On 8/29/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Leo Mauler</b> <<a href="mailto:webgiant@yahoo.com">webgiant@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I was always given to<br>understand that the copyright holder received<br>government protection for a limited period in exchange<br>for their copyrighted work entering the public domain<br>at the end of that limited period. Or in other words,
<br>the copyright holder received life + 25 to control his<br>or her work and receive royalties for its use, and in<br>exchange the taxpayer received the high-quality work<br>after life + 25 to use for free.<br></blockquote>
</div><br>Close. The Constitution says 'for limited times' in the language that authorizes copyrights and patents. The first copyright law was an initial term of 14 years that could be renewed for an additional 14 years. There seems to be a good argument for such an arrangement. A work that doesn't sell enough copies to justify additional printings won't warrant renewal, pushing it into the public domain all the sooner, so that anyone who is interested in providing copies would be able to do so without having to worry about licensing fees.
<br><br>Every time Steamboat Willie gets close to passing out of copyright, Disney buys an extension of the copyright term. (This ignores the fact that there is no commercial value to that particular movie, and the Mickey Mouse character is still protected by trademark law, so no one could make a new movie with him in it without running into trouble.) What I have never been able to understand is how they could get a copyright on an existing work extended, since the Constitutional language is about encouraging authors. How does extending the copyright on something that's already been made encourage making it? The prohibition against ex post facto laws should prevent such shenanigans; you can neither encourage nor discourage past behavior, so Congress isn't supposed to have the power to try doing so.
<br><br>But I'm too damn logical to be a lawyer. <br>