User talk:Rojcole

I have taught Copyright Law at a Law School. I am NOT in the "copyright forever" camp. My biggest concern is not what the lawyers call "literal copying" (as when someone makes exact digital copies of a sound recording), but when the second author is deemed guilty of an "adaptation" or "substantial similarity." Having copyright for a long time would be less problematic if modern application does not also expand its scope.

Much of Disney's material would run afoul of forever copyright. Remember, George Harrison was deemed guilty for repeating a standard 3 or 4 note sequence and thus making "My Sweet Lord" substantially similar to "He's So Fine." The "He's So Fine" crowd did not even have to prove that Harrison had ever seen the sheet music or heard the song -- because it was popular, it was assumed he had heard it.

How would Mr. Halperin like to be guilty of copyright violation because he used the phrase "they are allowed to flow from one generation to the next" and while the copyright office says short phrases themselves are not subject to copyright, at least one court has held that a single note worth of sound was too much for a second recording artist to copy.

Also, he is not the first person to call for permanent copyright. He mentions the difference between idea and expression, but as observers of recent court cases can attest, even a little bit of exact match may lead a court to call a second work either substantial similar to the first or an adaptation of it. At least if the copyright in the first work has expired, the second author is saved that risk.

I am sympathetic to authors getting a better cut vis-à-vis publishers, but do not think that making the copyright term longer will have much if any effect on that division.

Rollie Cole