[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill
- From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:28:04 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcM9G+0clzyin22gQlaN9r+vWTV5zQCACSBA
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill
I don't know if the "english chunks" approach would
hold up ... but the computer permutated ringtones
CD would be hard to beat under current conditions.
Hmmm... for a = 1 to octave . . .
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. C. Sessions [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 7:21 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill
> On Friday 27 June 2003 18:25, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> # Disney might (speculatively) control 90% of the existing
> copyrights on
> # novels, short stories and movies (or whatver), but that's
> an insignificant
> # percentage of the novels, short stories, and movies that
> can possibly be
> # copyrighted. In other words, creative potential is always
> deemed to be in
> # competition with previously creative work and hence there
> can never be a
> # monopoly.
> The total number of possible copyrightable works isn't important.
> All that's necessary is to make sure that the odds of any work
> infringing on one of your copyrights is near unity.
> IIRC, the shortest copyrightable prose passage or musical
> work is Pretty Dang Short (ringtones, anyone?) The trick is
> that the "shortest length" is long enough by 19th century
> standards to be immune to the monkey attack, but with
> 21st-century methods it's no longer much of a problem.
> A single CD can now hold all of the possible musical phrases
> (allowing for "legal Hamming distance") so that one could, with
> modest effort, make it legally impossible to produce *any* music
> without infringing the copyright on one of those "works."
> Likewise, IIRC it's now possible to brute-force copyright all
> enough chunks of English prose that it would be impossible
> to write much of anything without infringement.
> The owner of these priceless copyrights would then be in
> position to hold all music and English writing hostage.
> Remember, you read it here first.