[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?
- From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 08:04:37 -0800
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
I really don't see what the objection to allowing someone to "sit back and
cash the checks" within some reasonable time frame. Anything beyond 50yrs
from publication means that with high probability someone ELSE is sitting
back and cashing the checks towards the end of copyright. 50ys from the
Authors death means ABSOLUTELY someone else is cashing the checks.
"They don't need to be creative anymore. " ?? Creativity is not just something one turns on and off like a water
faucet. Shorter terms may spur on some effort but is it creative effort?
THe kind that truly progresses. The length of the term is a balancing act
between spuring on effort and rewarding those who have spent the time to
create works worth reading.
Seriously, Even should Eldred v. Ashcroft succeed, I don't believe that
even a 50yr term would be palatable to Congress and the 'intellectual
property" community. Getting back to the original thread. A 50yr term may
be an upperbound on the time of copyright for books, recordings, motion
pictures, plays, literary works, music
What of software? What of chip masks? What even of choreograpy? (Now
that's an interesting one because until the 20th century there was no
means of recording it.)
Jim Bauer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent by: email@example.com
11/10/01 05:19 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?
Michael A Rolenz <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org> wrote:
> The argument that
>works must enter into the public domain at 28yrs to be valid contemporay
>or relevant does not hold. There is no question that a short term is
>valuable for some of the things you discuss. The things you discuss are
>all what the author can do for society but NOT what society can do for
>author that has enriched it so well. What reward are they deserving? Is
>50yrs such a burden on society? No more so than 28yrs. 50yrs gives the
>author the chance of some long term income and the possibility of
>providing some for his spouse and for a few years for his children. Does
>28? Not really. Does 35? maybe. Does 40? Possibly Does 50 most probably!
Would not a shorter copyright term (within reason) encourage more creative
works? If someone happens to create something very successful, with
long term copyrights, they can just sit back and cash the checks that
come in. They don't need to be creative anymore. If on the otherhand
they know it won't last forever, they may do something about it.
Jim Bauer, firstname.lastname@example.org