🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <002d2dd8.67ad466d@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com> andysch <aschlaflyNOasSPAM@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>hollaar@faith.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) wrote:
>[snip]
>>There are many times when I think we took a giant step backward
>with
>>trying to adapt to the Berne Convention, first with the
>Copyright Act
>>of 1976 and then with the Berne Amendments.  Things like
>dropping the
>>requirement of notice, which is now creeping back under the
>name of
>>"copyright management information".
>
>Lee here takes yet another pro-industry position, this time in
>favor of the bureaucratic "copyright management information".

I guess reading isn't one of your strong suits.  I did not take a
position in what I wrote, one way or another, about copyright
management information, other than to point out that there was
a big effort to get rid of copyright notices, and then people
are finding that they are desirable and are bringing them back
under a different name.  And I do think notice was a good idea,
and am sorry to see such a simple requirement dropped.

Maybe you missed the start of what you quoted -- "There are many
times when I think we took a giant step backward ..."  Not exactly
the industry position.


>When I asked Lee to state his position on retroactive copyright
>duration extension -- which the industry favors in contradiction
>of constitutional and economic logic -- Lee would not state his
>position.  He thereby kept his record perfect in avoiding any
>position that might conflict with industry (i.e., where the
>money is to fund lobbyists and consultants).

Just for the record, I am not a lobbyist and have never been and
don't intend to be.  And the consulting I have been doing is as
a technical expert in cases like _Caldera v. Microsoft_.  None of
the cases I have been involved with have been industry against
users, just business disputes.

As for my opinion, for what it's worth, I think it was the wrong
thing to do.  But I also think that there were few options, because
the EU was playing the game to force us to adopt their term
extension.  And industry pointed to their contribution to the
economy, especially international trade, while opponents wrung
their hands a lot.  So I wasn't surprised that it passed, and without
substantial opposition in the House or Senate.

If it weren't for the Berne requirements, I think it would have
be interesting in countering the European push with a rollback of
copyright term for their authors year-for-year for every year of
term they give their authors but not ours.  But that wasn't possible
given Berne.

It also would have been fun to see what happens when a continuing
character like Mickey Mouse gets out of copyright but is still
trademarked.  That would keep the courts busy for a while, sifting
out all the issues.

But I'm not posting here to push my position, but to let other
readers know that, for example, your assertions about constitutionality
have been questioned and found lacking in court.


>If I'm mistaken, Lee, then please provide any copyright position
>that you hold which is contrary to the industry position.

I try not to express any personal position at all.  Maybe because
I point out the problems with what you post makes you assume that
I'm siding with your enemies, but that's not the case.

But read what I've just said, and you might detect some differences
from the industry party line.

Besides, who cares what my personal feelings are when I'm pointing
out that your arguments were rejected by the court that considered
them, or correcting a while back another Schlafly when he posted
about works that had had their copyrights lapse being protected
again.  The head of then RIAA herself could post those corrections,
and they wouldn't be any less valid.