[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
- From: Jeremy Erwin <jerwin(at)ponymail.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 22:57:03 -0500
- In-reply-to: <3E39767E.27929.2B1030@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 10:01 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org
>> On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 12:51 PM, Richard Hartman wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>>>> On 22 Jan 2003 at 14:34, email@example.com wrote:
>>>> notion that copyright controls ALL derivative works is the
>>>> problem. It only
>>>> should control COMMERCIAL derivative works and by commercial
>>>> I would contend
>>>> that applies ONLY to lost revenues that are demonstratable
>>>> (e.g., 1000 copies
>>>> of bootleg ). In the case of the clean Flicks, I can't see
>>>> that they have lost
>>>> ANY commercial revenue even with the copies of the tape.
>> The Monty Python case demonstrated that the Lanham Act was
> My impression of the Monty Python case was that is involved breach of
> between the BBC and NBC(?). Monty Python sold episodes to the BBC with
> contractual arrangments. BBC sold them to NBC who did not honor those
> agreements...maybe memory is wrong...
I'm slowly going insane. A mere search for "monty python erwin lanham"
will prove that I've forgotten the gist of Gilliam v. ABC.
A summary (and link to the opinion) is available here: