Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

I think that the requirement for payment of a renewal fee every 14 or 28 yrs 
served that purpose...too bad that it has been eliminated in the last set of 
"copyright reform" where no fees are required, works just get copyright without 
having to DO anything...


The more I consider the last 30 yrs of copyright reform, the more I believe 
that it's true purpose has been to recreate the pre-Statutes of Anne 
booksellers guilds...not that I think any of them have looked at history and 
said "WOW...I'd love things to be like they were before the Statutes of 
Anne..what can I do to make them so?"...it's just the another bunch of 
thoughtless persons advancing their selfish interests

On 29 May 2002 at 20:46, Ernest Miller wrote:

Date sent:      	Wed, 29 May 2002 20:46:57 -0400
From:           	Ernest Miller <ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
> 
> > 
> > That suggests the natural meaning of "limited" might be the original 
> > terms set by the 1790 copyright act, since the first Congress knew best 
> > what "limited" meant. If anything, the speed of modern communication 
> > would argue for shorter terms than those deemed necessary when type was 
> > set by hand and books were distributed by ox cart and sailing ship.  I'd also
> > argue that if Congress is to extend copyright duration at all, it should be by
> > adding additional 14 year renewal opportunities.  This would cause the vast
> > majority of published works, plus gazillions of pieces of ephemera, to enter
> > the public domain while protecting those few works that do have long term
> > value.
> 
> This reminds me of the idea of a tax. If copyright is property, then it 
> should be subject to a property tax, right?  One of the reasons we tax 
> property is to encourage its use.  We don't want property to stand idle. 
>   Same goes for copyrighted works.  If you are still using it, you pay a 
> tax, and can afford it.  If you choose not to pay a tax, it goes into 
> the public domain.
> 
> > 
> > By the way, in the new movie "About a Boy," from Universal Studios, Hugh Grant
> > plays a playboy social parasite who lives off of royalties from a popular
> > Christmas song that his father wrote in the '50s. Hollywood makes the case
> > against long posthumous copyrights better than we ever could.
> > 
> > Arnold Reinhold
> > 
> 
> 
>