In-Reply-To: <199505011453.OAA28448@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Mon, 1 May 1995, Eric K. Meyer wrote:

> 
> > Organizations like ASCAP, BMI, and SPA have been getting bad press for their
> > "strong arm tactics", but this collection method is preferred by everyone
> > over criminal prosecution.  Royalty management of on-line data will be 
> > managed in a similar manner.
> 
> But Rex, you're basically arguing for the exact same system that the 
> Supreme Court rejected in Sony v. Universal. True, it was with a 
> judicial myth (that VCR copies are intended for one-time use), but 
> the impression I have is that the Supreme Court is loath to create 
> any additional bureaucracies like ASCAP or BMI. Since the court has 
> been silent aside from this and Feist, I can only surmise that it's 
> opinion is unchanged, as the conservatives at the time took the lead 
> in both cases and, since then, the court has become MORE 
> conservative.

And yet, you now have companies like BlockBuster Video providing access 
to movies in exchange for a "rental" which is returned back to the 
producer's in the form of "royalties".  We don't have goose-steppers
knocking down the doors, we have people walking into shopping centers to 
rent materials.  These same Video Stores may be willing to collect the
royalty payments for On-line news services.  It his highly probable that
they will become substantial consumers of "Video On Demand".  You could
order a video, have it sent to BlockBuster, and pick up a 2 hour video
CD that they would not normally keep in inventory, for about $5.00

The whole catalogue would be viewable in the store, or from home.

> > Not exactly.  There are certain terms, under which certain products are 
> > covered, not only by copyright, but also under non-disclosure.  Prior to 
> > this, proprietary information was simply classified.   When major chunks 
> > of engineering were declassified in 1977-1984, there was nothing to cover 
> > it.  Subsequent derivatives are covered under EITHER GPL OR Schedule (I 
> > don't remember the number).
> 
> Non-disclosure I can understand, but copyright law (the text is 
> on-line somewhere) fairly specifically exempts work performed by 
> government employees in the line of duty.

This is true, but the source to most applications (not considered 
classified) are immediately sent to FSF or universities for coverage 
under General Public License.  The main concern is that dirivative works 
with proprietary enhancments could complicate the procurement process.
It's difficult to order a "Jeep", but once the specifications which 
distinguish "Jeep" are given, Ford and Chevy can modify their Bronco and 
Blazer to meet the specs.  Given the time and resources, even a college
kid could build a "Jeep", the only thing missing would be the trademarks 
and brand identification.

> I still think the law of choice in all of these cases is unfair 
> competition, usually a civil common law tort. Many cases are brought 
> under ALL of the laws applicable, but usually the civil common law 
> tort holds sway in rulings. And that's important because it varies 
> from state to state and has virtually no standing internationally.

Actually, the law of choice is settlement.  Both plaintiff and defendent 
pick their battles very carefully.  If there is the possibility that
criminal charges could be pressed, it makes sense to settle.

When the issue is the fringes of the law (Look and Feel, 
Transformations...) the Tort law is safer because the defendent doesn't 
run the risk of going to jail if he loses.  In some cases 
(Apple/Microsoft over Look & Feel) the defendant may even want to loose, 
but not too much.

> Media groups are notorious for pushing copyright law (for that 
> matter, almost every law) to its extreme. Put the media and Microsoft 
> on one side of this issue and I think you'll quickly find that 
> copyright threats quickly hold as much water as libel threats do -- 
> which is to say, virtually no threat.

Last year the SPA raided 4,000 corporations and collected $14,000,000 in
"quick settlements".  When a corporation is caught "red handed" with 20 
unlicensed copies of Microsoft Word for every "legit" copy, you can bet 
they settle in a hurry.  The biggest single beneficiary last year was,
Microsoft.

> Instead of mucking around with obscenity law, Congress really ought 
> to clarify all of this, though to an extent some of the court rulings 
> are First Amendment in nature and thus immune to congressional 
> action.

Unfortunately, obscenity law gets more votes these days, and giving 
Microsoft even sharper teeth isn't going to make a legislator real 
popular with the small businesses (70% of the work force), and working
managers in the middle and upper middle class (campaign contributors).

> ERIC K. MEYER                    meyer@newslink.org 
> WWW NewsLink       http://www.newslink.org/newslink/
Great Page!

	Rex Ballard


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Thu May  4 23:51:12 1995