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

[John Galt <galt(at)inconnu.isu.edu>]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Kurt Hockenbury wrote:

>On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, John Galt wrote:
>
>> I constantly reread works
>> by Heinlein and Azimov all the time even two decades after their death
>> and may very well have to obtain a new copy some time, as my copies are
>> showing much wear.  So where is long enough for both cases?  A short
>> renewable copyright may very well be the way to go, with the cost of
>> renewal based on the formula above such that it's more trouble than it's
>> worth to renew a copyright on a non-useful work, but trivial to renew a
>> work that the copyright holder is playing by the rules.
>
>Even with a short, renewable copyright, I'd want a fixed, absolute, upper
>limit -- 50 years??  Less?

Well, on the author's death, their share becomes zero, so the possibility 
of extension dies with the author. I figured that would be enough.  Hell, 
it's 75 years less than the present regime...

>Otherwise, the only things that will ever enter the public domain are items
>that are viewed as unprofitable.  Why should being "valuable" prevent
>something from entering the public domain?
>
>-Kurt
>

-- 

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!