RE: copyright question

Ben Achtenberg (
Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:55:38 -0800 (PST)

We can all have our opinions on this, but the way the system works is that
it means what the Supreme Court says it means and, for the moment, they've
said it means what Congress says it means. Especially on the "limited
times" definition, if we want a change it seems like the best point of
attack for now would be our Congressfolk.

For a kind of interesting VOLUNTARY (on the part of copyright holders)
approach to dealing with some of the new realities, see Jason Guerrasio's
item in the new issue of The Independent: (page
down till you spot "New Copyright Contract." Or check out the group he's
writing about:


At 12:18 PM 3/4/03 -0800, you wrote:
>US Constitution Article 1 Section 8
>To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited
>times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
>writings and discoveries; "
>I wonder what exactly was meant by "the progress of science and useful
>arts." I also wonder what exactly was meant by "for limited times."
>Just a thought
>-----Original Message-----
>From: []
>On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
>Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 3:09 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: Re: copyright question
>Just for fun any volunteers who have a 16mm Hollywood feature film that is
>deteriorating that is willing to transfer it to video and SEND a letter to
>rights holder telling them you had rights to do it since they did not
>release it on video?
>Honestly I am NOT sure if we are arguing apples and oranges but you simply
>have no right to transfer something that is in what is basically in
>"inconvenient format " ( what is you definition of deteriorating or dying
>for 16mm by the way?) to one you find more useful because the rights holder
>has chosen not to release it. I STRONGLY suspect and hope that most of you
>mean rare educational material that you have no real chance of finding
>ownership on , rather than cases where you COULD find the owner and they
>just say no. I am assuming you don't really mean feature films ( which as
>far as I know were NEVER sold other than either life of print or limited
>term pre- previous discussion). I am just worried that in not being specific
>enough you are proposing an excuse to copy stuff some profs can't live
>without regardless of copyright situation All of my rants on this have
>related to feature films.
>Jessica Rosner
>Kino International
>333 W 39th St. 503
>NY NY 10018
> > From: Rick Faaberg <>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:29:43 -0800 (PST)
> > To: Multiple recipients of list <>
> > Subject: Re: copyright question
> >
> > On 2/28/03 12:25 PM "Gary Handman" <>
> > sent this
> > out:
> >
> >> You're
> >> basically proposing that libraries allow a legally-acquired title in a
> >> collection crumble into celluloid and dust because the item is not
> >> replaceable and transfer rights are not forthcoming...I say that's not an
> >> option for responsible for collection managers. I do it first; cease and
> >> desist later...
> >
> > Badda boom! :-)
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > Rick Faaberg
> >

Ben Achtenberg / Fanlight Productions
4196 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02131
(617) 469-4999 Fax: (617) 469-3379