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.
597
11
clear that real money will flow to copyright owners if the term is extended. Of course, it is impossible to predict the extent to which the overall creation and dissemination of works will increase. But this will always be the case with any proposal to broaden the protection of copyright --whether through a longer term or through a strengthening of rights. If proponents of change must prove to a certainty that a significant amount of new authorship will result, the copyright law will remain static forever.
Finally, opponents of the legislation note that the same domestic benefits could arise from any extension of term. By implication, they suggest that these benefits should not be taken into account, since there must be some limit to how long copyrights endure (as a matter of both policy and constitutionality) . This does not mean, however, that the benefits are not real, or that the arguments in favor of extension are not valid. The question again is one of balance. The longer the term, the lesser the increased marginal incentives; are they still significant enough, when combined with the international benefits described above, to outweigh the increased marginal negatives?
Negative Consequences of Extension of Term
As with most of the arguments in favor of the legislation, the arguments in opposition could apply to any extension of term. Each one boils down to the point that all of the ordinary costs of copyright protection will last longer.
Two principal arguments are made as to why extension of term will have negative consequences: that the public will be barred from free use of copyrighted works for an additional 20 years, and that fewer new derivative works will be created. A less significant argument focuses on the prolonging of licensing problems .
1 . Narrowing the public domain
The argument with the most substance is based on the fact that copyrighted works will not enter the public domain for 20 more years. This negative can be seen as imposing two distinct costs on the public. The first cost is economic. In the aggregate, uses of works, whether through the purchase of copies, electronic transmission, or public performance, are likely to cost more if royalties must be paid to the copyright owners. Second is the availability cost, the risk that some works will be kept out of circulation entirely by the copyright owners.