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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

Done all the time....one notable exception is the smily face....deliberately 
put into the public domain....I assume that maybe Congress would want to remedy 
that...I assume that the logo is public domain or else this whole exercise is 
for naught

On 27 Jan 2003 at 16:10, Richard Hartman wrote:

Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] 50 year copyright logo suggestion
Date sent:      	Mon, 27 Jan 2003 16:10:19 -0800
From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 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)
> > 
> >