Mark D Lew wrote:
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.
Yes, it's a boondoggle, but it's done all the time. Bonds are issued to
pay for a bridge or highway, which are to be paid for by the collection
of tolls. Even when the initial legislation includes languages to the
effect of "when the bonds are paid off, the tolls shall be removed" what
usually happens is that new legislation is introduced since the
legislature views the tolls as a new revenue source.
All the toll highways in the U.S. which were built in the 1950s have
been paid off yet many still continue to collect tolls.
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.
And then Disney's economic engine continues to make significant
contributions to the U.S. economy. People are able to continue to work,
new jobs are created, those who sell all that copyrighted Disney
material in their stores are able to continue to thrive so their
employees stay off welfare rolls, the businesses pay their taxes, etc.
etc. Shareholders continue to earn dividends on which they pay taxes,
and they continue to make capital gains when they sell their stock whose
value remains high because of the Disney copyrights.
It's a vastly more complicated scenario than one would think based on
the copyrighting of Mickey Mouse.
Looked at as a moral copyright issue, it's easy to view it as a
boondoggle. Viewed in a much larger picture of economic issues,
employment issues, tax issues, it's not as easy a decision -- the
Government gets a lot of benefit from Disney's extended copyrights, as
do the many thousands of Disney employees who continue to work for a
corporation whose major asset continues to be protected.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
