Re: Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005

From: Keith Taber <ket354[_at_]yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:39:59 -0400

Terry many thanks for the summary and your commentary. I was not aware of this legislation.

I have just a few (further biased) comments:

• Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote: <snip>
  > Associated with this, the
  > bill provides immunity
  > to theater operators who detain suspected infringers
  > for questioning, or
  > while they wait for the cops. Interestingly, the
  > conjunction here is :or"
  > not "and."
  >
  

I'm only surprised that the suspected infringers aren't reclassified as "detainees" and shipped off for "proper interrogations" in countries that don't coddle criminals the way our activist judges make us.

<Snip>
> The
> simple (and I think appropriate) way to fix this
> would be to simply delete
> section 412(1) and allow these remedies for
> unpublished works without
> regard for their registration, but this bill takes a
> more ornate approach.
>

Remedies without registration? And cave in to International pressure just because we signed a treaty? What are you, French! (sarcasm)

<snip>
> Essentially, the Act allows for pre-registration,
> but the act of
> pre-registration imposes an obligation on the part
> of the copyright owner
> to timely register, at the risk of waiving any right
> to recover damages
> for the pre-registration infringement.

While I admit that the provisons seem dicey, they are somewhat analogous to the Provisional Patent Application. Not recommended for most situations, but useful if your client fully understands the pros and cons.

<snip>
> As I read it, this will have no effect on companies
> like Colorado's
> CleanFlicks, whose approach was to copy the DVD,
> editing it for content,
> and then renting out the edited copy.

You lost sight of the fact that Congress can best pick the technologies that we need. Congress will contact Disney to determine if any additional features are needed.

<snip>

>It's no less important to preserve a work with
>40 years left in its copyright than it is to preserve
>a work with 20 years left in its copyright.

But then Disney couldn't pull it's "Limited Time Only, First and Only Time Offered in this Media Format, Special Edition of a Classic" marketing scam that my mother-in-law always falls for hook, line, and sinker.

Whenever I see something strange in copyright law I take a deep breath, hold it, and think WWDG*. There I find the clarity necessary to understand.

Keith

*WWDG:What Would Disney Gain?

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Received on Sat Apr 23 2005 - 00:39:59 GMT