Copyright "promotes science and the arts.."
by helping convince creators of works to make them available and profit from
whatever can be made from them (over a limited period).

Shakespeare of course did all his creative work without such protections, but
pirating a play was rather hard to do. Having said that, they *did* get pirated
eventually, and that's why Shakespeare's company printed official versions
so I've heard.

> IN some ways that is the whole crux of Eldred. The
> governments is arguing profits and Eldred is arguing promoting.

Really? I though the (US) government is arguing "profits for ever" or "profits
for as long as we say so". Compounded by "OK, so we told Walt he could have
50(?) years copyright on the Rat in 1927, but now we're changing our minds".

> You'll get no argument from me that a work distributed with a DRM is not
> copyrighted....I think I advanced that argument earlier.

Oops, sorry.

What about my other theory, that in order to be copyrighted a work must
be copyable?

I hate it when everyone else has my good ideas first... :-)


Steve Hosgood                               |
steve@caederus.com                          | "A good plan today is better
Phone: +44 1792 203707 + ask for Steve      |   than a perfect plan tomorrow"
Fax:   +44 70922 70944                      |              - Conrad Brean
       http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve         |  ( from the film "Wag the Dog" )