Re: [dvd-discuss] [openlaw] Government takes more extreme line insecond"Eldred" case

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

The fallacy of that argument is that "recouping" expenses or making  a 
profit from copyright is not constitutionally mandated. 




Jolley <tjolley@swbell.net>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
01/10/02 10:01 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] [openlaw] Government takes more extreme line 
insecond"Eldred" case


After being thrown off the term extension track onto the piracy track
about a dozen times while reading the government's brief, I began to
wonder why are they making such a big stink about piracy.  Then I found
it:

  As infringement becomes easier, the potential for authors
  to lose out on the benefits of their creations becomes more
  serious, and the value of copyright protection goes down.
  See William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis
  of Copyright Law, 18 J. Legal Stud. 325, 363 (1989).  One way
  of correcting for the declining value of a copyright is to
  lengthen its term.  The longer a copyright exists, the longer
  an author may exploit his work, and the better chance he has
  to recoup his expenses.

The brief associates strongly the ease of infringement (piracy) with
improvements in technology.

Reading the government's brief makes it sound like the introduction of
VCRs and DVDs was a death blow to the movie industry, CD players
destroyed the music industry, and high quality copiers ran the
publishing industry out of business.  Is there really less profit when
technology improves?  Using the government's logic, if it can be shown
that the copyright industry has improved their profits as new
technology has been introduced then copyright terms should be reduced.
The CTEA didn't meet its objective!

If an author can't recoup his expenses 70 years after he's dead I don't
think he's going to recoup them given another 25.

> Read the government brief and Golan's reply at
> <http://openlaw.org/golanvashcroft/>