RE: [dvd-discuss] 50 year copyright logo suggestion

["Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

So ... how do you copyright a copyright notice format? ;-)


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 12:33 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] 50 year copyright logo suggestion
> 
> 
> A visual pun on (C) == 0 yields:
> 
> Copyright 5(c)
> 
> see 
> 
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/twiki/bin/view/Openlaw/CopyrightReformLogo
> 
> for it correctly formatted.
> 
> 
> 
> microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > 
> > 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)
> 
>