[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court travesty

I just finished reading the SCOTUS decision...what rambling tortured 
argumentation....with an occasional sneer at the dissents. After obfuscating 
enough, they simply conclude "the petitioner is wrong"

I don't think the proposal in 
will pass muster. While politically compromising...the approach of allowing 
profitable works to keep paying the tax ad infinitum WOULD be constitutionally 
invalid under the SCOTUS decision.  THe decision pointed out that "well even 
though the terms are getting longer, they still are limited" Such an approach 
would permit unlimited terms and so would not pass even under this ruling. 
Speaking as a member of society, who is not to blame (I hope), .002's argument 
that the work must have some value when it enters the public domain or else the 
term is far too long is a sound one....but starting to tax after 28 yrs 
relieves the government of an administrative burden and provides some revenues.

BTW - I would contend that the Berne Treaty is unenforcable since it forbids 
registration as a condition of copyright. Without registration, the copyright 
of works cannot be reliably and simply ascertained. The Berne Treaty fails the 
first test of being objectifiable. I don't know of any provision in it that 
does not allow taxation of copyrights as a condition of administration....(OK 
if Guyana taxes Disney to preserve its copyright in Guyana that sounds good to 
me.). Of course, the Berne Treaty was created in the 1870s...if Microsoft can 
argue that the Sherman Anti-Trust acts are not applicable in 2000 then a 
similar argument can be made for the Berne Treaty.

On 18 Jan 2003 at 16:03, Jeremy Erwin wrote:

Date sent:      	Sat, 18 Jan 2003 16:03:59 -0500
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court travesty
From:           	Jeremy Erwin <jerwin@ponymail.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Oops, Siva's commentary is at 
> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/01/17/copyright/index.html
> Lessig has a FAQ on the Eric Eldred Act here.
> http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/EAFAQ.html
> On Saturday, January 18, 2003, at 03:20  PM, James S. Tyre wrote:
> > I would urge folks to read Larry's blog entries since the decision, 
> > http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/.  Some of what he blogs is 
> > very technical, lawyerly, some is quite personal.  And if you've not 
> > seen it already, do be sure to click on his link to the Reason 
> > "interview" of Mickey after the decision, it's an instant classic.
> >
> > At 02:53 PM 1/18/2003 -0500, Jeremy Erwin wrote:
> >> Lawrence Lessig: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/18/opinion/18LESS.html
> >> Siva Vaidhyanathan: 
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/18/opinion/18LESS.htm
> >>
> >> And yesterday, PBS's "Now with Bill Moyers" had an interesting 
> >> documentary on copyright law.
> >> http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/copyright.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Jeremy
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > James S. Tyre                               mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
> > Law Offices of James S. Tyre          310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
> > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 90230-4969
> > Co-founder, The Censorware Project             http://censorware.net
> >