[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

What you are proposing is called a Tax. The National Endowment for the Art 
is what Jesse Helms has been doing his best to eliminate for 
years...basically it's already here in a different form.

The other problem is dealing with corporation vs individuals on different 
levels. That's not equitable.

"Ballowe, Charles" <CBallowe@usg.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/08/01 07:54 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?

Agreed -- but if a company (Disney?) still wishes to hold rights to
something, wouldn't letting them do so and requiring a fee based on
sales be potentially useful, particularly if that fee went directly
into a program promoting arts and and science in schools? I'd prefer 
copyright to be short, but if that's not going to happen, the people
should receive something to help promote the arts.

-Charles Ballowe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?
> Which of course invalidates the whole point of "promoting progress" --
> if only the unvaluable works enter the public domain, then 
> the public's
> benefit and reason for providing the monopoly in the first 
> place.  Works
> must still be contemporary, relevant, and valuable when they enter the
> public domain, or the constitutional mandate of "promoting 
> progress" is
> not met, and the term of the copyright is unconstitutional.
> .002