[LINK] Downer on FTA copyright changes

[Deus Ex Machina]

hi

are you suggesting copyright owners should not
have the rights to their own creative output?

I dont see what the problem is with copyright holders having 50, 70
or for that matter 100 year rights on their own works.

it seems to me just a general desire by some members of
society to subvert and violate general property rights.

when you buy property there is no temporal limitation on that ownership
why should there be any with intelectual property?

Vic

rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au [rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au] wrote:
> Robert,
> 
> I just love the circularity in the logic. Let's see:
> - we need to extend the copyright period by 20 years, because the 
> copyright owners want us to; but
> - don't worry, because all the works that get extra protection won't be 
> generating revenues anyway.
> 
> Not philistines, just weasels!
> 
> RC
> 
> Robert Hart wrote:
> 
> >Hi
> >
> >Another list drew my attention to the following exchange in
> >parliament regarding the FTA copyright provisions.
> >
> >The really interesting idea that Downer proposed was that the
> >extension of copyright from 50 to 70 years was not going to
> >cause a long term cost as most material is out of circulation
> >well before 50 years is up - and hence the $700 million
> >long term cost will not occur.
> >
> >Forgive me if my logic fails - but if the extension of copyright
> >by 20 years is such an irrelevance, why are we committing to it -
> >and why are people like the MPAA, RIAA etc so fired up to ensure
> >that we DO commit to it?
> >
> >Beyond that observation, I think we might like the senate estimates
> >committee to invite the following representatives to give evidence
> >as to the length of time many works remain of great public interest
> >
> >	G Chaucer
> >	W Shakespeare
> >	C Dickens
> >	A A Milne
> >
> >	Hildegarde von Bingen
> >	J S Bach
> >	W A Mozart
> >	J Brahms
> >	E Elgar
> >
> >	L da Vinci
> >	Michelangelo
> >	Titian
> >	Caravaggio
> >	Monet
> >	
> >(etc etc).
> >
> >Now I know why I have frequently felt that this government
> >is a bunch of philistines.
> >
> >Sigh...
> >
> >--
> >Robert Hart					 hartr at interweft.com.au
> >+61 (0)438 385 533
> >Brisbane, Australia			   http://www.hart.wattle.id.au
> >
> >
> >
> >==================================================
> >
> >Mr TOLLNER (2.18 p.m.)-My question is to the
> >Minister for Foreign Affairs, representing the Minister
> >for Trade. Is the minister aware of claims that intellectual
> >property and medicine costs are likely to rise under
> >the recently announced Australia-United States free
> >trade agreement? What is the government's response to
> >these claims? Is the minister aware of other views?
> >
> >Mr DOWNER-I thank the honourable member
> >for Solomon. I know that he and many of his constituents
> >understand the tremendous benefits that Australia
> >will reap from a free trade agreement with the United
> >State-as we will from free trade agreements with
> >Thailand and Singapore, neither of which are apparently
> >a subject of debate or controversy.
> >I am indeed aware of reports of a yet to be publicly
> >released study by an ANU academic called Philippa
> >Dee, who claims that the free trade agreement with the
> >United States will delay generic medicines entering
> >into the market and thereby increase the cost of pharmaceuticals
> >in Australia. She also argues that a copyright
> >term extension from 50 years to 70 years in the
> >agreement will result in a long-term $700 million cost
> >to the Australian economy.
> >Both of these conclusions are false. First, there is no
> >provision in the free trade agreement for a delay in the
> >introduction of generic drugs. There is only provision
> >for a greater transparency of process. There are no additional
> >intellectual property rights granted to patent
> >holders and there is nothing in the agreement that
> >would change the price of drugs. Secondly, because it
> >is a separate point, the claim of $700 million as a cost
> >to the economy as a result of the extension of the copyright
> >term from 50 to 70 years is based on completely
> >unrealistic assumptions. Most copyright material is out
> >of circulation well before the 50-year period is up.
> >Books, CDs, DVDs and computer software are hardly
> >likely to still be in circulation after either 50 or 70
> >years and therefore the copyright provisions are not
> >going to be terribly relevant once these particular
> >products are redundant. Dr Dee's apparent failure to
> >allow for the real diminishing value of copyright material
> >inevitably produces her completely unrealistic results.
> >The honourable member asked whether there were
> >any other views. Yet again I bring to the House the
> >views of the Leader of the Opposition.............
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Link mailing list
> >Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> >http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
> >
> > 
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link