RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus

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

Agreed....publication is an objectifying experience. Once published with a 
copyright notice affixed, the presumption of the law and society is that 
that is published at that date for all to see in a physical object. If the 
date is wrong then there are penalties on the publisher for breaching that 
societal contract. It's also important to note that may composers, writers 
(and editors too) have "slush piles" of works that they are unpublished 
that may get published much later than the creation date. They may be 
better works created while young or works that are just ahead of their 
time.  It's hard to prove when these were created and as you point out 
don't promote anything until they do. So the simplest thing is to just let 
the copyright be affixed when published IF published.The only point in 
allowing unpublished works to be published up to 10yrs after death is to 
present a bribe to the heirs to go through the efforts to make the works 
available after the death..in effect to clean up the estate.




"someone somewhere" <chaos755@hotmail.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
05/29/2002 10:56 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus


I don't really see why we should make a distiction between 
published/unpublished works,  after all, in many circumstances, one may 
make 
something, but not publish it, because nobody is willing to publish it, 
eg. 
a musician may write a good song, but if it takes him 10 more years to 
find 
a record label, the musician only then gets the opportunity to publish. 
Another example, you may write a book just for yourself, like poetry, and 
after 10 years, decide that it may be good enough to publish.

I think the best system, was just how it was, you register it, and the 
term 
starts counting.  offcourse in this system you can't use life of the 
author, 
since there's a good chance he will be dead, you just give it a fixed 
term. 
In that case I would give the rights to whoever publishes it. (I'm not 
taking into account fraud here)

Thus to repeat and summerize, the thing that is important is date of 
publication, not date of creation, after all, the point is to promote..the 

promoting happens if something becomes available not if it's created.


>From: Joshua Stratton <cpt@gryphon.auspice.net>
>Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
>Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:31:40 -0400 (EDT)
>
>The natural counter argument, however, is that authors who are in the
>process of writing a manuscript, or who are shopping it around to
>different publishers, may have their work published without their
>permission if it isn't copyrighted from the instant the pen touches the
>paper.
>
>To prevent this, I think we will have to resurrect the common law
>copyright that vanished in 1976, or suggest a better statutory solution
>than presently exists. Essentially, unpublished works should receive
>protection only if they are still in the process of being created, or 
will
>be immenently published. To avoid fraud on the part of the copyright
>claimant however -- who might be tempted to have a work that will always
>be done tomorrow -- the claim would have to be judged to be reasonable by
>a court. I don't think that the running of the copyright term from the
>beginning of creation is satisfactory, however, as this would
>disincentivize works that take considerable effort to create but which
>still are encouraged by copyright generally, and I don't think we want to
>lose those. (thinking here of Ralph Ellison's unfinished 2d novel)
>
>The MS that's left in a desk drawer for fifty years, however, certainly
>should not qualify for any sort of protection.
>
>
>
>On Wed, 29 May 2002, Dean Sanchez wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 10:18 PM
> > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 28 May 2002 at 18:42, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > ...
> > >
> > > > BUT, I might be willing to go for life+10 years for
> > > unpublished works,
> > > > because they tend to not be commercially signifigant, and there 
are
> > > > private works that shouldn't become public till 10 years after the
> > > > authors death.
> > >
> > > That's one of the few things about the copyright reforms and WIPO
> > > recommendations that I do think is reasonable. THe copyright
> > > system, pre -1976
> > > was well thought out for administration except in this
> > > matter. 10 yrs from
> > > death too much of a burden to edit/publish. And, I don't see
> > > it as onerous to
> > > grant copyright from death plus 10 yrs for a fixed duration
> > > as a new work.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I have major issues regarding allowing copyright to be granted on any 
>unpublished work. A manuscript moldering in the drawer does not benefit 
the 
>public. If an author wants copyright protection, he must be willing to 
>publish (i.e. make it available to the public).  Until fairly recently, 
>this was part of the social compact.  Having to register is and was the 
>ideal situation.  In this case, if the author is dead, there probably is 
a 
>need to create an incentive for the estate to publish.  However, the 
>incentive should be significantly less than one would give to a living 
>author to create an incentive to continue producing new works.
> >
> > It is ironic that one of the reasons Jefferson finally agree on the 
need 
>for copyright was the concern that the cost of creating copies was so 
>expensive (in terms of equipment and material).  There was the fear that 
>people would be unwilling to expend the money for the equipment and that 
>very little would be published in such a way as to allow anyone except 
for 
>the well-to-do access to the material.
> >
> > Now the argument is that it is so easy to copy, we must extend the 
>length of time the work receives protection.  At least one goal as 
espoused 
>by the founders for needing copyright has been reached.  This is not to 
say 
>that the need for copyright has vanished, just that the extreme lengths 
and 
>controls have gone from the extreme to the preposterous with little to no 

>valid justification.
> >
> > Dean
> >
>


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com