[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill
On 27 Jun 2003 at 18:25, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
Date sent: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeme A Brelin <email@example.com>
To: Openlaw DMCA Forum <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Public Domain Enhancement Bill
Send reply to: email@example.com
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > On 27 Jun 2003 at 9:54, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> > > To state more directly what Richard put very clearly and subtley: Disney
> > > may, at some point, own 90% of COPYRIGHTED material, but that is always an
> > > insignificant percentage of COPYRIGHTABLE material.
> > Sure, every email, the design on every cereal box or label on a tin can
> > is copyrightable so Disney can own 90% of the copyrights on novels and
> > short stories but that's not a problem because they don't own 90% of the
> > copyrightable material?
> 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
> That's how the law's going to see it, mind.
To quote Oliver Goldsmith (I believe) "The law is an ass". The point of a
monopoly is not that it controls 90% (Remember that Zamboni controls 100%) but
that it controls that large enough percentage that it dictates terms to the
Free Market rather than the other way. Also, the forever nonexistance of a
monopoly is fallacious apriori.
> Jeme A Brelin
> [cc] counter-copyright