[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] 120 years and still not in the public domain
- To: "Dean Sanchez" <DSANCHEZ(at)fcci-group.com>, dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] 120 years and still not in the public domain
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:23:03 -0700
- In-reply-to: <AE4FEB771101014D8694547908E81CCC0F6C9D@postal.fcci-group.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
On 2 Oct 2003 at 14:40, Dean Sanchez wrote:
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] 120 years and still not in the public domain
Date sent: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:40:58 -0400
From: "Dean Sanchez" <DSANCHEZ@fcci-group.com>
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> I would tend to disagree with that assessment. That is the same reasoning used
> by the groups that push for standards that are encumbered by royalties or
> copyrights - the idea that one company or group should have control because
> "they can ensure that the standards are maintained". I don't agree with that
> argument, either. There are numerous standards that are in the public domain.
> Companies and individuals have many reasons and arguments for why their
> 'Intellectual Property' (how I hate that phrase) should not enter the public
> domain, but I have yet to read or hear of one that IMHO provides any
> justification for diminishing the Public Domain.
I think you touch upon an interesting balance. Standards are needed for
general intercourse (no flames check your dictionary first) and so serve a
public need. The monopolization of that standard by a specific group is counter
to that need. The question then is how one can incentivize would be creators to
create standards that are lasting and of benefit to the public rather than
merely promote monopolies that enrich them and detract from the public good..
> Side note here: I almost wrote 'robbing from' instead of 'diminishing'. If
> the IP industry wants to equate infringement with theft, then the continued
> abuses and expansion of the industry is stealing from society.
I prefer extortion, coercion, blackmail.....or maybe just the "racket"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Jeremy Erwin
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:07 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 120 years and still not in the public domain
> On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 11:39 AM, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> > It's not copyright but trademark infringement :
> > "Now the library group is suing the Library Hotel, accusing it of
> > trademark infringement. "
> > This may wind up having (or should) the same status as Kleenex. Yes
> > "Kleenex" is a trademark but it is also something used so commonly
> > that it is now a word. Having someone say "give me a Kleenex" in a
> > film should be considered free advertising rather than trademark
> > infringement whereas putting "Kleenex" on a box of paper tissues made
> > by someone else would be infringement since one would be confusing the
> > real "kleenex" with a competitors. I seriously doubt that ANY one
> > would confuse the DDC in a library with a decorative theme in a
> > Hotel...In this case, I hope the Judge sees fit to follow that line of
> > reasoning.
> Some libraries do have an interest in maintaining a national standard.
> If all the libraries subscribing to a interlibrary loan program know
> that a particular book is filed under 323.156, book lending among
> libraries is more efficient. But if Library A has been subscribing to a
> OCLC list, and library B is using another classification service, then
> the book might just be filed under 401.342. Hence, the OCLC and its
> subscribing institutions have some interest in ensuring that the Dewey
> Classification system does not become generic.
> Where is the Hotel getting its cataloging data anyway?