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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

John,

I'm having a hard time parsing your first paragrah. Good thing it is 
the weekend!   ;-)  ... BTW what is =:-)? Smiley face with Mohawk?

Aside from the time limits on the new digital books they are selling 
to dental students, the information is still available no matter what 
the copyright term. It's a question of price and availability of copies 
or derivative works (those I tend to discount. Imitation does not 
enrich as much as originality.). But I see the point you are getting 
at-the term must be such that the work is passed on freely to 
another generation or during the time of that generation at least. 
Balancing against that has been the bribe to the author in term. 
From your arguments, 50 yrs is an upperbound and I agree. Little 
progress can be gained by any term beyond that, (profits on 
Hemmingway and Gershwin's estates be hanged). 28 Seems to be 
a lower bound. Mybe Macauley's 42 is truly an inspired 
compromise....I think I'll reread Macauley. His thoughts on 
copyright transcend...as does Jefferson and Madison. <pondering>

 The question may resolve itself on utility grounds as with patent. 
Technical works have somewhat more utility than literary-yet they 
require more time to prepare (aside from one mathematician who 
writes books before going to bed. They read like it too.). <more 
pondering>

As an aside the time limits on CDROMSs scares the crap out of 
me. "Oh...you've got a twisted root canal, I wanted to refresh my 
memory from my textCD but it expired yesterday...so let's get on 
with it..."  If you ever have to have a root canal on a twisted one, be 
prepared for mulitple sessions and lots of pain. I got on a flight less 
than 2 hrs after the preliminary work. When I told the stewardess 
that the cognac I ordered was not for pleasure I had just had a 
partial root canal she gave me a double before take-off after asking 
what my prescription was. She was a dental assistant also!) I can't 
see that time limits on medical or dental texts on CDROM is in the 
public interest!

TWIX says that...I'm glad I've given up on Network TV.

Date sent:      	Sat, 10 Nov 2001 10:45:02 -0700
From:           	"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: (Fwd) Re: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> M,
> 
> 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,
> 
> .002
>