[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Britain reverses position on copyright extension

Bob Olhsson wrote:
This issue has been grossly mischaracterized.

All of these so-called extensions, including the Bono act, have been for the
purpose of bringing each country's copyright term in line with all of the

The Bono act brought a 70 year term -- already longer than any other term in the world -- to a 90 year term. So how can you include the Bono act in the category of : "the purpose of bringing each country's copyright term in line with all of the others."? The express purpose of the law was to make it longer than any other country with the hope that the other lemmings would follow. The others might now be emulating the Bono time length, but what was Bono emulating?
I've heard nobody suggest that copyright should be extended beyond
the longest current term

When Bono was introduced, that was exactly what it did.

and it's stupid to expect any country to be willing
to shorten their copyright term as a means of conforming.

Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
That is not the question here. There is no actual move to ask any European country to shorten their term but to keep them the same as they are now. Have you bothered to read the Gower Report? It gives many reasons for keeping the SAME length (while also suggesting that 50 years is perhaps already too long but not asking that the term be shortened). Consider that the general way the European Community laws work IS to bring the laws in the various EC countries into conformity. Not just copyright laws, ALL laws. And if some are to make their laws less strong, if it is agreed to that is exactly what happens. Of course the usual thing that happens is that the weaker laws are brought up to the strength of the strongest law, which is why it is important that none of the individual EC countries lengthen their law because the EC might follow for ALL the other countries.

It is important for all of you to realize that when Tim Brooks (and I think also Sam Brylawski) actually talked to some U.S. Senators and Representatives about what the law REALLY entails, he found that NONE of them had the slightest idea that it meant that ALL sound recordings would stay in copyright until 2067, even those recorded in the 1880s. They passed the law not knowing this. They're not experts in this field. All they know is what they are told by lobbyists, and the industry lobbys conveniently left this info out. And as far as the Brits are concerned, all they know is what Cliff Richard tells them, and this occasionally happens during some free vacations at his Caribbean island getaway.

Mike Biel mbiel@xxxxxxxxx

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]