Re: [dvd-discuss] Argument: NO extensions can be constit

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

Yes.

While the argument that ANY term extension may be constitutional 
is still open. The argument that copyright extension for works 
already copyrighted can NOT promote progress and there for is 
unconstitutional is a sound one. Anyone who argues this needs to 
be prepared for the argument that "Well look, they've done the 
extension 11 times in 40 years so doing a BIG one is OK right?". 
That is a CLASSIC slippery slope. One reply is that  previously 
they had been so minute (a year or two) that they were 
inconsequential and given the time it takes to mount a 
constitutional challenge (as Eldred and Golan), the issue would 
have been moot and any lower court would rule that the matter had 
been overcome by events at some time. BUT the terms under the 
CTEA are long enough that even give a decade of litigation, the 
matter would not be"

As I stated, anyone who argues this, especially before the USSC, 
need be prepared to answer that question. Any other ideas about 
how to do so?


> On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 12:57, Jeremy A Erwin wrote:
> 
> > Yeah, but the government will assert that the longer copyright terms are 
> > necessary  to offset the falling costs of piracy. Longer copyright 
> > term -> more to time to offset initial costs. (see Landes/Posner, 1989).
> 
> While it may be defendable that some extension of copyright is necessary
> for some reason, it's very difficult to defend the retroactive
> protection being imposed by these new copyright terms.  Those works were
> created when copyright was a shorter term, and clearly the person could
> have no foreknowledge of copyright being extended in the future. 
> Therefore, the extension of copyright did not act to incent the
> production of the artistic work in that case.
> 
> Personally I tend to think something in the 30-40 year timespan makes
> sense, but I'm not a judge, lawyer, legislator :)
> 
> ---Steve 
> 


------- End of forwarded message -------