An Open Letter Regarding
Copyright Law Reform

addressed to:
Representative John Lewis of Georgia's 5th District
Senator Paul Coverdell of Georgia   &   Senator Max Cleland of Georgia

[NOTE: The extension bill became law in 1998]

 

Introduction

I have voiced opposition to H.R. 604 / S. 505, Copyright Term Extension Act of 1997. While I fully support the idea of temporary rights to intellectual property, I believe that the particulars of that bill are wrong for the country. It defers neither to the constitutional justification for granting copyrights, nor to the constitutional concept of limited times (Article 1, Section 8). I also take issue with the burden it will place on the American taxpayer and consumer. Unfortunately, many of my concerns have already been codified to a lesser extent in the Copyright Act of 1976.

Rather than merely complain about proposed and existing copyright legislation, I shall make a few suggestions on how to improve our copyright laws. I warn you that I am not a legal expert and that these proposals come more from the hip than from experience. My purpose is to encourage copyright laws that adhere to the intent of the Constitution, provide reasonable financial incentive for creativity and research, yet do not long burden an open and competitive free press.

Pardon the cliché, but I shall leave it to you to separate the wheat from the rhetorical chaff.

Some Suggestions for New (& Old) Copyright Legislation

Four Score & Seven Years Ago

In honor of Lincoln, emancipate our literary heritage. Return to the copyright laws we had 87 years ago. I am not exactly sure what they were, but if they were good enough for the country then, they are probably good enough now. I think the law guaranteed rights for 56 years after publication. This is more than enough incentive for me and 99% of artists and authors and scientists to create. If you do not believe me then put this law into effect; I will concede if Stephen King or Michael Crichton stops writing and starts repairing computers for a living.

Five Alive

Some people feel that an author should have sole rights to his work for the rest of his life. I cannot say that I agree with this completely, but I am willing to compromise. Change the law to life of the author plus five years. As the saying goes you can't take it with you. Five years should give a widow or widower a little nest egg. And why take the financial incentive away from the children and grandchildren doing work of their own? Get a job!

Don't Give In ... Get Even

One of the alleged motivations for the extension of copyright terms is the desire to "harmonize" with recent European legislation. Apparently U.S. Copyright holders will face discrimination under the "Rule of the Shorter Term" in the European Union. Pardon my French, but why the hell did our forefathers fight the Revolutionary War if we are now going to let foreign governments dictate U.S. policy? Are we a herd of cloned sheep? There must be other ways to address discrimination in Europe than shameful and cowardly capitulation to blackmail. Here is one rather heavy-handed idea:

Reduce the term of copyright protection by 30 years for works from any foreign country that enforces a "Rule of the Shorter Term" that discriminates against U.S. Copyright holders.

Note: I now see no problem with the "Rule of the Shorter Term." If a text is public here, but not in Europe, then all U.S. printers could not export that book to Europe on a competetive basis. This way they can engage in open competition. Go free enterprise! I just love capitalism. 1997 April 15

Independence Day

If money is all HR 604 / S 505 is about anyway—fine! Let the best sellers continue to reap monopoly profits. But remember only a small percentage of works protected by U.S. copyrights earn noticeable royalties. Many people are trying to write the next great American novel, and many will never earn a dime from it. Why restrict all information when the lobbying groups might be satisfied to protect just the money makers? Consider adding this clause to current copyright law:
For any calendar year following five years after the death of the author, a work that does not earn in the United States (including possessions and territories) a minimum of 2,000* dollars in royalties duly declared on the heir's Federal Income Tax Return, looses all copyright protection on July 4th the following calendar year.
*Index for inflation the $2,000 figure or another sum. I somewhat arbitrarily picked the current IRA contribution limit for this figure.

 
Respectfully,

Dennis McCarthy

 Atlanta, Georgia
1997 April 10
cc: Elton Gallegly, and other Sponsors of HR 604
Members House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property 		Orrin G. Hatch, and other Sponsors of S 505
Members Senate Committee on the Judiciary

 

Please read the Disclaimer/Information page.

Published in 1997 by Dennis McCarthy
No Rights Reserved! I release this file to the public domain.