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

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


Proving yet again that newgroup style conversation bandwidth is far
below the apparent bitrate, I bow to the claim that I misunderstood your
misundestanding of what probably wasn't clearly enough stated by me in
the first place. (please parse carefully =:-)

What I'm missing here why my "youth's inspiration should be maturity's
grist" either (a) is an invalid standard, or (b) how it could allow for
a 50 year term.  The former (a) is an argument regarding what "promoting
progress" means -- an arguement that I believe needs to be made
forcefully before both court and legislation.  The second (b) is simple
mathematics ... if you think you should be 72 before the last of the
information you learned in college is available for free use then you
must be planning a longer career than I.  22+28 would allow that by the
time I've achieve fully maturity of my career (and still have 15 years
left in it) all of the formative ideas and expressions are before me as
a full pallete.  The 14+14 arrangement (with restrictions on renewal --
i.e. in print, promotion, or otherwise economically non-de-minimus)
allows for mid-thirties revisitation and refreshing of those
not-quite-right works -- and not just for those with deep pockets.

I think that's the difference here.  I think that progress is promotion
if in the heart of their active career, the work of a prior generation
is free to their offspring.  The patent term of 20 years has this just
about right. However, in typically spoiled "baby boomer" fashion current
law promoted by the copyright industry (even with a reduction to a 50
year term) is expressed well in the sentiment of the Twix commercial --
"two for me, none for you."

Best Regards,