Re: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

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 <jfbauer@home.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/10/01 05:19 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        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 
the 
>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, jfbauer@home.com