> ---------- > From: Steve Schear[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:28 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Supremes and thieves. > > At 09:54 AM 1/20/2003 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: > > > How can it "dwindle?" The public domain can only increase or hold > > > steady. All this ruling does is damp the rate of increase. > > > > > > Marc de Piolenc > > > > >It dwindles because the rate at which the copyright period is increasing > >averages more than 1 year/year. Quite a number of works which had > >been in the public domain fell out of it when the 20 year extension went > >into effect. > > > >The public domain *did* dwindle. > > I think those who really oppose Congresss' actions expanding copyright > should take the position that there needs to be a rollback to it original > 14 + 14 year limit. > If everyone with the means to scan and OCR documents on their PC would > undertake to convert just a few of their favorite items who's copyright > would have expired under the original regime and place it up on a popular > P2P it could shortly lead to a fait accompli. In the end most laws must > accommodate the culture. > > steve > Actually, I'd like to see a fairly short (say, 20 year) automatic copyright, after which the owner could renew for a small fee - say $100 dollars a year, for up to 100 years protection. Require the fee to be paid *each* year, not up front.
Thus, things which arent popular will fall into PD fairly quickly, but sentimental authors could keep control of their works as long as they wanted, and businesses could keep works which continue to be profitable protected. Peter
