[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Argument: NO extensions can be constitutional. Eldred related -- of DVD interest
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Argument: NO extensions can be constitutional. Eldred related -- of DVD interest
- From: "Jeremy A Erwin" <jerwin(at)gmu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:57:15 -0500
- In-reply-to: <3C518EE4.4EA52964@ia.nsc.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Friday, January 25, 2002, at 11:59 AM, John Zulauf wrote:
> (3) Thus we can assert an historical (and non-hypothetical) proof that
> 14+14 copyright terms are sufficient to incent the broad publication of
> works (at least books, charts, et. al.)
>
> (4) Given that the initial 14+14 year term was sufficient any longer
> term is supersufficient
>
Yeah, but the government will assert that the longer copyright terms are
necessary to offset the falling costs of piracy. Longer copyright
term -> more to time to offset initial costs. (see Landes/Posner, 1989).
It's simplistic, the math is laughable, but the government will argue
that point 3 is false.
Jeremy