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

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

(didn't finish a sentence... see below

> Whatever we demand as the public's
> side of the copyright bargain, one cannot

should complete with the phrase:

accept a payment of little value as sufficient for the suppression of
speech, as the courts have always maintained that only a compelling
gov't interest of "the highest order" is required.

Hmmmm, is that an arguement against the long copyright term.  As
suppressing of speach requires a "highest order" interest -- enabling an
outdated irrelevant public domain (arguing that is only the works in the
public domain that truly served to promote cultural progress as opposed
to mere narrow, private interests) cannot be held to be a "highest
order" interest as it creates a thing of only limited value.

John Zulauf wrote:
> microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > What are the reasons for 7yrs, 14 yrs, or 28? What purpose would
> > be achieved by those terms rather than 50 from publication?
> I believe I outlined why a 20-30 year maximum is of value
> Earlier John Zulauf wrote:
> > > the inspiration of youths imagination should be availabe as
> > > the grist of maturity's production ==> 20-30years,
> this is another revision of the statement others and I have made that a
> public domain must contain valid, contemporary, and relevant works or it
> is of little value to the public.  

> As for the "to extend or not to extend" -- this useful as it promotes a
> "shorter is better than longer" model and mind set in the law.  A
> requirement for active publication or promotion of the work over the
> full course of the initial term as a prerequisites would function as a
> balance the public's desire for the shortest possible term, and the
> copyright holders desire to continue earn profit from
> still-valuable-at-14-years works (which I would argue are the vast
> minority).
> Finally I utterly disagree about supporting the "one hit sinecure" model
> of copyright (which is what we have today) as:
> (a) it guarantees that the most significant (or at least popular) works
> of our time will only be available for further creative developement by
> the highest bidder.  Effectively guaranteeing the corporatization of
> those most important works.  When you think of the havoc hollywood has
> consistantly played with great literature (and poor) the highest bidder
> should not have the artistic control of our cultural "crown jewels."
> (b) it disincentivises successful authors motivated by gain.  Copyright
> is all about encouraging authors motivated by gain.  If authors cared
> nothing for gain, the copyright would be unneeded as it would serve
> motivate noone and yet cost the public their freedom to copy.  Though we
> might establish some means of patronage to support these authors
> voluntarily to enrich our culture (as have gov't and private grants to
> the unprofitable art for years).   However if gain did not promote
> progress by encouraging works, the copyright clause would be invalid, as
> no exclusive right could meet the "promote progress" test.
> .002