[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Good Analysis From Dan Gillmor
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Good Analysis From Dan Gillmor
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:21:48 -0700
- In-reply-to: <OF2A0B7491.144AB696-ON88256D6D.0053BC8D@aero.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
Skip 13....I remember that one from Channel 43 in Cleveland Ohio an SuperHost!
On 24 Jul 2003 at 8:16, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Good Analysis From Dan Gillmor
From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org>
Date sent: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:16:44 -0700
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Now I know why they wanted to keep copyright so long...look at the list of
> downloadable movies at one of their links....(Sci FI in this case)...look at the
> offerings 8-14....Looks like either T&A or softcore
> Sort by
> Alien Force
> Starring: Tyrone Wade, Burt Ward & Roxanne Coyne
> 85 min.
> Ape, The
> Starring: Boris Karloff & Maris Wrixon
> 61 min.
> Blazing Force
> Starring: Tyrone Wade, Paul Logan & My Tran
> 91 min.
> Blood Red Planet
> Starring: Jon McBride, Robert Thomas & Joette
> 81 min.
> Boy and His Dog, A
> Starring: Don Johnson, Susanne Benton & Jason Robards
> 90 min.
> Crash of the Moons
> Starring: Richard Crane & Sally Mansfield
> 72 min.
> Creature from the Haunted Sea
> Starring: Anthony Carbone & Betsy Jones
> 74 min.
> Entry Level Male
> Starring: Michael W. Rhoads & Patti Rayne
> 86 min.
> Erotic House of Wax, The: Legacy of Lust
> Starring: Josie Hunter, Jacqueline Lovell & Everett
> J. Rodd
> 86 min.
> Erotic Time Machine, The
> Starring: Kelli Summers
> 70 min.
> Exotic Time Machine, The
> Starring: Gabriella Hall, Joseph Daniels & Nikki
> 79 min.
> Starring: Kurt Schwoebel, Vanessa Taylor & Jacqueline
> 89 min.
> Giant Gila Monster, The
> Starring: Don Sullivan & Lisa Simone
> 84 min.
> Girl Explores Girl
> Starring: Victoria Vega, Katie Keane & Darian Caine
> 86 min.
> God Told Me To
> Starring: Tony LoBianco & Deborah Raffin
> Seth Johnson <email@example.com>
> Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 07/23/2003 07:00 PM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Good Analysis From Dan Gillmor
> From an email from the Interesting People list.
> The first half of this article sounds very promising to me, going forward
> from the tendency to just focus on the transition to public domain that we
> find among many allies and spokespeople in the information freedom fight,
> for reasons that are still not extremely clear to me -- I have so far just
> assumed that the fact that information is free, that certain types of
> information intrinsically cannot be placed under exclusive rights, the
> fact/expression dichotomy that stands as the legal expression of this --
> that all of these are avoided as sounding too clever or sly, as sounding
> like attempts to rationalize things that are being characterized as
> and baleful by those who, for instance, call file sharers pirates or try
> bottle up code as "intellectual property." This tiptoing around the
> intrinsic freedom of information as a necessary aspect of a free society,
> very misguided and damaging to the movement.
> But while what Dan does in this article doesn't actually go the distance
> the way on that front, one can hear in it the ringing echo of this
> fundamental aspect which has been elided in most public discourse by those
> who have been abusing exclusive rights for so long now. Note for instance
> his phrasing, "The point of copyright is [. . .] equally [. . .] to get
> ideas and inventions -- arts and sciences and scholarship -- first into
> public sphere, and ultimately into the public domain." Setting aside the
> way he uses the term "equally" -- which is wrong [it is not "equally,"
> "first"] -- nevertheless his distinguishing of getting into the public
> sphere from the transition to the public domain, is a nod at the intrinsic
> freedom of information point. Also note the way he refers to "fair use"
> "part of the process." Another oblique, but very exciting nod toward
> acknowledging the intrinsic freedom of information.
> An additional very positive point to the article is the way it is one of a
> few cases that are starting to crop up where commentators are showing a
> willingness to state the essential fact that authors don't call the shots
> they only call the shots that Congress allows them to call.
> The second half of the article addresses other matters, somewhat related,
> but that commentary has less key significance in my mind.
