Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: steve-b

"Whether or not it's good public policy to expressly add such a loophole to the exclusivity granted to copyright holders is an ordinary political question, not a Constitutional-law question.
"

While you are technically correct, the likelihood of Congress passing such a law is miniscule, at best. The Constitution intended that the work of artists and inventors be protected from unauthorized copying.

That's the bottom line. Yes, the Congress might have the authority to set the limits to that protection, and they have done so, many times. Most recently, it was to extend that protection far beyond the lifetime of the original artist, in the case of copyright.

I'm quite certain that there is no will in Congress to dilute copyright law to the degree being discussed. As I pointed out, if a third party can remove or edit some parts of a work, then redistribute it, that editing could also be to add something to the work. Perhaps a scene of a buck rutting with Bambi's Mom would be something that could be inserted. Since the film is animated, a good animation studio could do the job, copying the style of that Disney film. Then, they could edit the scene in and make new copies of the film.

Or, perhaps, someone could edit "The Passion of Christ," substituting English dialog into it. That dialog could pretty much say whatever the editor wished, even blasphemous dialog.

That's why we have copyright laws...to prevent such abuses against works of art and literature.

If you allow editing and redistribution of others' works, it can work both the way you want it to and in ways you would dislike.

That's why, in practical terms, such changes will not be made by Congress, nor signed by any President, even if it is technically possible.


266 posted on 07/10/2006 10:35:17 AM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies ]


To: MineralMan

If Congress doesn't revisit the law, it will be because the law cited earlier in the thread already protects another method of getting the same result (special DVD player hardware and software that reads the unaltered original DVD and automagically skips the "naughty parts" based on a database listing). If that option didn't exist, I don't think the studios would have a chance of warding off a law that explicitly permits the creation of roll-your-own edited copies.


273 posted on 07/10/2006 10:41:48 AM PDT by steve-b ("Creation Science" is to the religous right what "Global Warming" is to the socialist left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies ]

To: MineralMan
What we are really talking about is a very small technical distinction that does not amount to a hill of beans. It is current law that I can buy a DVD and alter it for my own purposes. I can (or should be able to) buy a DVD and take it to someone who will alter if for me. Therefore, as a practical matter, there is no real distinction from allowing companies to do this service before I buy it, if the buyer wants to buy the DVD with the service already added to it.

All the scare tactics about someone putting something in a Bambi movie is ridiculous. However, if someone wants to add something to a Bambi movie and the buyer wants it put in, I don't see a problem with that.

At a very minimum, the law should allow a business to sanitize a DVD AFTER it has been purchased by a buyer, if the buyer pays the business for the service. I have not read one argument that has any merit for why that should not be allowed.
274 posted on 07/10/2006 10:42:06 AM PDT by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson