RE: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?

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

Not a good idea. That assumes that the only thing worthy of copyright 
protection is something that makes money. So bestselling authors/peformers 
deserver copyright but the lesser don't....that's not a particualary fair 
or equitable arragnement. I think Macauley's arguments are still sound. 
Set the term. Make it long enough but not excessively so and don't mess 
with it again! It's such a simple approach and anyone can understand it 
and the government can administer it too.




John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/07/01 09:45 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?



Even better: we could hit two birds with one stone.  Fees for renewing 
copyright dependent on Author's cut, with a provision in there that no fee 

means no extension, for "de minimus non curat lex" :)

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Michael A Rolenz wrote:

>You don't know Hollywierd accounting.....nothing ever makes a profit 
>there....any fee scheme must be uniform and not dictated by the vagueries 

>of accounting schemes.
>
>
>
>
>"Ballowe, Charles" <CBallowe@usg.com>
>Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>11/07/01 07:22 AM
>Please respond to dvd-discuss
>
> 
>        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" 
<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
>        cc: 
>        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be 
uniform?
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Arnold G. Reinhold [mailto:reinhold@world.std.com]
>> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?
>> 
>> I think one could get the same effect by requiring affirmative action 
>> to renew a copyright, like we had 50 years ago. I would have been 
>> more comfortable with all the copyright duration extensions if there 
>> was a substantial fee (say $100/yr) required to extend a term. Highly 
>> valuable copyrights (Mickey Mouse, Gone With the Wind, etc.) would 
>> see their terms lengthened, but the vast majority of material would 
>> enter the public domain much sooner.
>> 
>Interesting thought -- why not make the fee something like 1% of revenue
>generated but the work? (only applying this to extensions beyond some
>reasonable base term (20 yrs?)) That way, even if they don't become
>public domain, the works can still serve some public interest.
>
>-Charles Ballowe
>
>
>

-- 

You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny
you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the
immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money?

Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!