On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:25 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
What is the justification giving Disney its copyright protection for Steamboat Willie? I can't think of one, except getting more $$$$$$$$ out of an artistic effort from long, long ago, and I just don't see that as justification. The logic behind copyright seems to me to depend on the public good, and Disney is not lobbying for the public good at all, just to make more $$$$$$$ for themselves and their shareholders.
If a government wishes to have a large bridge built somewhere, it would be a perfectly reasonable strategy to offer the developer that builds it a compensation package that includes the right to collect tolls for a certain number of years. We might then debate whether the price agreed upon was too little or too much, but the basic concept is sound.
Now suppose that, after the bridge is built and is operating successfully, the government were to grant the developer an extension so that it might continue collecting tolls for additional years. What possible rationale could there be for that? Regardless of whether the original deal was a good deal or a bad deal for the public, there is nothing to be gained by handing over additional revenues. If any government were to do such a thing, it would be recognized for what it is: a pure boondoggle.
That's how I feel about extending copyright terms for any work that is already published. Disney's copyright extension was nothing but a boondoggle, taking wealth directly from the pockets of the general public and handing it to media conglomerates like Disney.
mdl _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
