[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
- From: "Ernest Miller" <ernest.miller(at)aya.yale.edu>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:43:34 -0500
- References: <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC9D6A01@mail.onetouch.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Hartman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:40 AM
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
> > Would it be a violation to sell a sub-titled version if you
> > bought and destroyed an original for every sub-titled copy
> > you distributed?
> If you have license to a copy, and the right to do what
> you wish with your own copy, then that plan should work.
The subtitles would be a derivative work and illegal. Copyright law
prohibits copying. If you make a copy and destroy the original, you still
have violated copyright law. I agree that this makes no sense, which is why
I advocate eliminating the "right to copy" as part of copyright law.
> It is similar to a plan executed by someone who was fed
> up w/ all the (unnecessary) sex in movies. He offered
> a service whereby he edited a movie to make a clean version.
> IIRC either the customer had to send in their copy of
> the tape to be edited, or they bought a copy from him
> (as they would from any other reseller) that he had already
> edited. He did not _make_ copies, he edited existing
> -Richard M. Hartman
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!