Re: Copyright Term Extension

On 2/19/97, Mark Lemley <MLEMLEY[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> It seems to me that a great way to test the sincerity of proponents
> of copyright term extension is to propose to make it prospective
> only. That is, existing works (which by definition need no further
> "encouragement") will not benefit from the longer term, but works
> created after the effective date of the act will gain the benefit
> (admittedly, somewhere between 2075 and 2100). If you really believe
> the "necessary for encouragement" theory, you should support my
> modified bill. Somehow, though, I think most of the corporate
> interests pushing for term extension wouldn't fight so hard for
> this new bill.

The copyright extension has been on the table since 1993. In my numerous calls and letters to congress we have proposed just that... the legislation should be prospective since the basis for United States copyright law is the stimulation of new works. If the legislation is retroactive it actually is counterproductive to new authors due to the constriction of the public domain. I support your modified bill.

Larry Urbanski
American Film Heritage Association
<larryu[_at_]moviecraft.com> Received on Tue Feb 25 1997 - 16:01:20 GMT