[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Slashdot article - Canadian Tariffs
I have to disagree. I think that by accepting these levys on blank media
we lose more than we could possibly gain by decreasing certain copyrights.
After all, accepting such is a tacit admission that personal use copying is
wrong. Furthermore, these payments always increase media industry
conglomeration - one of the main evils of expansive copyright as it is.
Moreover, I don't think we should give lesser rights to those who use copy
protection. What I object to is giving additional protection to copy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendy Seltzer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slashdot article - Canadian Tariffs
> At 12:16 PM 3/12/02 -0900, Jacob Gemmell wrote:
> >I don't think it is a tariff. Slashdot just mislabeled it. Rather it is
> >a levy. That being said, how is this justified in light of copy
> >CDs? Do recording companies who use copy protection schemes still get
> >thier piece of the pie?
> That's a neat question, and might be the first wedge at giving lesser
> copyright rights to those who use technical means to limit use beyond what
> copyright does. Let's make them choose a range of rights in proportion to
> what they give the public -- greater compensation for the publication of
> unencumbered copies, lesser for the vending of DRM-crippled copies.
> I hope someone with standing to object will raise this question (although
> apportionment appears to be addressed elsewhere, in the Copyright Act).