Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus

["D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>]

On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 17:31, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:

> That suggests the natural meaning of "limited" might be the original 
> terms set by the 1790 copyright act, since the first Congress knew 
> best what "limited" meant. If anything, the speed of modern 
> communication would argue for shorter terms than those deemed 
> necessary when type was set by hand and books were distributed by ox 
> cart and sailing ship.  I'd also argue that if Congress is to extend 
> copyright duration at all, it should be by adding additional 14 year 
> renewal opportunities.  This would cause the vast majority of 
> published works, plus gazillions of pieces of ephemera, to enter the 
> public domain while protecting those few works that do have long term 
> value.

Don't forget the difference in population.

In Colonial days an author had only a (very) few million to
draw on for royalties, and if anything a much lower portion
of their incomes.  Today, a much larger population spends
much higher proportions of its income on copyrighted
materials, so an author doesn't have to skim nearly so
deeply to make a living.

As others have pointed out, most books etc. derive all but
a few percent of their initial (discounted for time) value
in the first run, flattening out in less than five years.

-- 
| May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, |
|  the strength to change the things I cannot accept, and the   |
|    cunning to hide the bodies of those who got in my way.     |
+------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -----------+