RE: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill

["Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

Mere renwal won't get you any more than what
you already have.  IOW, if you don't already
own 90% of material under copyright, no amount
of renewal of the material you do own will get
you a greater percentage.


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 2:32 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill
> 
> 
> On 27 Jun 2003 at 9:02, Richard Hartman wrote:
> 
> Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill
> Date sent:      	Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:02:11 -0700
> From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
> To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> > It would be quite difficult -- if not impossible -- for any single 
> > organization to obtain exclusive rights to any significant 
> > percentage of the mass of existing copyrightable material.
> 
> I don't know about that. If the renewal fee is $1 I could see 
> Disney, Harper, 
> McGrawHill, Houghton Mifflin....etc etc spending $10M/yr just 
> on speculation. 
> Especially if they get a tax deduction as a business expense.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > -Richard M. Hartman 
> > hartman@onetouch.com 
> > 
> > 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW! 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 7:56 AM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The question was not that Disney owns idea but if Disney 
> owns say 90% of
> > copyrighted material, then practically nothing enters the 
> PD. The question is if
> > that is harmful? 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  Jeme A Brelin <jeme@brelin.net> 
> > Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 
> > 
> > 
> > 06/26/2003 09:40 PM 
> > Please respond to dvd-discuss 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >         To:        Openlaw DMCA Forum 
> <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu> 
> >         cc:         
> >         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain 
> Enhancement Bill
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > And if Disney buys up a large percentage of copyright 
> then you order
> > > them to divest it under the Sherman Anti-Trust act. IANAL 
> but a monopoly
> > > is a monopoly isn't it and there is nothing that says that an
> > > Intellectual Property Monopoly is exempt from the act is there?
> > 
> > Well, prosecuting anti-trust requires that one show not just that a
> > monopoly exist, but that it is harmful.  That is not a 
> foregone conclusion
> > in the eyes of the law.
> > 
> > I also think it would be absurd to say that Disney has a monopoly on
> > ideas.  No matter how many specific stories they own, it 
> can always be
> > said that there are more.
> > 
> > And if you simply mean that Disney would be monopolizing a 
> particular
> > idea, well, that's seemingly a Constitutionally allowed grant from
> > Congress.
> > 
> > Oh, and Strom Thurmond is dead (thus completing the evil trilogy).
> > 
> > J.
> > -- 
> >   -----------------
> >     Jeme A Brelin
> >    jeme@brelin.net
> >   -----------------
> > [cc] counter-copyright
> > http://www.openlaw.org
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>