Re: The Eric Eldred Act

I sort of think, that saying their is a government incentive to place into the government domain anything that is captured by the copyright or patent acts and accelerated with an exclusive economic monopoly is anything but an incentive? Are you shure you did not mean disincentive? sterling

On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Denis Borges Barbosa wrote:

> 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[_at_]cni.org at
> cni-copyright[_at_]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[_at_]usa.net
> http://www.eldritchpress.org "Eldritch Press"
>
>
>
Received on Mon Feb 03 2003 - 06:42:08 GMT