That's a good point. As has been discussed before, there is nothing in the copyright clause that entitles one to make a profit off copyrighted material. If somebody called George, wants to spend $1B to make the ultimate motion picture, there is no reason to give it one bit more copyright protection than anyone else. Nor does the copyright clause encourage George to spend that $1B or does it exist for him to maximize his profits.
Joshua Stratton <cpt@gryphon.auspice.net> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/20/2002 10:02 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
cc:
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] COMDEX speech
And of course, where Lucas says that expensive works might not be
created... well, okay. That's regrettable perhaps but not really bad.
If we had forever - 1 day terms, I'm sure that people would be more
willing to invest in new works, and we might have billion dollar movies.
I'm willing to forgoe that. Even if films became a cottage industry, much
like textual fiction (cottage at the production level anyway -- not the
publishing level), then at least we can know that the churn, the constant
drawing from the public domain in the creation of new works, is working in
our favor and reducing the _need_ for large investments.
If I had been there to listen to Lucas making such a pronouncement, I
would've stood up and clapped. I'm not against the zillion dollar
blockbuster, but I see no reason to especially protect it either. It isn't
as though it is objectively better than something produced on a
shoestring.