Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights

[Jeremy Erwin <jerwin(at)ponymail.com>]

On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 10:01  PM, microlenz@earthlink.net 
wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 12:51  PM, Richard Hartman wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
>>>> On 22 Jan 2003 at 14:34, johnzu@ia.nsc.com wrote:
>>>> The
>>>> notion that copyright controls ALL derivative works is the
>>>> problem. It only
>>>> should  control COMMERCIAL derivative works and by commercial
>>>> I would contend
>>>> that applies ONLY to lost revenues that are demonstratable
>>>> (e.g., 1000 copies
>>>> of bootleg ). In the case of the clean Flicks, I can't see
>>>> that they have lost
>>>> ANY commercial revenue even with the copies of the tape.
>>
>> The Monty Python case demonstrated that the Lanham Act was 
>> inapplicable
>
> My impression of the Monty Python case was that is involved breach of 
> contract
> between the BBC and NBC(?). Monty Python sold episodes to the BBC with 
> certain
> contractual arrangments. BBC sold them to NBC who did not honor those
> agreements...maybe memory is wrong...
I'm slowly going insane. A mere search for "monty python erwin lanham" 
will prove that I've forgotten the gist of Gilliam v. ABC.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg10434.html
A summary (and link to the opinion) is available here:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/respect/sumgilliam.html

Jeremy