 |
Copyright Monopolies and the Betamax Case |
|
 |
 |
Posted by Ernest Miller on Wednesday, September 04 @ 23:40:47 EDT
|
|
|
 |
 |
Doc Searls points to a great comment on his website that cites footnote 13 from Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (aka the "Betamax" case) (Two rights don't make a wrong - just a more righteous argument). The footnote in question:
While the law has never recognized an author's right to absolute control of his work, the natural tendency of legal rights to express themselves in absolute terms to the exclusion of all else is particularly pronounced in the history of the constitutionally sanctioned monopolies of the copyright and the patent. See, e. g., United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 156 -158 (1948) (copyright owners claiming right to tie license of one film to license of another under copyright law); Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123 (1932) (copyright owner claiming copyright renders it immune from state taxation of copyright royalties); Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 349 -351 (1908) (copyright owner claiming that a right to fix resale price of his works within the scope of his copyright); International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 298 U.S. 131 [464 U.S. 417, 433] (1936) (patentees claiming right to tie sale of unpatented article to lease of patented device). [emphasis added]
Ernie the Attorney (no relation) observes correctly that, "[y]ou give someone a monopoly and usually they start looking for ways to leverage that power. The law's job is to make sure the power stays limited" (Monopoly Power & Copyright). This isn't all that the Eldred case is about ... but it is a darn important aspect to keep in mind.
|
|
 |
| |
 |
Related Links |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Options |
 |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|