US Government Seizing Webpages

[General Zod]

From a business sense only #2 makes sense. Are you too stupid to see that?

Are you too stupid to see that not everything is self evident?

[Uraniun235]

Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.

[Uraniun235]

If copyrights expired after five years, it's possible Star Trek would never have been made at all. Desilu took a loss on every episode of Star Trek they produced because NBC would only pay so much for it, but they kept producing in part because they hoped to get enough episodes made that they would be able to resell it in syndication.

[Broomstick]

If copyrights expired after five years, it's possible Star Trek would never have been made at all. Desilu took a loss on every episode of Star Trek they produced because NBC would only pay so much for it, but they kept producing in part because they hoped to get enough episodes made that they would be able to resell it in syndication.

That's the reason for the line in the ST:TOS opening "It's five year mission...." Five years of shows was considered the break-even point for syndication at the time.

[ThomasP]

The connection between copyright and profitability of a creative work sounds implicit, but it may not be as obvious as you'd think.

Rather than hash it out, I'd point you to Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and DK Levine. This is an analysis of how patent and copyright laws impact creators, and they make a convincing case that overly-restrictive IP laws are more harmful to net creativity and profitability than lax (or non-existent) laws.

Not intuitive, especially given the axiomatic acceptance of the need for protection against theft and predatory practices, but it's an interesting look at the problem in any event.