Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court travesty

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 19 Jan 2003 at 21:46, Sham Gardner wrote:

Date sent:      	Sun, 19 Jan 2003 21:46:42 +0100
From:           	Sham Gardner <mail@risctaker.inka.de>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court travesty
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 12:32:40PM -0800, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > I just finished reading the SCOTUS decision...what rambling tortured 
> > argumentation....with an occasional sneer at the dissents. After obfuscating
> > enough, they simply conclude "the petitioner is wrong"
> > 
> > I don't think the proposal in 
> > http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/EAFAQ.html
> > will pass muster. While politically compromising...the approach of allowing
> > profitable works to keep paying the tax ad infinitum WOULD be constitutionally
> > invalid under the SCOTUS decision.  THe decision pointed out that "well even
> > though the terms are getting longer, they still are limited" Such an approach
> > would permit unlimited terms and so would not pass even under this ruling. 
> 
> The proposal doesn't actually say it would allow copyrights to extend
> indefinitely if the payments were made. It's not really clear on the matter at
> all. I understood it to mean that maximum terms would be left as they are, but n
> years into that term copyright protection ceases to be automatic.

You are right but without an explicit limit that cannot be changed the proposal 
is without merit. So that needs come clarification. As .002 has pointed out , 
there must be some residual benefit to the copyright. In the case of Sherlock 
Holmes, Nicolaus Meyer wrote two pastiches, the first was wonderful and made 
into a enjoyable film. The BBC pastiches have been less wonderful but at least 
were entertaining.

> 
> But aside from that. Didn't it say 30 years rather than 50 a few days ago?
> I realise placing the threshold further back probably makes the proposal
> more palatable to the other side, but I wouldn't have thought it would take 50
> years.

The website has 50 now...of course nothing less than in perpetuity gratis is 
not acceptable to JackBoots and company...
> 
> -- 
> http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/
> 
> "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of
> arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for
> freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot
> stand." (Ambassador G'Kar, Babylon 5)