Re: [dvd-discuss]YAATEA-Yet Another Anti-Term Extension Argument

[Scott A Crosby <crosby(at)qwes.math.cmu.edu>]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:

> As Lessig pointed out there were over 20,000 things copyrighted in
> 1924 yet only about 200 are still in print today. 200/20000=1%
> which is worse than Sturgeon's law. Copyright extension benefits
> LESS than 1% of the creators but presents a potential
> administrative burden on the government and society of 99 times
> as much. Clearly the costs out weigh the benefits.

Counterexample. If a document isn't worth commercially printing, then it
isn't worth saving. Right?

Thus, making those 99% of commercially irrelevant works unavailable harms
noone.

Which shows our problem.. A work doesn't have to be commercial success
for 80 years to still be important.. But the only measurement that seems
to be used is how much money it makes.

``has only a limited commercially significant purpose'' is the problem,
it, by definitoin, redefines the costs to freedom of copyright to be ZERO.


Scott