Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Being Argued Today

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

>
>
>
>Michael A Rolenz wrote:
>> as for the SGA...this is
>> incredible! How often do these songs get played today? How many people
>> know the tunes? I can say that I do only because the last two are one's
>> that my parents still hum or sing because they learned them in their
>> youth. But what an incredible Whine "OHHHHH alll this stuff will enter 
the
>> public domain if you don't keep extending copyright and we can't have 
that
>> even though some of you don't even know the tunes..."
>
>Actually the counter argument to this is that the reason WHY nobody
>knows these tunes (when we all should) IS long copyrights.  One of the
>benefits of the public domain is that it act to make all people living
>archivists.  Long copyrights mean that only corporations have the means
>and opportunity to archive -- and aside from the occasional over-priced
>"Time-Life" 19.95 per each disc/book/VHS/DVD series these self-same
>corporations have little to no motivation.

I can't take SGA seriously and I hope the USSC doesn't either. Your 
"counter argument" (to the "whine") is a quite valid. 


>
>It would be interesting to do a study of "most familiar non-contemporary
>tunes."  My prediction, there would be a huge differential between the
>1800's "Americana" songs that populate 100's of children's music CD's
>(as they are out of copyright) and are popular at public concerts, and
>more recent copyrighted works in terms of the number recognized, amount
>of tune or lyric known.

Another corollary is that these songs, that are part of heritage, can be 
packaged with little cost (other than production) and used in the school 
system for children to learn about culture. That there is something before 
Britney Spears. "Children..these are the songs your grandparent sang and 
heard when they were growing up?..these are the ones your parents did" 

>
>Long copyrights work against broad public knowledge of works.  The
>tragedy is that given a year for year lapse of copyright, earlier works
>by an author (seminal initial "classics") could spur interest (and
>royalties) for the remain works still copyrighted.  (and that perhaps
>weren't value when they were released.  Certainly free library books
>have gotten me to pay for other works by an author.  Lapsed works
>(reissued by an Eldred Publishing type company) certainly should have
>that same effect.
>

And as Macauley pointed out, giving Life+N copyright protection to the 
juvenilia is stupid since it provides protection for inferior work beyond 
that of the superior. (BTW- that was one of the "10 myths" arguments in 
the Loyola Law Review that should have been published last month. 
Extending the term has brought more works into print because it eliminates 
the 'state" copyright for unpublished works. What a horses ass that guy 
is!)

>
>>