Re: Snooze/lose (Was: Academics and coursepacks)

On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Daniel J. Schaeffer <daniel_schaeffer[_at_]kirkland.com> wrote:
>
> I suppose if one takes my supposition to an extreme, yes, it can imply
> infinite copyright. I don't think anyone is advocating infinite
> copyright monopoly, at least not in public (though Disney, Time Warner,
> et al., may harbor a secret desire for it). My point was this: If the
> term of copyright monopoly is not sufficiently long to give content
> producers a reasonably opportunity to recoup their investment in
> production, then they will cease to produce. This does as much harm to
> the "bona communia" as does infinite copyright protection. The goal is
> to strike the appropriate balance. But there is nothing in the policy
> behind copyright that requires us to fix the point of that balance
> immovably.

If the "content producers" cannot recover their cost of production, etc. over the author's lifetime + 50 years, then I doubt very much that they will be able to do so in life + 70. There would be very little revenue coming in after 50 years, except for a relatively extremely few titles that have made it to 'classic' or 'near-classic' status. And if books aren't selling reasonably well (in *their* perspective), publishers will make them o.p. FAR more quickly than even 10 years past publication date!

Cheers,

Bernard Katz, Head, Special Collections and Library Development McLaughlin Library, University of Guelph, Guelph ON Canada N1G 2W1

   and Chair, Ontario Library Association Copyright Action Committee bkatz[_at_]uoguelph.ca // (519) 824-4120 X2089 // FAX: (519) 824-6931 Received on Wed Sep 09 1998 - 22:40:11 GMT