On 4/10/96, Martha Luehrmann" <Martha_Luehrmann[_at_]macmail2.lbl.gov> wrote:
>
I personally don't see the problem. Most of the above are already potentially copyright infringements. What more do you want? Double copyright infringement? Triple?
This reminds me in a way of the NII White Paper debate. Lehman and the content providers are pushing very hard for increased protection due to run away technology. Many others are pushing the other way based on a belief that stuff that never used to be infringing, now potentially is.
For example, it used to be that I could send you a letter. You could do anything you wanted with the letter short of putting it in a book and publishing the book, all under the first sale doctrine. Now I get to control a lot of future uses of the letter based on the fact that you now must make potentially infringing "copies" of the work in order to read it, to loan it to a friend to read, etc. And of course first sale only applies to that first copy.
Bruce E. Hayden bhayden[_at_]acm.org Austin, Texas bhayden[_at_]copatlaw.comReceived on Fri Apr 12 1996 - 12:46:18 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:20 GMT