RE: [dvd-discuss] Thoughts on Posner and Landes (was Re: Eldred v. AshcroftAccepted ...)

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

I didn't phrase that properly. I should have written "the argument that longer terms are needed to offset economic losses due 
to increased copyright infringment "




Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
02/22/02 08:47 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Thoughts on Posner and Landes (was Re: Eldred v. 
Ashcroft Accepted ...)




> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
...
> The argument that longer terms are needed to combat copyright 
> infringment 
> is invalid if the works are out of print! 
...

That is an invalid argument no matter whether the works 
are in print or not.

Something can only be infringed while it is under copyright.
Extend the copyright period and you extend the period under
which infringement may occur.  Infringement stops when the
work is no longer under copyright.  Moreover, there is less
incentive to infringe _during_ the copyright period, if the
time when copyright protection on any given work lapses is
visible.  That is, if I know the copyright on X is over in
another 4 or 5 years, maybe I can wait that long before I
publish a derivative work.  But if the copyright is going to
run for another 70 years, then I'll publish and take my 
chances.



-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!