Kali, I'm not trolling, just discussing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
...
1) This line of logic does not explain why many nations, which afaik were not lobbied by Hollywood, have similarly long copyright terms (e.g. life + 50 or 70 years).
|
Actually, every one of the Berne extensions were heavily lobbied by Hollywood. Talk to the European members who follow copyright closely. The general plan is to get one place to extend and then use that extension as a reason to cause other places to extend, while saintly saying things about protecting the (dead) artists. The Draconian internet rules in France were heavily lobbied for by the MPAA and the RIAA. Same for the US DCMA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
2) Although life + 70 is fairly long, a truly indefinite term is a clear violation of the US Constitution; and the most recent extensions were reviewed with this in mind. I.e. I seriously doubt another extension to life + 90 would be considered viable, unless life expectancy increases from 70 to 100.
|
Having read the the Supreme Court Decision (sorry, I don't have a link), I disagree. The 2003 decision said that any length was OK, as long as it wasn't perpetual. Hollywood will be back in 5 years for another 25 year extension, just watch...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
3) Many of the books Google has scanned would not fall into PD any time soon. Lots of the authors are still alive and kicking.
|
And if they're kicking, then they can opt-out. What's the problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
4) The result of Google's actions will not be even remotely equivalent to putting a book into PD. They will just be more widely available in a commercialized context. You still have to pay to access the books, and cannot reproduce or sell one of Google's scanned books without paying for it.
|
Agreed. But they will be
available, which is more than can be said today...