Re: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 26 Jun 2003 at 9:26, John Zulauf wrote:

Date sent:      	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:26:22 -0600
From:           	"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> 
> Kurt Hockenbury wrote:
> 
> > If Disney were really smart, they would support it.  Not for brownie points,
> > but for more public domain to pull from.
> > 
> > Step one:   get this bill passed.
> > Step two:   let the public start re-discovering 50+ year old stuff.
> > Step three: when something in the new public domain starts gaining popularity,
> >             make a Disney version.
> > 
> > C.F. "The Secret Garden".
> 
> And adversaries in the copyright fight or not.  Nobody recycles,
> packages, and markets "pre-owned" content better than Disney.  Think of
> the number of traditional stories the culturally canonical form of which
> is the Disney version.  
> 
> The Sorcerer's Apprentice
> Winnie-the-Pooh
> Peter Pan
> Cinderella
> ...
> 
> 
> I'd like to Lessig pitch it directly to Disney (with a list of
> remarketable "abandonware").  Also deep pockets would allow Disney, et.
> al. to consume omnivorously any smaller rights holding houses without
> the ability to afford re-registry.  While this reduces the PD created in
> the first round of registry, the result ROI "follow-up" meetings** would
> cause careful examination for all subsequent years.  Also, any
> investment in zombie-ware (the rights are still held clearly, but the
> work isn't no longer in circulation) would tend to drive some attempt to
> ressurect the zombie-ware by bringing it back into print or
> distribution, or reinvention.  While not PD enhancing, it is an
> improvement over the current situation.

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?

> 
> .002
> 
> 
> **"We spend $X for rights Y... what did we make on it?"
>