RE: [dvd-discuss] [Off topic] European Copyrights Expiring on Recordings From 1950's

["Dean Sanchez" <DSANCHEZ(at)fcci-group.com>]

I don't think that I have incorrectly characterized his position; I used his own words in context. He is upset that the corporations will have to sell the works in a competitive manner instead of a monopolistic way. He is complaining when someone else uses legal maneuvering (as the Copyright Industry is so apt to do) to get around a law that is arguably unfair itself.

The copyright holder released his or her works in a country with shorter copyright with the understanding that they would expire and that he or she would no longer have any control of the work.  Stress on the word 'any'. That also means distribution. If they didn't like those terms, they didn't have to release the works in that country. They no longer have foundation for complaining later just because they were able to bribe the politicians in another country to give them longer copyrights. The argument about getting screwed by a country with shorter or no copyright is specious.  If they agree to the release of their material in such a country, then my previous argument holds.  If they didn't agree, then the material was never legal to begin with and I would agree that they have a valid stance.

From your reasoning, can I also assume that you have no problem with the Industry using region coding to restrict distribution and artificially inflate prices? Or with Microsoft's assertion that the 'gray' market sales of its surplus software should be illegal?  Or Levi's attacks on importers/distributors that purchased authentic Levi products for resell in a different country?  Or the numerous examples where companies claim copyright violation in similar cases?

The intellectual product that is to be imported was legally created under the terms that the holder agreed to.  First sale is not an issue here; it is no longer just their product, it belongs to the public.


The copyright industry has received a free ride on the public's shoulder for many more years than the founders of this country ever intended for them to have.  The article itself makes the statement about how the release of this material in to the public domain is already leading to innovation and progress - the goal of copyright.

So yes, I have a big problem with a spokesman for the RIAA characterizing this as 'piracy'.



-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Stratton [mailto:cpt@gryphon.auspice.net]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 2:56 PM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] [Off topic] European Copyrights Expiring on
Recordings From 1950's


I don't really agree, nor have you correctly characterized his position, 
IMO.

It's not the making of legal recordings that he says is piracy -- it's the 
import to a place where they could not have been legally made by the same 
party. And that import can be infringement under 17 USC 602, IIRC.

I don't really have a problem with this one; for once it seems to have 
been handled acceptably. This prevents copyright holders from getting 
screwed by a country that had an ultrashort term or no copyright at all 
that exported works to places that had longer terms and were thus 
worthwhile. The copies made not for export in that country are fine, 
however.

As interpreted, it doesn't impair first sale, and there are some good 
statutory exemptions.


On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Dean Sanchez wrote:

> Neil Turkewitz's quote,``The import of those products would be an act of piracy'', is a classic RIAA sound bite.  In its eyes, even a legal recording is piracy if they don't make money off of it.  This is even worse than  the executive that said that leaving the room during a television commercial was stealing.  What twisted ethics the Copyright Industry has.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt Hockenbury [mailto:khockenb@stevens-tech.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 6:31 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] [Off topic] European Copyrights Expiring on
> Recordings From 1950's
> 
> 
> Record companies are upset because European copyrights are exiring.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/02/international/02CND_COPY.html
> 
> "Copyright protection lasts only 50 years in Europe compared to 95 years in
> the United States, even if the recordings were originally made and released in
> America."
> 
> Obviously, the US needs to "harmonize" our copyright law and change our
> expiration to 50 years.  :-)
> 
> 
>