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

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

Yes but that's part of the financial bargain authors can make in a free 
market. If the market isn't free fix it using Anti trust laws, RICO or 
whatever. It's sad that Milne's daughter-in-law gets no money but SHE 
didn't write Pooh, her father-in-lawdid and he took the money and 
ran...now if the terms of copyright were reduced to something reasonable 
then we all can share Pooh when it gets in the public domain.

BTW this is the argument for the original extension of 14yrs.




John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/08/01 08:14 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

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


On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Ballowe, Charles wrote:

>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

But then we get back to the real problem: AA Milne's daughter-in-law (Mrs. 

Christopher Robin--CR's dead) is recieving nothing from the 
soon-to-be-rereleased Winnie the Pooh.  AA Milne signed away all rights 
many years ago, so what possible promotion of progress is being served 
when the author's family recieves nothing from a multi-million-dollar 
franchise?  Any sliding scale of copyright renewal MUST take into account 
that holders of copyrights are not necessarily authors, so a renewal of a 
copyright should not happen at all if the author is not recieving any 
portion of royalties.

>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
>> 
>

-- 

You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny
you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the
immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money?

Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!