Re: [dvd-discuss] Slashdot article - Canadian Tariffs

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

Yes..if the media content providers are trying to use DRM to limit Fair 
Use, then this is a natural balance to that...but not a desireable one. 
The problem with the whole approach  is that it's a tax that only is for 
the benefit of a special interest for possible infringement that may be 
happening to some degree. If 50% of the CDRs sold are used for copying 
CDs, then 50% are used legitimately and the tax on them is FREE money to 
them for no reason taken from legitimate users who don't infringe. (No 
taxation without representation?). At that point, what reason do people 
have to respect copyright? 

Also consider this. Not adjusting for the rate of exchange  but $1.23 is 
close to the cost of producing the physical CD (Which is about $1.50 I 
think). The tax is pretty much just reimbursing the cost of producing the 
CD that they DIDN"T have to produce because somebody copied it and is in 
fact their actual monetary losses rather than their retail loss. At that 
point, the copyright holders have been reimbursed for any losses by 
society and so society has no interest in dealing with copyright 
infringement cases any further-copyright infringment no longer is a crime 
and no longer is even a civil matter. I don't think that this is what the 
copyright holders want but...it's want they might get.




"Ernest Miller" <ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
03/12/02 04:00 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Slashdot article - Canadian Tariffs


I have to disagree.  I think that by accepting  these levys on blank media
we lose more than we could possibly gain by decreasing certain copyrights.
After all, accepting such is a tacit admission that personal use copying 
is
wrong.  Furthermore, these payments always increase media industry
conglomeration - one of the main evils of expansive copyright as it is.

Moreover, I don't think we should give lesser rights to those who use copy
protection.  What I object to is giving additional protection to copy
protection.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@seltzer.com>
To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slashdot article - Canadian Tariffs


> At 12:16 PM 3/12/02 -0900, Jacob Gemmell wrote:
> >I don't think it is a tariff.  Slashdot just mislabeled it.  Rather it 
is
> >a levy.  That being said, how is this justified in light of copy
protected
> >CDs?  Do recording companies who use copy protection schemes still get
> >thier piece of the pie?
>
> That's a neat question, and might be the first wedge at giving lesser
> copyright rights to those who use technical means to limit use beyond 
what
> copyright does.  Let's make them choose a range of rights in proportion 
to
> what they give the public -- greater compensation for the publication of
> unencumbered copies, lesser for the vending of DRM-crippled copies.
>
> I hope someone with standing to object will raise this question 
(although
> apportionment appears to be addressed elsewhere, in the Copyright Act).
>
> --Wendy
>
>