The Economist Weighs In For Shorter Copyright Terms

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The Economist Weighs In For Shorter Copyright Terms

Glen Newton
Slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/09/0444221/The-Economist-Weighs-In-For-Shorter-Copyright-Terms
"The Economist says that long copyright terms are hindering
creativity, and that shortening them is the way to go: 'Largely thanks
to the entertainment industry's lawyers and lobbyists, copyright's
scope and duration have vastly increased. In America, copyright
holders get 95 years' protection as a result of an extension granted
in 1998, derided by critics as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act." They
are now calling for even greater protection, and there have been
efforts to introduce similar terms in Europe. Such arguments should be
resisted: it is time to tip the balance back.'"

Original article:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868004

Word/Phrase of the Day: "Intellectual Monopoly"
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm


-Glen
http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/

--

-

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Economist Weighs In For Shorter Copyright Terms

olicharb
Hi Glen,
Thanks for this! It actually presents a summarized version of a scholarly
article published a few years ago by Landes and Posner, see here for the
link:
http://www.culturelibre.ca/2010/03/02/droit-dauteur-renouvelable-a-linfini/

My thinking is that Landes & Posner make a compelling argument about the
economic value of a work over time. A shorter term of copyright, with the
possibility renewing makes sense. It would fit with the trend of
registering your works with copyright collectives to commercialize. The
current model of lobbying for a longer term and eventually using trade mark
laws (this option not many people talk about, Mickey Mouse and Tintin are
also trade marks and publishing is a commercial process...) to limit using
older works poses great risk for many stakeholders in the debate. Or at
least, that's as much as I'll say in an email :)

Cheers,
Olivier Charbonneau, BCom, LLM
Associate Librarian, Concordia University
Doctoral candidate in Law, Université de Montréal
www.culturelibre.ca


On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:20:09 -0400, Glen Newton <[hidden email]>
wrote:
> Slashdot:
>
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/09/0444221/The-Economist-Weighs-In-For-Shorter-Copyright-Terms

> "The Economist says that long copyright terms are hindering
> creativity, and that shortening them is the way to go: 'Largely thanks
> to the entertainment industry's lawyers and lobbyists, copyright's
> scope and duration have vastly increased. In America, copyright
> holders get 95 years' protection as a result of an extension granted
> in 1998, derided by critics as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act." They
> are now calling for even greater protection, and there have been
> efforts to introduce similar terms in Europe. Such arguments should be
> resisted: it is time to tip the balance back.'"
>
> Original article:
> http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868004
>
> Word/Phrase of the Day: "Intellectual Monopoly"
> http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
>
>
> -Glen
> http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/