[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: johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:17:39 -0800 (PST)
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
>> > >> 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.
>And surely that's the purpose of copyright? To ensure that the author(s) get
>their recompense for ever copy sold? If they do, then the requirements of
>copyright are met, and there is no case.
Modern copyright has strayed so far from this it bears no resemblance to that
in the US Const. I think the only reason that Judge Ginsberg sees no change
to the "contours" of copyright in the CTEA is that the bloated extra-
constitutional elements had been in place long before CTEA. The real
problem with the Eldred challenge is that it didn't happen in the 60's. The
court couldn't figure out how to invalidate CTEA without rewinding the clock,
and I think the impression is "if this is really a problem, why didn't we
here about it 30 years ago" -- a kind of "statute of limitations" on USSC
Maybe the correct challenge would have been against the whole stack of 11
extensions and the DMCA on "Turner" (least restrictive means) grounds**.
But Monday morning quaterbacking is always too easy.
** the short form the argument is that if (per Turner) that the gov't
may persue "important ... ends" only by means "no more restrictive
than neccessary" -- if with 50 year terms the gov't is "promoting
progress" successfully, then (by definition) any longer terms are
"more restrictive" and thus not the least restrictive means to
achieve those ends.