Re: ELDRED

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Tyler Ochoa wrote:

> >>> linda[_at_]novelart.com 01/21/03 01:06AM >>> wrote in part:
> I think it is outrageous that publishers and manufacturers could both
> capitalize on and compete with Disney's current and ongoing creative and
> marketing efforts while paying nothing for the product which they got
> only because of Disney's efforts.
> <<<<<

sterling here: regards the above. is that not the way of certain companies.

>>> linda[_at_]novelart.com 01/21/03 01:06AM >>> wrote in part: Personally, I shudder to think of Disney's Cinderella, Peter Pan, etc. entering the public domain at all in today's climate. Famously successful copyrights such as Disney's will have thousands of digital publishers and manufacturers eager to flood the market with republished works, remixed animations and films, revised stories, and rehashed merchandise.

regards the above, sterling asks, have you considered that the people and the products you mention have foreclosed all others from reaching the market. These artficats of history should be relagated to the past, as products of the generation in which they were a part. The is the problem with copyright law: anticomeptitive and anti creative, violatoins of the rights of man, overreached by the non humans in impact.

If Disney were to lose its strangle monopoly hold on America and the world, what new wonderous creations might be its replacement? Copyrights are anticompetitive, wealth generating tools of the aristocrats.

sterling

> Do you also think it is outrageous that Disney can capitalize on [and
> compete with] the Brothers Grimm [and many others] while paying nothing
> for the stories which Disney got only because of the original authors'
> efforts? If not, why should Disney be able to take from the public
> domain without also contributing to it?
>
> I am not anti-copyright. I believe in the principle that copyright law
> provides a valuable incentive to create new works. But it does so in
> order to further the public interest. The Court has said in the past
> that the PURPOSE of patent and copyright law is to enrich the public
> domain, so that the public can benefit from inventions and works for
> free after the limited time has past. In my opinion, the Eldred
> decision seems to have lost sight of that purpose.
>
> >>> linda[_at_]novelart.com 01/21/03 01:06AM >>> wrote in part:
> Personally, I shudder to think of Disney's Cinderella, Peter Pan, etc.
> entering the public domain at all in today's climate. Famously
> successful copyrights such as Disney's will have thousands of digital
> publishers and manufacturers eager to flood the market with republished
> works, remixed animations and films, revised stories, and rehashed
> merchandise.
> <<<<<
>
> New creations (remixed films, revised stories) are in the public
> interest. We get more creativity [in the form of new derivative works]
> rather than less. Shakespeare and Jane Austen are in the public domain,
> and we get multiple competing movie versions of their works, instead of
> just one authorized version.
>
> As for republished works and merchandise, Disney has already saturated
> the market for those works at the inflated price that copyright makes
> possible. Republishing those works will make them available at lower
> prices, allowing a larger number of people to enjoy those works than did
> previously. Again, Shakespeare's works are all in the public domain and
> are readily available to the public in multiple competing editions, from
> cheap paperbacks to leather-bound collectibles. Has that "drastically
> reduce[d] the incentive to create new, original works"? Hardly.
>
> The problem with your argument is that it has no logical stopping
> point. You are basically arguing that Disney should enjoy a perpetual
> copyright. But the Constitution says that patents and copyrights may
> only be granted "for limited Times." Why would the Framers have put
> those three words in the Constitution except for a desire to restrain
> the power of Congress? Absent a formal amendment to the Constitution,
> those words should have been given real meaning. Instead, the Court
> read them in a way that imposes no practical limit on the power of
> Congress.
>
> Tyler T. Ochoa
> Professor and Co-Director
> Center for Intellectual Property Law
> Whittier Law School
> 3333 Harbor Blvd.
> Costa Mesa, CA 92626
> (714) 444-4141, ext. 243
> (714) 444-1854 (fax)
> tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu
>
Received on Sat Jan 25 2003 - 01:14:11 GMT