🚀 go-pugleaf

hollaar@faith.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) wrote:
>In article <080c4d9e.f8291d29@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>
andysch <aschlaflyNOasSPAM@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>hollaar@faith.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) wrote:
>>>In article <2222641e.ddb6009c@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>
>>andysch <aschlaflyNOasSPAM@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>>>You say that Congress has been extending duration
retroactively
>>>>since at least 1975.  What's your view of this important
issue?
>>>
>>>Nothing that I'm going to post here.
>>>
>>>I just post to newgroups to try to stop misunderstandings
before
>>>they become full-scale urban legends ...
>>
>>Yeah, well, the biggest misunderstanding of all is that
>>extending copyright duration retroactively is somehow
>>beneficial.  Let's start with the big misunderstandings and
then
>>work our way down to the trivial and obscure ones.
>
>Well, you can always start with Congress' explaination, found in
>House Report 105-452 which accompanied the bill --

What a joke this "explanation" by Congress is.  It makes no
economic sense and pretends that individual authors supported
this copyright duration extension rather than Disney et al.

>    The United States has international obligations to protect
copyrights as
>    well.  The Berne Convention, originally drafted in 1886, is
the
>    international treaty which mandates basic copyright
protection rules for
>    its member countries.  Currently there are over 100
countries that are
>    members of the convention.  The United States became a
member in 1989.
>    Under the Berne Convention, member countries must protect
copyright for a
>    term of life of the author plus fifty years.  Under "the
rule of the
>    shorter term," member states need only protect the work of
foreign authors
>    to the same extent that they would be protected in their
country of
>    origin.

In sum, the Berne Convention gives foreign protection pursuant
to the laws of the country of origin.  That does not provide any
reason to change U.S. laws -- works created in the U.S. receive
the protection given by U.S. laws.

>    In 1995, the European Union extended the copyright term for
all of its
>    member states from life of the author plus fifty years to
life of the
>    author plus seventy years.  As the world leader in the
export of
>    intellectual property, this has profound effects for the
United States
>    if it does not extend copyright term as well.

This is simply false.  There are no "profound effects" on U.S.
copyright holders caused by the change in EU law.  As
demonstrate above, there is *NO* effect at all on U.S. copyright
holders resultant from a change in EU law.

>    European Union countries, which are huge markets for U.S.
intellectual
>    property, would not have to provide twenty years of
copyright protection
>    to U.S. works and the U.S. would lose millions of dollars
in export
>    revenues.  Extending copyright term to life of the author
plus seventy
>    years means that U.S. works will generally be protected for
the same
>    amount of time as works created by European Union authors.
Therefore, the
>    United States will ensure that profits generated from the
sale of
>    U.S. intellectual property abroad will come back to the
United States.

Yes, Disney will get 20 more years of profits -- at a greater
public expense.  It would be economically more efficient simply
to pass a hat around and ask for donations to Disney to bolster
its bottom line rather than disrupt economic efficiency in this
manner.

>    Extending copyright protection will be an incentive for
U.S. authors to
>    continue using their creativity to produce works, and
provide copyright
>    owners generally with the incentive to restore older works
and further
>    disseminate them to the public.  Authors will be able to
pass along to
>    their children and grandchildren the financial benefits of
their works.

The last sentence is disingenuous.  This was a corporate-backed
extension.  The earlier sentences are simply false with respect
to retroactivity: no incentive is created by this retroactive
extension in copyright duration.

I doubt anyone objective wrote the above "explanation".  Most
likely it was written by a lobbyist, or a staffer looking for a
lobbying job, and inserted into the legislative record to put
the best face possible on fait accompli special interest pork.

Andy




-----------------------------------------------------------

Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com