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

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

On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Ballowe, Charles wrote:

>Agreed -- but if a company (Disney?) still wishes to hold rights to
>something, wouldn't letting them do so and requiring a fee based on
>sales be potentially useful, particularly if that fee went directly

But then we get back to the real problem: AA Milne's daughter-in-law (Mrs. 
Christopher Robin--CR's dead) is recieving nothing from the 
soon-to-be-rereleased Winnie the Pooh.  AA Milne signed away all rights 
many years ago, so what possible promotion of progress is being served 
when the author's family recieves nothing from a multi-million-dollar 
franchise?  Any sliding scale of copyright renewal MUST take into account  
that holders of copyrights are not necessarily authors, so a renewal of a 
copyright should not happen at all if the author is not recieving any 
portion of royalties.

>into a program promoting arts and and science in schools? I'd prefer 
>copyright to be short, but if that's not going to happen, the people
>should receive something to help promote the arts.
>
>-Charles Ballowe
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
>> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?
>> 
>> Which of course invalidates the whole point of "promoting progress" --
>> if only the unvaluable works enter the public domain, then 
>> the public's
>> benefit and reason for providing the monopoly in the first 
>> place.  Works
>> must still be contemporary, relevant, and valuable when they enter the
>> public domain, or the constitutional mandate of "promoting 
>> progress" is
>> not met, and the term of the copyright is unconstitutional.
>> 
>> .002
>> 
>

-- 

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!