[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[dvd-discuss] 50 year copyright logo suggestion
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: [dvd-discuss] 50 year copyright logo suggestion
- From: "John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:33:08 -0700
- References: <3E2A9AE8.21950.CC090C@localhost>; firstname.lastname@example.org on Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 12:32:40PM -0800<3E2AA606.14422.F776C5@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
A visual pun on (C) == 0 yields:
for it correctly formatted.
> On 19 Jan 2003 at 21:46, Sham Gardner wrote:
> Date sent: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 21:46:42 +0100
> From: Sham Gardner <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court travesty
> Send reply to: email@example.com
> > On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 12:32:40PM -0800, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > > 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
> > > http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/EAFAQ.html
> > > 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.
> > The proposal doesn't actually say it would allow copyrights to extend
> > indefinitely if the payments were made. It's not really clear on the matter at
> > all. I understood it to mean that maximum terms would be left as they are, but n
> > years into that term copyright protection ceases to be automatic.
> You are right but without an explicit limit that cannot be changed the proposal
> is without merit. So that needs come clarification. As .002 has pointed out ,
> there must be some residual benefit to the copyright. In the case of Sherlock
> Holmes, Nicolaus Meyer wrote two pastiches, the first was wonderful and made
> into a enjoyable film. The BBC pastiches have been less wonderful but at least
> were entertaining.
> > But aside from that. Didn't it say 30 years rather than 50 a few days ago?
> > I realise placing the threshold further back probably makes the proposal
> > more palatable to the other side, but I wouldn't have thought it would take 50
> > years.
> The website has 50 now...of course nothing less than in perpetuity gratis is
> not acceptable to JackBoots and company...
> > --
> > http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/
> > "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of
> > arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for
> > freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot
> > stand." (Ambassador G'Kar, Babylon 5)