Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights

["Ernest Miller" <ernest.miller(at)aya.yale.edu>]

I think the key distinction is public/private not private/commercially.  I
think the individuals using Napster were wrong because they were engaged in
public distribution, not because they benefited commercially.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org>
To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights


> The question is commercial vs private copying. To do that commercially is
> creating a derivative work. To do so privately should not be the concern
> of the law despite the fact that The MPAA, RIAA etc view ALL copying as
> piracy. It makes sense if one gives the copyright holder the ability to
> control derivative works commercially. The question is if I do it
> privately and transmit the results to another party. My own feeling is
> that I should be allowed to do that to someone I know but not otherwise
> (e.g., napster etc)
>
>
>
>
>
> "Ernest Miller" <ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 02/28/02 08:43 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
>
>
>         To:     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
>         cc:
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese
copyrights
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
> To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:40 AM
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
>
>
> > >
> > > Would it be a violation to sell a sub-titled version if you
> > > bought and destroyed an original for every sub-titled copy
> > > you distributed?
> > >
> >
> > If you have license to a copy, and the right to do what
> > you wish with your own copy, then that plan should work.
>
> The subtitles would be a derivative work and illegal.  Copyright law
> prohibits copying.  If you make a copy and destroy the original, you still
> have violated copyright law.  I agree that this makes no sense, which is
> why
> I advocate eliminating the "right to copy" as part of copyright law.
>
> > It is similar to a plan executed by someone who was fed
> > up w/ all the (unnecessary) sex in movies.  He offered
> > a service whereby he edited a movie to make a clean version.
> > IIRC either the customer had to send in their copy of
> > the tape to be edited, or they bought a copy from him
> > (as they would from any other reseller) that he had already
> > edited.  He did not _make_ copies, he edited existing
> > ones.
> >
> >
> > --
> > -Richard M. Hartman
> > hartman@onetouch.com
> >
> > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
>
>
>