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

RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus





> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 10:18 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
> 
> 
>> On 28 May 2002 at 18:42, Scott A Crosby wrote:
>> 
>> 
...
> 
> > BUT, I might be willing to go for life+10 years for 
> unpublished works,
> > because they tend to not be commercially signifigant, and there are
> > private works that shouldn't become public till 10 years after the
> > authors death.
> 
> That's one of the few things about the copyright reforms and WIPO 
> recommendations that I do think is reasonable. THe copyright 
> system, pre -1976 
> was well thought out for administration except in this 
> matter. 10 yrs from 
> death too much of a burden to edit/publish. And, I don't see 
> it as onerous to 
> grant copyright from death plus 10 yrs for a fixed duration 
> as a new work.
> 
> 

I have major issues regarding allowing copyright to be granted on any unpublished work. A manuscript moldering in the drawer does not benefit the public. If an author wants copyright protection, he must be willing to publish (i.e. make it available to the public).  Until fairly recently, this was part of the social compact.  Having to register is and was the ideal situation.  In this case, if the author is dead, there probably is a need to create an incentive for the estate to publish.  However, the incentive should be significantly less than one would give to a living author to create an incentive to continue producing new works.

It is ironic that one of the reasons Jefferson finally agree on the need for copyright was the concern that the cost of creating copies was so expensive (in terms of equipment and material).  There was the fear that people would be unwilling to expend the money for the equipment and that very little would be published in such a way as to allow anyone except for the well-to-do access to the material.

Now the argument is that it is so easy to copy, we must extend the length of time the work receives protection.  At least one goal as espoused by the founders for needing copyright has been reached.  This is not to say that the need for copyright has vanished, just that the extreme lengths and controls have gone from the extreme to the preposterous with little to no valid justification.

Dean