[pricecw]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

For example, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone was published in 1997 -- and possibly copyrighted a year before then. I don't think JK Rowling would jump for joy if you told her that in a year or two, anyone could sell copies of, or make movies and video games, off of that book without any necessity to give her one red cent. Even less successful authors would probably hit the ceiling if they only had 14 years to get paid for their work.

I really don't feel bad for Rowling, she went for very poor to one of the richest people in the UK during that time. I think society encouraged her to create just fine there.

For others, did it stop the creation when this was the law in 1996 (there was extensions then too to an extra time)? Authors created under an agreement, (42 years at that time) and then it would be public domain. Then Congress, after being lobbied heavily by corporations, took from the public those works and extended them. No extra motivation to create was done with this, since works already created were extended. Also, it hurt the progress, because people couldn't extend and expand those works, like Disney did with public domain works before.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

And if the majority of revenues is generated in that 14 year period, then why would anyone care about longer durations? Obviously it's because there is a desire for works older than 14 years; otherwise, there wouldn't be much reason to care.

Life + 70 may be too long, but 14 years is clearly far too short.

This was done for a few select rich, that have already gotten much more from the system than they needed to progress and encourage the arts.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I see you are a Constitutional originalist. I hope you apply this interpretation of law consistently, instead of merely when it suits you.

Yep I am, I once swore my life to uphold it (USMC), and have payed for that for a long time now, it has been 22-23 years since I have been without pain. I think that the politicians are stealing from us to enrich the few, a lot of times without legal foundations to do it. I also think the Supreme court is not doing it's job correctly. I just hope at some point before total collapse we get people up there that will fix this mess.

One good example is the laws put in place to "regulate" interstate commerce. When the constitution was written, and that power was granted to congress, the term regulate meant to make regular, not impose regulations. It was meant to let the federal government prevent things like tariffs at the borders of states.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

By the way, multiple court rulings have upheld the very long current copyright terms. Since they determine what is or is not "constitutional" for US law, I'd say that proclaiming "copyright terms are unconstitutional" requires a bit more backing than "I don't feel like long terms perform functions X and Y."

I agree they have the ability to do so. That is why I think that a voter revolution (sort of what is happening in the EU) is going to be seen in the US. I think the Pirate Party may gain strength, and a lot of long copyright terms will be revoked/reduced. The creators will scream bloody murder, but we the people have the right to reduce them to 2yrs if we so desire (btw I think that is too short).

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Not really, no. Tons of work is lost to obscurity or destroyed, it's the nature of things.

Also, for those who choose to be originalists , the Statute of Anne -- the first copyright law -- very clearly and explicitly references commercial use. So I don't really see any problems at all in terms of using copyright to protect economic interests.

That said, I do think we should have legislation to properly manage orphaned works, given the length of current copyright terms. IMO that would resolve some critical issues.

Of course, if the government does start passing laws to address orphan works, expect some fireworks from unexpected quarters. Apparently Britain is drafting one right now, and photographers over there are having fits as they're terrified it will result in widespread infringement of their work under the cover of the infringer claiming they can't find the copyright holder....

Yep, that's another reason to just shorten the life of the copyright. It is orphaned after the duration (I don't argue 14yrs is correct, just use it as a counter point to life+70). Now, the drafts of that law made it very easy for corporations to claim they thought something was orphaned. I fully expect copyright to be a balance though, the creators should have a chance to get re-numeration from their creation, the people should get the creation into public domain in a reasonable time. Both sides give up, both sides get something.

BTW, patents are generally 14yrs, and that system has worked fairly well for compensating the creators, and progressing the state of the art. The main problems with that system right now is the patents that should never have been granted since they were not original, and prior art existed for them. (Yes, I have creations that have been patented also).

--Carl