Re: [dvd-discuss] Thoughts on Posner and Landes (was Re: Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted ...)

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

The fallacy of using P and L as justification is so trivial but is not obvious. 
The argument that longer terms are needed to combat copyright infringment 
is invalid if the works are out of print! No revenues are generated so the 
terms can be infinite and ECONOMICALLY it makes no difference. lim 0*t 
as t->infinity = 0. That works are in print is a fundamental assumption that is 
NOT valid in general but only in a few cases.

The obvious patch is to say that the works are out of print because they are 
not economically worth it. Reply - so they are not worth copyright protection 
either or the burden for some minor copyright issue.

So the works that are in print have economic value in nature. They have 
sufficient worth that people are willing to pay for them and they have been 
profitable enough to create economic value with a positive balance sheet. 
Having been profitable, the creators and publishers have been rewarded for 
progress.  So the question becomes how much time is needed to give them 
an ample reward and not present an administrative burden upon the rest of 
us? (ie Why should anyone have to track down copyright info 120yrs before 
when people can't even keep track of their family trees that long?). Too bad 
someone can't get J. Edwards or the other guy to channel to Macauley and 
have him testify before the SCOTUS....(Macauley wouldn't be admitted to 
the bar in the USA. IF the channeler was would that be adequate :-)