[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss]YAATEA-Yet Another Anti-Term Extension Argument
- To: <microlenz(at)earthlink.net>
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]YAATEA-Yet Another Anti-Term Extension Argument
- From: Scott A Crosby <crosby(at)qwes.math.cmu.edu>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 17:16:34 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- In-reply-to: <3C53F594.28618.5C3902@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 email@example.com wrote:
> As Lessig pointed out there were over 20,000 things copyrighted in
> 1924 yet only about 200 are still in print today. 200/20000=1%
> which is worse than Sturgeon's law. Copyright extension benefits
> LESS than 1% of the creators but presents a potential
> administrative burden on the government and society of 99 times
> as much. Clearly the costs out weigh the benefits.
Counterexample. If a document isn't worth commercially printing, then it
isn't worth saving. Right?
Thus, making those 99% of commercially irrelevant works unavailable harms
Which shows our problem.. A work doesn't have to be commercial success
for 80 years to still be important.. But the only measurement that seems
to be used is how much money it makes.
``has only a limited commercially significant purpose'' is the problem,
it, by definitoin, redefines the costs to freedom of copyright to be ZERO.