RE: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 27 Jun 2003 at 9:02, Richard Hartman wrote:

Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill
Date sent:      	Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:02:11 -0700
From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> It would be quite difficult -- if not impossible -- for any single 
> organization to obtain exclusive rights to any significant 
> percentage of the mass of existing copyrightable material.

I don't know about that. If the renewal fee is $1 I could see Disney, Harper, 
McGrawHill, Houghton Mifflin....etc etc spending $10M/yr just on speculation. 
Especially if they get a tax deduction as a business expense.

> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman 
> hartman@onetouch.com 
> 
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW! 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 7:56 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill
> 
> 
> 
> The question was not that Disney owns idea but if Disney owns say 90% of
> copyrighted material, then practically nothing enters the PD. The question is if
> that is harmful? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Jeme A Brelin <jeme@brelin.net> 
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 
> 
> 
> 06/26/2003 09:40 PM 
> Please respond to dvd-discuss 
> 
> 
> 
>         To:        Openlaw DMCA Forum <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu> 
>         cc:         
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > And if Disney buys up a large percentage of copyright then you order
> > them to divest it under the Sherman Anti-Trust act. IANAL but a monopoly
> > is a monopoly isn't it and there is nothing that says that an
> > Intellectual Property Monopoly is exempt from the act is there?
> 
> Well, prosecuting anti-trust requires that one show not just that a
> monopoly exist, but that it is harmful.  That is not a foregone conclusion
> in the eyes of the law.
> 
> I also think it would be absurd to say that Disney has a monopoly on
> ideas.  No matter how many specific stories they own, it can always be
> said that there are more.
> 
> And if you simply mean that Disney would be monopolizing a particular
> idea, well, that's seemingly a Constitutionally allowed grant from
> Congress.
> 
> Oh, and Strom Thurmond is dead (thus completing the evil trilogy).
> 
> J.
> -- 
>   -----------------
>     Jeme A Brelin
>    jeme@brelin.net
>   -----------------
> [cc] counter-copyright
> http://www.openlaw.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
>