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

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

Even with that phrasing, the second part of my criticism still 
stands: the longer the copyright term is, the _more_ incentive
there is to infringe.  If there is light at the end of the
tunnel, people might hold off until it is legal.  If there is
no chance in sight, they are more likely to "just do it".

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

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@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>
...
> 
> > -----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!
> 
> 
>