RE: very important news item from AP via the WSJ Online

[Max.Hyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

   Dear Mr. Esposito:

   I'd like to extend your comments in one respect.  You observed:

> The original documentary was "Crusade in Europe." Dastar Corp.
> deleted one hour, added a half hour of new material, then sold
> tape sets for about $25 as "Campaigns in Europe."  Justice Scalia
> said that Dastar could have been sued if it bought videotapes of
> "Crusade in Europe," repackaged them and put them on the market
> under the Dastar name.

   Note that while only two titles are mentioned in this paragraph,
it actually refers to three works:

	o Dastar's ``Campaigns in Europe'',
	o the respondents' new videotape release of
	  ``Crusade in Europe'', and
	o the original TV series ``Crusade in Europe''.

   Thus, the court noted there would be an offense

	if Dastar had bought some of New Line[respondent]'s
	Crusade videotapes and merely repackaged them as
	its own.  Dastar's alleged wrongdoing, however, is
	vastly different:  it took a creative work in the
	public domain---the Crusade television series---
	[...] and produced its very own series of videotapes.

			p. 7 [p. 10 of the PDF]

Thus, by avoiding the new release and going straight to the PD source,
Dastar is blameless.

   They go on to enumerate quite a list of problems which would arise
if attribution of PD works was required.  They even note ironically

	To hold otherwise would be akin to finding that
	sect. 43(a) created a species of perpetual patent
	and copyright, which Congress may not do.  See
	_Eldred_ v. _Ashcroft_, 537 U. s. 186, 208 (2003).

Gee---thanks, folks.

   The decision is available in PDF at

	http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-428.pdf,

as noted in Mr. Pomea's e-mail of yesterday.



-- 

                         Best wishes,

                                  Max Hyre