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 [log in to unmask]