Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

Your argument ignores the fact that technical works are not as commercially 
successful as literary works can be but are more vital. Stratton's book on 
Electromagnetic Theory published in 1940 is more useful that Jackson's E&M 
which has been the standard text in Grad schools for 30ys. (Stratton's book has 
some raw meat that even researchers must cook. Jackson has done a nice roast 
and feast.) 

On 1 Jun 2002 at 18:52, Scott A Crosby wrote:

Date sent:      	Sat, 1 Jun 2002 18:52:27 -0400 (EDT)
From:           	Scott A Crosby <crosby@qwes.math.cmu.edu>
To:             	John Schulien <jms@uic.edu>
Copies to:      	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> On Thu, 30 May 2002, John Schulien wrote:
> 
> > procedures. Renewal terms would be limited to
> > 14 years, but instead of just one term, there
> > might be several consecutive terms.
> >
> > Such a system would both protect authors
> > from unscrupulous publishers -- by making
> > copyright automatic on creation -- and also
> > protect  and expand the public domain by
> > requiring a renewal action periodically -- thus
> > eliminating abandoned or commercially worthless
> > copyrights -- without resorting to common-law
> > copyright to protect authors while they are
> > shopping around manuscripts.
> >
> 
> Its the commercially signifigant works that are likely to be the most
> *desirable* works to be in the public domain. If it is commercially
> signifigant 10-30 years after production, than that means that interest in
> that work is still widespread, which means that that work is ideal
> breeding ground for new perspectives and new ideas. (Gone with the Wind //
> Wind Done Gone)
> 
> Yes, some works and authors only make it big after 30-40 years. So what?
> 
> If a work is popular that far in the future, its essentially a windfall
> that the author could not have planned for nor expected when he/she/they
> origionally created the work. Then there's the 20x reduction in value from
> time-value-of-money consideratins. Copyright was never intended to
> maximize the payoff of artistic creation.
> 
> If there's a choice between a (contemporarily) commercially signifigant
> work and an unknown work of the same age... The commercially signifigant
> work has many times the value were it in the public domain.
> 
> Scott
> 
>