Re: [ARSCLIST] Britain reverses position on copyright extension

[Michael Biel <mbiel@xxxxxxxxx>]

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
> others.

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