response 51 of 160:

Oct 11 15:43 UTC 2002

  Actually, I think that's a totally bogus argument and I believe it's
  got things almost exactly backwards..

  To begin with, the issue isn't whether works will pass "sooner" into the
  public domain but whether they will *ever* do so or whether existing
  copyrights will essentially be extended forever, twenty years at a time.
  Additionally, the extensions cover far more than just books -- they also
  cover film, music, visual artwork, and much more.  And finally, less
  popular and lesser-known books written seventy-some years ago (which
  is the time period we're talking about) simply aren't available to
  "curl up" with -- they're long out of print and there's nowhere you
  can count on getting a copy.

  If a work is still popular after seventy years there'll be someone 
  fulfilling the market demand for it in any case and it will be cheaper
  and other artists will be free to make derivative works if it has passed
  into the public domain.  If it's not popular enough to be money-making,
  passing into the public domain, where it can be distributed almost without
  cost, is the best hope a work has of reaching people who might appreciate
  it.

response 53 of 160:

Oct 11 19:18 UTC 2002

I agree that that's a problem.  I have a lot of out of print material that's
no longer available from any commercial source but is still illegal for me
to duplicate.

I think the argument's relevent, though, because the MPAA has been giving a
version of it.  They asked whether anyone would have gone to the trouble of
restoring and re-releasing _Citizen Kane_ if it had been in the public
domain.  That's a good question; there are a fair number of early cartoons
and such that actually are public domain, and you don't often see copies of
them for sale.  Commercially anything public domain seems to be considered a
dead end, fit only for the dumpster.

That aside, I'd like to see the Supreme Court declare the 1988 law
unconstitutional but I don't think they will.  I think it'd be a bit of a
stretch, because the term *is* still limited, the limit is just longer than
most of us would like.  It's hard to say exactly what *would* violate the
wording of the Constitution except for a law that explicitly declared a
perpeptual copyright.

response 55 of 160:

Oct 11 23:12 UTC 2002

  About ten or fifteen years ago, during the height of the VCR boom,
  one of the early movie studios which had become more or less defunct
  (perhaps Republic?) accidentally let the copyright on a great deal
  of material lapse because whoever owned the rights neglected to
  renew them.  All of a sudden the market was flooded with inexpensive
  reproductions of movies like "It's a Wonderful Life" and movies that
  hadn't been broadcast on television in years were rediscovered,
  while the ones that had been popular enough to still show (like "It's
  a Wonderful Life") became so commonly aired that people started to 
  make jokes about it.

response 57 of 160:

Oct 12 03:16 UTC 2002

Or how Disney took public domain stories like "Snow White and the Seven
Dwarves" and made a bunch of money, but is horrified that somebody might make
some money from Disney property in public domain?

response 59 of 160:

Oct 14 13:06 UTC 2002

The Register is reporting that HR.5469, the bill that was supposed to save
online webcasting, has been heavily amended in a backroom deal with a "cabal
of thirteen small commercial operations."  Most webcasters now feel that the
bill will merely ensure only the largest commercial webcasters survive.  It
also apparently would require, for the first time, that educational and
religious terrestrial stations (meaning regular radio stations) pay
performance royalties, though the article only mentions that in passing.

http://www.theregus.com/content/6/26615.html

response 61 of 160:

Oct 16 11:52 UTC 2002

The Register is one small notch above the Enquirer.  If it was valid,
they probably reprinted or stole from someone else.  

Just venting...

response 63 of 160:

Oct 16 15:19 UTC 2002

The Register is a bit like Hunter S. Thompson's early 70's political writing
in Rolling Stone.  The regular publications would say "Senator X gave a speech
where he said Y", while Thompson made a point of neglecting the official
details in favor of his own personal observations, such as "A disturbingly
offbalanced Senator X was quickly hustled out to make yet another stump speech
written by his handlers, after which he was pulled out of sight and hopefully
taken to a hospital".

response 65 of 160:

Oct 22 04:02 UTC 2002

Rolling Stone has a piece on some of the upcoming fall releases.
The article says that the labels used promtional pricing as low 
as $9/disc (where??) to boost sales.  But we should expect to 
pay about $20/disc for big name releases in the fall.
   "Label sources say that because of the industry's slump
    -- 2002 sales are off almost ten percent -- they can't 
    afford to lower prices."
 
I dunno, that just put a big smile on my face.
 
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=16879&afl=mnew

response 67 of 160:

Oct 22 04:58 UTC 2002

Sounds to me like they should be anticipating more of a slump.

response 69 of 160:

Oct 22 13:04 UTC 2002

I kind of wish they'd just accept the law of supply and demand as it
relates to pricing, instead of trying to prop up prices with
legislation.  I worry about the legislative damage a dying RIAA could do.

response 71 of 160:

Oct 22 19:06 UTC 2002

My point is that if they weren't still trying to fix the price at $16
per disc, they wouldn't be having so much trouble.  I suspect fewer
people would download music and burn it to CDs if CDs weren't so
expensive.  There's room for them to make a profit, just not the huge
profit they're used to.

response 73 of 160:

Oct 22 20:41 UTC 2002

Yeah, a lot of cd's are more like $19