Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Extension In Australia
femto writes "The Motion Picture Association and
APRA have commissioned a
report
from Allen Consulting into the
effects of extending Australian copyright from life+50 years to life+70years.
This forms the MPA and APRA's contribution to
US-Australian free trade negotiations,
currently underway. The report recommends that copyright terms should be extended.
An extension of copyright would not be in Australia's interest.
Some would argue that it is not in anyone's
interest. Projects such as Project Gutenberg of Australia
would be adversely affected by such an extension. Perhaps now is to time to write to your Member
of Parliament, asking them to oppose any extension of copyright or patents, and shore up whatever resistance there is to an extension of IP in Australia?"
They then tried abroad.............
Video Game cheats, hints a
If only more people understood this, we might have more reasonable copyright laws. Copyright laws exist because without them, few people would bother to make (in this case) movies.
Actually we don't know if this actually is the case. Since copyright (and it's associated third party publisher/distributor business model) was well established prior to the invention of the cini-camera.
As a society, we have more movies to choose from because of copyright law. The longer the copyright term, the more incentive there is.
Even if it can be demonstrated that copyright is good at promoting the distribution of movies that need not imply that more copyright is better. There could easily be an optimum copyright term for encouraging movies, beyond which more copyright makes little difference.
However, a longer copyright term also makes it harder to access older movies, discourages derivative works, and does little to encourage production. So there's a tradeoff.
There are plenty of situations where something which is good in moderation is bad in excess. A small amount of all sorts of spices added to food can improve the taste, a large amount can render it inedible. Similarly a tiny amount of a chemical can cure someone, whereas a larger amount would quickly poison them.
So there's a tradeoff. One week is too short (would you pay $9 to see a movie that would be free next weekend? Didn't think so) while life+70 years is too long (how much money my movie makes between the years 2107 and 2127 isn't very important to me). Somewhere in the middle is an optimal term that benefits all of us the most.
If you are going to make a movie you might well be borrowing the money anyway. How long before whoever lent you the money will be expecting it back?
Unfortunately, we've lost track of why copyright law exists. It's not there to protect Hollywood studios; it's not there to protect millionaire actors; it's not even there to protect the "average" people shown in the MPAA propaganda.
Are Hollywood and expensive actors actually a requirement for the production of movies which entertain people in the first place? Most people involved in the production of a movie are likely to get paid for the work they do.