Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 31 Jan 2003 at 8:17, johnzu@ia.nsc.com wrote:

Date sent:      	Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:17:39 -0800 (PST)
From:           	johnzu@ia.nsc.com
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.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 intervention.
> 
> 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.

I don't think any argument would have mattered. The SCOTUS just wussed out. 
They also lack any set of vision about what wussing out means. It's something 
of arrogance to expect a generation of people to work to convince them of the 
errors of a decision that they already know to be wrong..but that's the way the 
system was set up...and until a few better jurists are appointed..this is what 
we have to deal with..

> 
> .002
> 
> 
> ** 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.
>