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

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

"Peter D. Junger" wrote:

> 
> There is good authority that copyright in its traditional form is a tax:
> 
>    In 1841, for example,  in  a  House  of Commons debate over the 
>    extension of copyright from 28 to 60 years, the Irish peer  Lord  
>    Thomas  Babbington  Macauley  called  copyright  "a private tax 
>    on the innocent pleasure of reading" and "a tax on readers for 
>    the purpose of giving a bounty to writers" that should not be 
>    allowed to  last  a  day  longer  than necessary for the purpose 
>    of remunerating authors enough to keep them in business.
> 
> Quoted from Wendy M. Grossman, Downloading as a Crime, in Scientific American
> <URL: http://www.sciam.com/1998/0398issue/0398cyber.html>.

What a contrast to the "forever minus 1 day" of Bono and Valenti -- or
Disney's ownership of company after company.

I actually have hope that if the MPA, RIAA, et. al. keep acting the way
they are the public backlash will make them long for 28 years.  I've
read UN documents on the digital divide that reccomend that third world
countries adopt the whole of the WIPO treaties.  I can't imagine for the
life of me why they would.  Let's see, I want to sign up to a treaty
that keeps the IP center of gravity in Hollywood for 95 years after I
establish my own industry -- just why do I want to do that?  At 14 or 28
years, I can see a reasonable hope of eventually parity... but 95 (or
life + 70) years ???   I don't know Portugese for "up yers" but I
suspect if I did it would be close to the  right response.

.002