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

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

On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Jeremy A Erwin wrote:

> On Sunday, January 27, 2002, at 05:16  PM, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >

> Well, the chief benefit of expiring copyrights would be that new
> parties, with new ideas about commercial exploitation might be able to
> exploit them more effective (or at least differently: The Count of Monte

But as the artistic works have not left copyright, there *aren't* any
examples of the *documents in question* leaving copyright to be
commercially signifigant. And commercially signifigant seems to be the
ONLY barometer thats being used. [*]

We need to show that either thats the wrong barometer, or that they
mismeasure with that barometer.

Anyone know how much money is made/spent by the various online archives?
Given that the average story/paper is about 1/20 the average song, which
is about 1/1000 the average movie.. How much money could be made by 'just
putting everything up on the internet and charging by the byte'? How many
billions of dollars of infrastructure did Napster cause to be built?

Then again, while napster may be commercially signifigant to telecomm
providers, is it a 'commercially signifigant non-infringing use'?

(IMHO, even if those 10k documents did go in the public domain, 90% would
probably languish in obscurity anyways, but at least the (internet)
archivists would be able to archive them. This is mostly because they're
so ancient, 50 years older than I am, that they have no relevance to my
life, childhood, or anything else.)