Re: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 27 Jun 2003 at 18:25, Jeme A Brelin wrote:

Date sent:      	Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
From:           	Jeme A Brelin <jeme@brelin.net>
To:             	Openlaw DMCA Forum <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > On 27 Jun 2003 at 9:54, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> > > To state more directly what Richard put very clearly and subtley:  Disney
> > > may, at some point, own 90% of COPYRIGHTED material, but that is always an
> > > insignificant percentage of COPYRIGHTABLE material.
> >
> > Sure, every email, the design on every cereal box or label on a tin can
> > is copyrightable so Disney can own 90% of the copyrights on novels and
> > short stories but that's not a problem because they don't own 90% of the
> > copyrightable material?
> 
> Disney might (speculatively) control 90% of the existing copyrights on
> novels, short stories and movies (or whatver), but that's an insignificant
> percentage of the novels, short stories, and movies that can possibly be
> copyrighted.  In other words, creative potential is always deemed to be in
> competition with previously creative work and hence there can never be a
> monopoly.
> 
> That's how the law's going to see it, mind.

To quote Oliver Goldsmith (I believe) "The law is an ass". The point of a 
monopoly is not that it controls 90% (Remember that Zamboni controls 100%) but 
that it controls that large enough percentage that it dictates terms to the 
Free Market rather than the other way. Also, the forever nonexistance of a 
monopoly is fallacious apriori.

> 
> J.
> -- 
>    -----------------
>      Jeme A Brelin
>     jeme@brelin.net
>    -----------------
>  [cc] counter-copyright
>  http://www.openlaw.org