On 16 Jan 2003 at 9:44, Henry Baker wrote: I apologize for extending this VERY non-math topic, but...
There appear to be at least two issues:
* Whether the extension actually induces more creativity
* Whether the extension exceeds "limited"
It is clear that no amount of extending can coerce Walt Disney to create more cartoons -- he's dead, and so are all the other authors and artists whose work is at issue. So this doesn't pass the "smell test".
It is also clear that _retroactively_ extending can't coerce people to create more, since they couldn't possibly have known about it at the time. So this doesn't pass the "smell test", either.
Your interpretation of the 'smell test' doesn't pass the smell test..:o) Giving people free use of other people's work rarely encourages much creativity, IMO, but regardless, I think one could argue that extending the copyright limit expedites new creationsin two ways: 1) perhaps if they're going to be guaranteed a MUCH longer return for their creativity more creators will decide to gamble, invest and create-instead-of- copy. 2) and perhaps, if there's less stuff folk can have without paying a licensing fee, they'll create instead of copy. As I've said, you can argue about "limited" and whether you think the extension of copyrights is proper or not, but 1) previous copyright laws *HAVE* extended the copyrights on existing works, so the current law broke no real new ground in that respect, and 2) the term of copyright *wasn't*at*issue* before the court, only its retroactive nature, so regardless of your opinion about the propriety of the new duration, it was pretty much a fait accompli and not a judicial matter one way or the other. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <--