Re: [ARSCLIST] the public Domain

[Don Cox <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 22/01/06, Mwcpc6@xxxxxxx wrote:
> In a message dated 1/21/2006 8:10:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> ericj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> 
> Finally, where older recordings are not available simply because they
> are not commercially viable, that doesn't really benefit anyone - the
> public can't buy it, and neither the record labels nor the musicians
> profit from their music. So who is paying the price? *********
> 
> Why was copyright registration and renewal dropped? It seems like a
> small price to pay to separate the valued property from the material
> no one wants to maintain in print.
> 
> I see no problem with Disney keeping it's property for 1000 years as
> long as they regularly make a positive move to claim it, as long as
> the vast bulk of material that is laying around unclaimed in archives
> is available to the public. Even real property (land) reverts to the
> public after a period of abandonment by failure to pay taxes.

Disney are in a position to make new and superior digital versions from
their originals. A new digitisation from an analog will have new
copyright, like a new photograph of a painting or statue.

Or a new Disney film based on an out-of-copyright book such as
Perrault's tales.

Regards
-- 
Don Cox
doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx