It is my understanding that for about the first century of the existence of
the US, our country refused to enforce the copyright and patent laws of the
European countries. Apparently we argued that we were a struggling new
nation and that it was unfair for us to have to abide by these laws.
<sigh>
My source for this information was the OTA report on Intellectual Property that was written in the 80's.
Nancy
Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
. on 11/17/03 8:12 AM, Denise Nicholson at Nicholson.D[_at_]Library.wits.ac.za wrote:
> I agree with Mark Davison. If Berne and TRIPS state a minimum of 50 years > after creator's death, then why does it have to be extended at all? > > It is no secret that extension is to protect economic interests of > multi-billionaire publishing and software companies. Not much incentive for > authors! > > >>>> Mark.Davison[_at_]law.monash.edu.au 11/15/03 12:51AM >>> > Edward's question contains the assumption that US and EU authors deserve the > lengthy protection that they now have. There is no empirical evidence of the > value to the community of extended copyright protection. > > Edward Barrow <edward[_at_]copyweb.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Replying to CalleØstergaard:
>>> For developing countries, extension of the copyright term would be even more >>> detrimental, especially for research and education, as access to information >>> is difficult and expensive enough, without having to wait another 20 years >>> for material to get into the public domain. Developing countries need to >>> resist the pressures by developed countries to extend their copyright terms >>> through Free Trade Agreements.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:50 GMT