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

[Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>]

I agree here, I just can't agree that napster itself was wrong, because
they only provided dumb indexes of files.  That's like saying a
"match-up" agency is responsible when some woman kills the guy she met
through the agency.  All they provided her was his name and number.  Just
with computers, it's more difficult to see that because people are
mystified by "the magic", and so they sake [what they see as] the
practical approach, instead of the technically sound one.

 -- noah silva 

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Ernest Miller wrote:

> 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!
> >
> >
> >
> 
>