Re: [dvd-discuss] Argument: NO extensions can be constitutional.Eldred related -- of DVD interest

[Steve Stearns <sterno(at)bigbrother.net>]

On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 12:57, Jeremy A Erwin wrote:

> Yeah, but the government will assert that the longer copyright terms are 
> necessary  to offset the falling costs of piracy. Longer copyright 
> term -> more to time to offset initial costs. (see Landes/Posner, 1989).

While it may be defendable that some extension of copyright is necessary
for some reason, it's very difficult to defend the retroactive
protection being imposed by these new copyright terms.  Those works were
created when copyright was a shorter term, and clearly the person could
have no foreknowledge of copyright being extended in the future. 
Therefore, the extension of copyright did not act to incent the
production of the artistic work in that case.

Personally I tend to think something in the 30-40 year timespan makes
sense, but I'm not a judge, lawyer, legislator :)

---Steve