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

Re: [dvd-discuss] Specific ironies of the CTEA

"28 or 56-That's the fix"

I think before the terms are set there needs to be a "theory of copyright" set forth-"The Declaration of Copyright" but since the purpose is to promote progress, the terms must be such that they do promote progress. As .002 has pointed out before, there has to be something useable at the end of the term or else it's been a bad bargain (and the arguments that the government gets taxes from it is specious. Copyright is not the commerce clause). Particularly if copyright is going to extend beyond literary works to computer programs. A uniform term does not fit all things. IN terms of the length of usefulness at the items that have value for the longest terms are (each line being of lesser duration)

Painting, Sculpture, architecture, literary works, sheet music
Photographs, Motion pictures
Sound Recordings,choreography
Computer programs (source code)
Chip masks
Computer programs (executable)
commercial advertisements

I can't see extending copyright to a commercial advertisement for almost a century. COnsider Orange Crate Labels. Growers in California went to great trouble to create crate labels that were unique and would distinguish their products when the oranges were shipped out of state. The artwork that was commissioned is quite good (and originals are collectors items) and was still being done until the early 50s (some of the renderings are still used on cardboard crates). Should the crate labels of 1924 still have copyright protection?

Joshua Stratton <cpt@gryphon.auspice.net>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

12/10/2002 01:07 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

        To:        dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Specific ironies of the CTEA

Well, actually the pre-1976 term was 28 years, with a 28 year optional

'Course, I'm more in favor of 20, with 5 for software.

28 would be an improvement at least, and there's no sense in preemptively
compromising with an initial push for 50.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Michael A Rolenz wrote:

> "You do know Elvis is dead don't you"
> "No. He's not. He just went home"
> >From MIB.
> How about  "Fifty is Nifty"
> The problem with 28 is that it hasn't been 28 yrs in nearly a century but
> it has been 50 yrs.
> "John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 12/10/2002 10:41 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
>         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>         cc:
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Specific ironies of the CTEA
> "Ballowe, Charles" wrote:
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 6:16 PM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Specific ironies of the CTEA
> >
> > > Hey...here's another funny thing that could happen...suppose an
> > > author disappears and is declared dead after 7(?) years. His estate
> > > sells of all his belongings, gives them away or whatever and
> distributes
> > > his assets to heirs. Then the author shows up (Not implausible.
> Bierced
> > > disappeared. Traven of Treasure of the Sierre Madre reclused to
> Mexico).
> > > Who owns the copyright? Copyright is a FEDERAL right. Being declared
> > > dead is a state or local one.
> >
> > What about cryogenics? An author is frozen and NEVER declared dead.
> Copyright terms at 70 plus the "last Elvis sighting" anyone?
> "Forever minus ..." doesn't work, "Life plus" is hopeless.
> How's this for a "sound byte" --
> Fix Copyright.
> (both in the sense of restoring it's broken balance, and fix (as in
> limit to a specific amount) the term.
> Fix Copyright 28.
> three words, historically meaningful, captures the essence.
> .002