Some Thoughts on Copyright Term

As I see it, the real problem with "long" copyright terms is the reliance on the author's lifetime as a measurement. I'm reminded of the Rule Against Perpetuities (40 years + a life in being, with a bunch of exceptions). And no less than the California Supreme Court has held that an attorney can't be held liable for malpractice for failing to understand the Rule Against Perpetuities, since nobody can really understand it!

So, I present two modest proposals:

(1) Copyright is for a limited term of years. Period. A copyright lasts for 75 years from creation. Period. No "reregistration" nonsense; no BS about corporate, anonymous/pseudonymous, or "natural person" authors; no exceptions, no extensions, no Peter Pan.

(2) Copyright is for the life of the author OR a limited term of years, whichever is greater. Thus, the 65-year-old author is guaranteed at least 75 years of copyright protection, and more if he lives to 150. That protects both the author and his/her/its heirs. The current legislation is "and," which is a lot harder to police. This proposal, of course, requires the corporate exceptions.

And, to answer another post (I've lost the message in a disk crash), we'd have a takings problem in this country if we tried to reduce the term of copyright. However, changing the method of calculation to a neutral method is probably not a taking, based on the real estate takings cases, if the change is intended merely for harmonization and simplicity.

C.E. Petit, Esq.  |  "This is not fine prose nor, by itself, terribly 


                  |  clear. It would appear to have been drafted by 

                  |  lawyers."   Bourke v. Dun & Bradstreet,

                  |  No. 98-1163 (7th Cir. Oct. 27, 1998) (Cummings, J.)

<cepetit[_at_]usa.net>