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

Re: [dvd-discuss] Digital Rights Management GedankenExpe

On #1, the same argument applies to some term between 28 to 50yrs. Most 
likely the author, their spouse, or possibly children may keep copies 
about. If the works are required to submit a copy for archival purposes to 
the government (what a concept!) at least one copy may be around. As we've 
argued before-ANY term longer than 50 yrs (from date of publication) just 
doesn't make sense. 

On #2, If the majority does have the money available to them and doesn't 
need to spend it on older works (e.g., Hemingway or GWTW) they have more 
available for newer works.

Actually, the whole notion of the public domain is something that has been 
TOTALLY left out of copyright law "revisions" for the last 30+ yrs. Adobe 
can publish works in the public domain as ebooks yet control how they are 
accessed which is an ascinine concept.

"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
01/09/02 04:31 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Digital Rights Management GedankenExpe

microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> John...what a incredible argument! ...here's a couple of comments
> and support
> 1. As Lessig pointed out there were less than 200 works still in print
> form the 10000 published in 1923(?..last year of copyright
> protection.) Those works are still providing income...steady income
> that the publishers, the authors estates or whomever still want.
> Why should society have to deal with the problems of
> administering 9800 copyrights for the sake of 200? (Trick question)

More to my point is how many of those 9800 might still be in print (or
available in some form or another) if they had arrived in the public
domain 28 years after the initial publication.  How many of these works
will be permanently lost as the last copy of them moulders away before
the copyright expires.  These works cannot legally be digitally rescued,
and the trouble it would take finding and negotiating for the copyright
would not be worth the trouble in 99 44/100 of the case.  Free is a
complete different story -- this is the basis of the Guttenburg project
and companies like Eldred's press.  To bad there won't be anything left
to rescue when it becomes legal to do so.

> 2. Consider this. Most people have a limited source of income and
> so have to make choices about expenditures (I can remember
> Donald Trump having to economize to $450,000/mo from $550,000
> some years ago but let us consider that example of extreme belt
> tightening as a statistical anomoly.). So people have so much
> money to spend and they have to choose between pre 1974 works
> and more modern ones. Interestingly enough in 1986(?) a new
> media was introduced-the CD. People spent lots of money
> upgrading their collection of music from LPs for CDs. Now here's
> the point. IF they didn't have to do that because of a huge public
> domain, they could have spent more money on the Newer stuff
> which does have some claim to being able to promote
> progress. Economically, an enlarged public domain promotes sales
> of newer works. Rather than extending copyright terms into the next
> century, the content media providers should be lobbying to reduce
> them!

I don't think I buy that argument.  The availability of a "replacement
good" always lowers the market price of the replaceable good.  While
some teen would consider "Oops I did it again!" irreplacable they are
the minority of the buying public.