[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Distribution (Was: Eldred Being Argued Today)
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Distribution (Was: Eldred Being Argued Today)
- From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 08:16:12 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
The counter argument there is a historical one - "The Statute of Anne".
The dangers of having a monopoly perform distribution has been well
established. The Founding Fathers would have been well aware of that law
and the circumstances leading up to it even if Congress isn't aware of the
debates of 1909. Now let's take it even farther...what other countries
have had a monopoly on distribution....how does Nazi Germany, Imperialist
Japan, The Soviet Union, East Germany, Maoist China stack up? THis is one
area where the dangers of a monopoly far outweigh the benefits....
Futhermore, the whole "preservation" mantra is total BS. If I get my
directors copy of Buster Keaton's "The General" (Which is not in the
public domain I believe since it was made in 1927), convet the video to
digital and burn it onto a CDR, then the loss of quality from a master
film print may be negligible and the work has been preserved digitally
and distributed increasing its chances for preservation, distribution.
THere is nothing in the Consitution regarding rights for distributers and
that argument is self serving nonsense. And that giving distributers
monopoly rights so that they can distribute pristine copies ad infinitum
is Constitutional is so bizarre that one can only hope they advance to the
final rounds of the Darwin Awards forthwith.
"D. C. Sessions" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent by: email@example.com
10/09/2002 09:35 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
To: DVD-Discuss <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [dvd-discuss] Distribution (Was: Eldred Being Argued Today)
On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 08:58, John Zulauf wrote:
> Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> > as for the SGA...this is
> > incredible! How often do these songs get played today? How many people
> > know the tunes? I can say that I do only because the last two are
> > that my parents still hum or sing because they learned them in their
> > youth. But what an incredible Whine "OHHHHH alll this stuff will enter
> > public domain if you don't keep extending copyright and we can't have
> > even though some of you don't even know the tunes..."
> Actually the counter argument to this is that the reason WHY nobody
> knows these tunes (when we all should) IS long copyrights. One of the
> benefits of the public domain is that it act to make all people living
> archivists. Long copyrights mean that only corporations have the means
> and opportunity to archive -- and aside from the occasional over-priced
> "Time-Life" 19.95 per each disc/book/VHS/DVD series these self-same
> corporations have little to no motivation.
One of the arguments that the Cartel advanced today (IIRC and
IIUC) was that without exclusive distribution rights, nobody
would distribute the old material at all. Thus, the crucial
importance of retroactive extension: it ensures distribution
of material which would otherwise be unavailable.
In other words, if AOL Time Warner couldn't prevent others
from distributing Casablanca, a great cultural treasure
would be lost forever.
Pardon me while I go out to pick up a copy of that
watershed acoustic album, "Frummox."
| It's the heart afraid of breaking that never learns to dance |
| It's the dream afraid of waking that never takes the chance |
| It's the one who won't be taken who cannot seem to give |
| and the soul afraid of dyin' that never learns to live |
+------------- D. C. Sessions <email@example.com> -----------+