RE: The good fight

Laureen C. Urquiaga
Associate Director for Access Services
Law School Copyright Coordinator

urquiagal[_at_]lawgate.byu.edu

>>> Professor Malla Pollack wrote:
>Yes, I fully recognize that what I want is incompatible with Berne and
may hurts some business' profits. We have hit the basic philosophical disagreement. I simply do not
believe that some firms getting money abroad should be the central concern of USA copyright policy. (The money, furthermore, may never be returned to the USA; FYI the "copies" sold abroad are often manufactured outside the USA). Calvin College said that "the business of America is business". I
disagree emphatically, the business of America should be Americans.<

And Robert Cumbow responded:
This is not about "some business' profits" or "some firms getting money abroad". Have you thought for a moment what would happen to our nation's economy, to your retirement plan, to your salary, your job, and your family, and those of your neighbors and fellow citizens, if American companies could not protect their IP abroad? Not just "some" companies--LOTS of companies, on whose continued success rest all of our hopes for the present and future well being of our country. Edward Barrow was right to wonder if you also believe we should not be citizens of Planet Earth.

Me:

I agree with Malla. Not in saying we shouldn't be part of the global community (I don't think she said that), but that joining Berne wasn't necessary. IMO, we'd have been fine sticking with the old regime of a fixed term and registration requirements. Yes, under the rule of the shorter term, our material would go public domain in some other countries before theirs would, but theirs ~would be~ public domain in ours. 'Fixing' that problem has done more harm than good. It has created an environment where we're doing all we can to protect already-created works (since they already exist, they obviously don't need MORE of an incentive) while negatively impacting the growth of the cultural commons (aka public domain) and thus impeding the development of new works. Yes, works do need a certain level of protection, and I'm not stingy. I'd be happy to say 52 years for a minimal fee, 28 more at a moderate price and then additional terms with an increasing fee scale.

As one who has to track down rightsholders, moving to a life+ rule has really messed things up. There is no longer any way to be sure, by looking at the verso of the title page, when a book will no longer be protected. There's no central database of author death dates to consult. More than half the time, nobody even knows for older works whether they were ever renewed or who would own the rights if they were. Much of the material would now be public domain and grist for Eldritch Press or Project Gutenberg or some other low cost publisher, but because the US joined Berne it's now moldering away on library shelves. My observation is that normalizing our copyright regime to Berne has actually done more harm than good. Received on Fri Oct 04 2002 - 21:43:52 GMT