Day 72 - 9/2/21 - Thurs.
- mainemoviepirate
- 5 minutes ago
- 2 min read
Journal Entry:
“Slept very little; I think, or I’m dreaming about sleeping very little. I did have big, elaborate dreams, almost no recall, except I remember fooling around with Erica (there’s a blast from the Past), but at the same time looking for T. because she was out doing her thing (again, like the old days).
I blame ‘E’ for talking about wet dreams the other day.
I was up at 7:30 AM. H/L/R drink, meds. Then moved onto the library to work on Journal, Walking Distance (nearing the end of the first draft).
I thought of a new example of derivative works/copyright: A separate copyright for derivative works is a definite possibility because what about movies based on books? The original authors rarely own the copyright of a movie based on written works. S.K. might be the exception, even then, if he does own the copyright to, say, the TV show Castle Rock or newer work, it’s through the production company, not under his own name.
LUNCH: Bone-In Chicken, Mac-n-Cheese, Apple-crisp-type dessert.
Worked on the first draft of a motion for a New Trial, with a deadline of sending it to Steve tonight.
SUPPER: Chicken Chunks, Spaghetti-like pasta with gross veggies, carrots, bread for P.B. later.
Worked on Motion, finished it one hour-ish before 10 PM, along with a letter to Steve. It was in the outgoing mailbox. I don’t have high hopes, but at least, I’ve got some hope.”
Notes for Day 72 (Four Years Later)
The separate derivative copyright theory was important (or I thought it was important) because several of the movies that I copied and distributed were not the regular releases that had been broadcast on TV or an earlier VHS release. As part of the Government’s propaganda campaign, they said I just copied hundreds of movies from VHS to DVD and made inferior copies. Did I make masters from some VHS? Yes, I did. But I also sought out the best available quality of these, in some cases, very rare movies. For instance, the Babes in Toyland from 1986 I made available was actually the very rare “Director’s Cut” that had never been released on any VHS or any other home format.
Now, you might think this is a minor thing. But in the context of a criminal trial, to me, it was a major thing. Without getting “too deep in the weeds,” one could say, "Well, you are charged with copying movies, what difference does it make which movie or version it is?"
It makes a big difference in this legal arena. Are people convicted of murder for almost killing someone? Or thinking about killing someone? Or killing a different person?
The only way the Jury could reach a guilty verdict on the copyright charges in my case is with generalizations. The very same generalizations that are not allowed in Fair Use proceedings, and the very same generalizations of propaganda that the U.S. Government was selling.