> Seth Johnson
> > http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6364424.htm
> Studios demanding too much in their copyright campaign
> By Dan Gillmor
> Mercury News Technology Columnist
> Updated: Wednesday, July 23, 2003
> News and views, culled and edited from my online eJournal
> COPYRIGHT PIETY, NOT RESPECT: Sony, Disney, AOL and the other big
> movie studios have set up a cleverly named site,
> <http://www.respectcopyrights.org/> www.respectcopyrights.org, as part of
> campaign (also including TV commercials and in-theater pitches) aimed at
> convincing us all of a single point -- that it's wrong to infringe on
> Well, of course it is, especially when the purpose is to get something of
> value for nothing or deprive someone else of what he or she has
> earned. But in its typical overstated way, the film branch of the
> entertainment cartel is demanding a whole lot more, too.
> The industry insists that its customers bow to copyright holders' absolute
> control over how buyers may use what they've bought. It demands a veto on
> innovation with entirely benign uses, if that innovation also might be
> to infringe. And it sneers at the bargain that copyright holders once made
> with society -- a deal that would reward creativity while constantly
> refilling the well of public knowledge and art.
> The dishonesty on respectcopyrights.org isn't so much in what it says,
> though there are more than a few howlers. It's in what the Motion Picture
> Association of America doesn't say.
> The site is, as you'd expect, totally slanted in a single direction. It
> offers no hint that customers or users of copyrighted materials have any
> rights beyond those the copyright holder decides to grant.
> The mega-corporations that own the studios, through their MPAA front,
> piously quote Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
> Congress has the power ``to promote the progress of science and useful
> arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive
> right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .'' But the cartel
> has turned ``limited times'' into something like perpetuity, and the
> exclusivity has always been circumscribed, at least until recently.
> The point of copyright is not solely to pay creators. It's equally
> to get ideas and inventions -- arts and sciences and scholarship -- first
> into the public sphere, and ultimately into the public domain, where other
> creators build on them to make new art, new science, new scholarship.
> Part of the process involves ``fair use,'' the ability to quote in limited
> ways from copyrighted works. Fair use, in the modern world, also has come
> include our right to make backup copies of what we have purchased; to
> shift'' entertainment so we can watch TV programs when we, not the
> choose; and (among other things) the right to copy a song we've bought
> a format that plays on another device (such as a car cassette player).
> But the cartel believes it has the right to allow or forbid any and all of
> those uses if they involve digital copying. It plans to enforce these
> regimes through ``digital rights'' (read: ``digital restrictions'')
> technology, which has the ugly byproduct of destroying customers' privacy,
> and through harsh, frequently abused laws like the rigid Digital
> Copyright Act.
> The cartel believes -- and basically says -- that fair use is something
> copyright holders may provide or withhold at their whim.
> This stance tells customers they have no rights, except to spend or not
> spend. This stance abrogates two centuries of tradition and common sense.
> steals from our heritage -- and dims our future.
> The cartel wants us to respect copyrights. Fine. But when will the cartel
> respect our rights, and the public good, as well?
> FENDING OFF THE PUBLIC: The Bush administration's acquaintance with
> has always been somewhat tenuous. But the White House is setting new
> with its defense of an e-mail system that seems designed to discourage the
> rest of us from offering our opinions.
> The New York Times reported that the new message-to-the-president system
> requires users to ``navigate as many as nine Web pages'' and say whether
> they agree with or oppose the president's position on the issue. This,
> a hapless administration spokesman, was an ``enhancement.''
> Baloney. The obvious purposes are to reduce spam and deter letter writers
> understandable, given the volume of e-mail the White House receives. But
> calling it an ``effort to be more responsive,'' as the administration told
> the Times, doesn't pass the laugh test.
> Another, smaller motive for the redesign may be found in the character of
> this particular administration. Bush and his people have shown their
> disinterest in hearing from people who disagree with what they've already
> I doubt the Clinton crowd paid any serious attention to e-mail, either.
> at least that bunch didn't go out of their way to insult the people who
> the time to express their views.
> A REMINDER: As I noted last week, I welcome your views, and you can
> them in public if you wish. Visit my Weblog and tell me why I'm wrong or
> right, and what I'm missing. Please join the conversation.
> Dan Gillmor's column appears each Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday. Visit
> Dan's online column, eJournal at
> E-mail Dan at <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>email@example.com