Re: Some Thoughts on Copyright Term

Moritz Roettinger <moritz.roettinger[_at_]dg23.cec.be> wrote:
>
> Well, it's of course justified to discuss the issue of copyright term.
> But: What is the aim? Let us be clear. If those arguing for a shorter
> protection period are representing the interests of the users then they
> should say so. Lobbying is legitimate, but must be clearly stated. If
> they wish to have this discussion of an academic level, then we should
> also be quite clear: The 50 years p.m.a. is part of the Berne
> convention to which the US adhered in 1986. So it's binding for the US.
> In the EC a harmonisation was taking place on the common level of 70
> years p.m.a.

I don't think that is quite true. Rather, I would suggest that those who supported the change are those who had works getting ready to enter the public domain. These are not (necessarily) content creators, but rather those who own interests in works created long ago.

What must be remembered is that creators of new works are the primary users of the public domain. Thus, there is really not that great of a distinction between users of works and creators of new works. Rather the distinction is between users of old works and owners of copyrights to old works.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding was not a legal opinion, and is not my employer's.
Original portions Copyright 1998 Bruce E. Hayden,all rights reserved
My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution,
as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Hayden                      bhayden[_at_]acm.org
Phoenix, Arizona                     bhayden[_at_]ieee.org
===now operational again============>bhayden[_at_]copatlaw.com