Re: The Eric Eldred Act

From: Denis Borges Barbosa <denisbarbosa[_at_]unikey.com.br>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:48:07 -0200

The issue is lost when you suggest that a tax incentive should be given to induce authors to donate works to public domain. Economic analysis (it would seem to me) would think that proposal quite a  paradox.

The Government incentive already exists. Copyright in itself is an artificial (although necessary) Government interventive action to induce authors to create. If public interest advises that works should remain in public domain, just cease or limit the incentive already granted. Can you imagine a Government subsidy to plant wheat, and a second one to pay for the fuel for burning the same wheat? Oh, that happened in Brazil with coffee, but then , as Charles de Gaule said, Brazil is not a serious country.

At 02:44 30/01/03 -0600, you wrote:

Hello Eric

Having seen the effect of rampant copying and distribution on the music

industry and the effect of competition from too much royalty free stock art

and works of old masters on the illustration industry, I don't think introducing

more works into public domain promotes progress enough to offset the

depressing effect that releasing a flood of republished works has on original

creations and emerging markets in the digital age. However, since you asked

for opinions, I'd like to suggest a carrot instead of a stick.

If your goal is to nudge languishing copyrighted works into the public domain

sooner,  why not petition Congress to offer a tax incentive for donating works

that copyright holders don't plan to exploit themselves rather than thinking of

ways to unfairly push creators into giving up copyrights. Creators' heirs already

give more than other citizens. Who else in our capitalistic society is forced to

give up valuable holdings to the public domain without any compensation for

the loss of income their unique property can potentially produce?

If your goal is to make works more available and accessible to the public,

why not petition Congress to be more proactive in supporting the exclusive

rights of creators during their limited terms? Laws only help IF creators can

afford to register the works, and IF they can take the time and effort to track

down infringements, and IF they can afford the money and time spent to

pursue infringement cases. Congress could do much more. They could

set up a licensing system for copyrighted works so creators could update it

online with info about available licenses and fees. Then the public would

have easy access and the ability to do price comparisons. Congress could

also authorize public information broadcasts telling people about the harm

copyright infringement does and how to avoid doing it. Public domain works

could carry a distinctive mark allowing the public to KNOW when they are using

works legally. Congress could entitle original creators to participate in copyright

infringement insurance so the insurance company could pursue infringement

cases thus allowing creators to keep creating more new works. Then creators

could actually earn the income to which they are suppose to be exclusively

entitled.

Instead, Congress keeps putting a fresh bandage on a gushing wound. The

struggle to exercise the creators' supposedly exclusive rights has become

incredibly difficult due to rampant infringement, ease of copying, instant access

to worldwide distribution, and increasing competition from republished public

domain works. Extending the time creators and their heirs have to earn from

their creations every time technology makes earning from those works more

difficult is the least Congress can do. The very least.

Regarding reasonable term limits in today's environment, the ability to earn from

their creative efforts is so difficult, that children and spouses of creators often

have to sacrifice for the sake of the "art." Maybe even more than the creator does.

The creator may be blissfully happy creating while the rest of the family struggles

to make ends meet on scant income. Being a creator is often a cottage industry

with the entire family invested in the business. They all deserve to be rewarded for

the duration of their lives for their contribution, sacrifice, and continued marketing

efforts. In addition, other publishers may alter the works in ways that embarrass

the heirs. The heirs have a stake in both the creators reputation and the work.

They have insight about how and where the creator would want the work to appear.

The public does not deserve to step in and benefit ahead of those who helped

bring the work to the world. So the authors life plus 70 years or the lifetime of the

children, whichever is longer, is reasonable in my view. (If you made it dependent

only on the lifetime of the children, it might endanger their lives.)

Just wanted to let you see what the opposite end of the spectrum looks like. :)

You may see red about term limit extensions, but things looks pretty blue on my

end.

Linda Gruber

Novel Art

http://www.novelart.com

on 1/27/03 9:03 PM, cni-copyright@cni.org at cni-copyright@cni.org

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@usa.net

http://www.eldritchpress.org  "Eldritch Press"

Received on Fri Jan 31 2003 - 12:49:56 GMT