RE: The good fight

From: <RCumbow[_at_]GrahamDunn.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:29:09 -0700

Yes, and I know of many bridges the became and remained toll bridges until they were completely paid for, at which point it became possible to cross them for free--a situation highly analogous to entitling the copyright owner to a royalty stream for a limited time. The key difference, of course, is that the bridge continues to cost money to use until it is fully paid for, its cost being an amount certain, that is paid up at a specific point in time. A copyright royalty stream, by contrast, continues for a fixed time (the life of the author + 70 years), irrespective of the cost or value of the work Once again, the suggestion of a term of copyright tied to accelerating renewal fees seems to make a lot more sense, because is connects the term of copyright protection to the economic life of the work, not to an arbitrary author's lifetime + 70 years.

Robert C. Cumbow
 Graham & Dunn PC
 1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
 Seattle, WA 98101-2390
 direct 206.340.9619
 fax 206.340.9599
 rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
 http://www.grahamdunn.com  

        Big law firm experience
without the big law firm experience®  

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Bernitt [mailto:dlb[_at_]psu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 5:33 AM To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: The good fight

At 09:24 AM 9/11/2002 Wednesday, you wrote:

>While I am estatic that the entire very elite intellectual property
>community will provide support, the point in the ditch digger example, is
>that if it takes 3 man months to create one ditch and it takes 3 man
>months to create one book, the effort of the ditch digger is the same as
>the effort of the book writer and therefore each should be paid but one
>time from one buyer for the effort. The very idea that the 1 man 1
>effort gets paid a million or more times via the vehicle of a monopoly is
>patently wrong.

.
.
.

>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dodi Schultz wrote:
>
> >
>
> > You know, on further thought, I've been persuaded that you're absolutely
> > right. A digger's ditch is every bit as creative, and deserving of
suitable
> > compensation--and protection--as my book, poem, or article. Royalties
> > should be paid, and unauthorized copying prohibited. Any attempt by some
> > wannabe digger to pass off an imitative ditch as an original earthwork
> > should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, with the support of
the
> > entire intellectual property community.
> >
> > --Dodi Schultz
> >

I'd like to see this aspect taken a bit more seriously. The ditch digger analogy is poor and serves neither side. How about considering something like a bridge? What's the comparison between an author and the designer/builder of a bridge? Should that builder be paid one time for the work or should he collect a royalty each time someone crosses? This is a terribly insufficient analogy but perhaps can lead to better if the topic is worth discussion at all?

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email message may be protected by the attorney/client privilege, work product doctrine or other confidentiality protection. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you. Received on Fri Sep 13 2002 - 17:35:11 GMT