[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Petition for rational copyright law
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Petition for rational copyright law
- From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:59:05 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcMqMzkW3clqnE7JQoOhrqIM9bOUTgFX3KEg
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] Petition for rational copyright law
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:email@example.com]
> At 20:38 -0400 6/3/03, Jim Bauer wrote:
> >I have trouble seeing how this will work. Of course, I have
> >trouble seeing how the current system works too.
> So movement from very broken to slightly-less broken is progress.
Not necessarily. When you try to make your way to not broken,
you may find that the sideways jaunt into slightly-less broken
makes the route to the final destination harder to plot.
Aside from that, there is always the "ok, we gave you this
now we don't have to listen to you again for a while" effect.
Sometimes it is better to hold out for what is really right
than to accept a compromise.
> >For something big, like a movie, that might be easy. But
> >how can I search for something small like a posting to a mailing
> >list like this?
> By the time this passes, we'll have evolved better search mechanisms
> for the data :)
I love solutions that say "that part'll be solved by someone
else before we need it" ...
> >What we need IMO is to know, from the moment of publication,
> >the date a copyrighted worke gains PD status.
> Also good, but unfortunately incompatible with the current life+N
> system (never mind the life+N+n+n+n ad infinitum).
Exactly. So accepting any "half measure" that perpetuates
the infinite extension philosophy is a bad move, imo.
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!