Welcome back from the front lines Eric!
I think this is something we have discussed from time to time and my response at this point is why would Hollywood "allow" even a small tax?
They have won, for now. There is no real reason for them to compromise at this point.
If you could compell Hollywood to at least act like they wanted this, they would then just throw up their hands and say "but what about harmonization?"
That is my current view. I'm sure it will change once others have chimed in.
Take care,
Keith
--- Eric Eldred <ericeldred[_at_]usa.net> 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"
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:47 GMT