Re: The Eric Eldred Act

From: Robert A. Baron <robert[_at_]studiolo.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:13:16 -0500

Several quick points in response to the Eldred/Lessig proposal:

1. The fee would have to be paid when due, not in advance. Even so, I can see an industry developing to serve copyright interests by making certain works are renewed on time. If the fee is small enough, many copyright owners would just put monies down for virtually continual payment, whether or not the work is financially productive.

There are reasons for renewing copyright other than financial gain. Some people use copyright to limit speech -- especially common with regard to visual works, where there is no dichotomy between ideas and expressions. (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ignored that issue when declaring that copyright does not limit First Amendment free speech.)

2. So the fee would have to be large enough to prevent the wholesale renewal of financially unproductive copyrights.

3. The record-keeping end of this system will be massive. Anybody who has hopes of return on their copyright will have to register. But even then, many works, such as those created by students and non-professionals will never be registered and will not receive the protection they might deserve. Is there a provision for non-registered works, or for works to be registered in their initial term?

4. The documentation system, because it is so massive will be expensive to maintain. It should be paid for by the fees collected. One dollar doesn't sound like enough.

5. Even with a renewal system as proposed, there must be some point at which all works must enter the public domain.

6. I have about a dozen related suggestions in my paper "Reconstructing the Public Domain." One of these (if I remember correctly) is to increase the renewal fees with subsequent renewals so that there is an increasing incentive for works to be allowed to enter the public domain. Only those works with long-standing return history will continue to be renewed. There is also a proposal to allow copyright owners of works of proven worth to receive tax deductions for early dedication to the public domain. See: http://www.studiolo.org/IP/VRA-TM-StLouis-PublicDomain.htm#Ch010 (Among other topics, this paper is mostly about issues that affect the special copyright situations encountered by works of visual art.)

Robert Baron
robert[_at_]studiolo.org

At 01:46 PM 1/26/2003 -0500, Eric Eldred wrote:

> In response to the stunning decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft, we have come
> up with an idea that we would like discussed here.
>
>It is for a tiny tax on works in the 50th year of copyright. If the tax
>is not paid, the work would enter the public domain. Thus works with no
>commercial value would enter the public domain much as they would earlier
>when the term expired. Works with commercial value would be paid for and
>would enjoy the current copyright term. The tax could go to support the
>registration process.
>
>Maybe 50 years of copyright is too long. The Economist has spoken out for
>a 14 year renewable term. But we recognize we have to make significant
>compromises with the strong copyright interests in Hollywood in order to
>persuade Congress about the benefits of this proposed act.
>
>For more information, please see
>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/EAFAQ.html
>
>What do you think?
>
>
>____
>"Eric" Eric Eldred mailto:ericeldred[_at_]usa.net
>http://www.eldritchpress.org "Eldritch Press"

---

Robert A. Baron
mailto:robert[_at_]studiolo.org
http://www.studiolo.org Received on Mon Jan 27 2003 - 13:14:46 GMT