We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
593
2. Improved dissemination
The public will benefit in another meaningful respect from the extension of term for both existing and future works. During the extra 20 years, copyright owners will have a greater incentive to take whatever steps may be necessary to disseminate their works in high-quality form if they can retain control over reproduction and distribution, and exclude free riders from the market. The availability of more works of authorship in superior condition also furthers the progress of science and the arts. The grant of copyright in this country represents a legislative determination that copyright protection on balance benefits the public by fostering rather than inhibiting the dissemination of works of authorship.
Those opposing term extension characterize this benefit as based on anecdotes rather than actual evidence. They point out that multiple editions of novels and plays in the public domain are currently available, including some of high quality, and argue that copyrighted works do not require extensive investment in development like patents. The validity of this argument depends on the type of work involved. Where the work can be easily and inexpensively reproduced in satisfactory form, copyright protection may not increase its availability; market demand can be met by multiple competitors. Traditional literary works, for example, can be published in high volume, low cost paperback form. Other works require expensive or labor-intensive maintenance, restoration or distribution. For these works, continued copyright protection can induce owners to invest in making the work available to the public in high-quality form. This is particularly true when the cumulative impact of an increased return from numerous works is considered.
In the case of motion pictures in particular, an additional 20 years of protection would give studios a greater financial incentive to make the investments needed to restore these old works and to update them for use with modern technology. Technology continues to evolve, and physical copies of movies deteriorate. Sxibstantial expenditures are necessary to digitize movies, or to add the equivalent of Dolby sound. For those old movies nearing the end of their copyright term that are not proven blockbusters, the investment may not be worthwhile. Extension of term should therefore result in the public having access to a greater variety of old movies in better and more easily accessible condition.
Opponents also note that even with copyright protection, works that have small markets may not be worth an investment in high quality reproduction or distribution. This may be true, but it does not undercut the fact that more works will be worth the investment with copyright than without it.
I