- Second,
-they argued that the proposal would harm poor copyright
- owners—apparently
-those who could not afford the $1 fee. Third, they
- argued
-that Congress had determined that extending a copyright term
-would encourage restoration work. Maybe in the case of the small
- percentage
-of work covered by copyright law that is still commercially
-valuable, but again this was irrelevant, as the proposal would not cut off
-the extended term unless the $1 fee was not paid. Fourth, the MPAA
-argued that the bill would impose "enormous" costs, since a registration
-system is not free. True enough, but those costs are certainly less than
-the costs of clearing the rights for a copyright whose owner is not
-known. Fifth, they worried about the risks if the copyright to a story
-underlying a film were to pass into the public domain. But what risk is
-that? If it is in the public domain, then the film is a valid derivative use.
-</para>
-<para>
-Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright
-owners to do this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are
-thousands of copyright owners who don't even know they have a
- copyright
-to give. Whether they are free to give away their copyright or
-not—a controversial claim in any case—unless they know about a
-copyright, they're not likely to.
-</para>
-<para>
-At the beginning of this book, I told two stories about the law
- reacting
-to changes in technology. In the one, common sense prevailed.
-In the other, common sense was delayed. The difference between the
-two stories was the power of the opposition—the power of the side that
-fought to defend the status quo. In both cases, a new technology
- threatened
-old interests. But in only one case did those interest's have the
-power to protect themselves against this new competitive threat.
+Second, they argued that the proposal would harm poor copyright
+owners—apparently those who could not afford the $1 fee. Third,
+they argued that Congress had determined that extending a copyright
+term would encourage restoration work. Maybe in the case of the small
+percentage of work covered by copyright law that is still commercially
+valuable, but again this was irrelevant, as the proposal would not cut
+off the extended term unless the $1 fee was not paid. Fourth, the MPAA
+argued that the bill would impose "enormous" costs, since a
+registration system is not free. True enough, but those costs are
+certainly less than the costs of clearing the rights for a copyright
+whose owner is not known. Fifth, they worried about the risks if the
+copyright to a story underlying a film were to pass into the public
+domain. But what risk is that? If it is in the public domain, then the
+film is a valid derivative use.
+</para>
+<para>
+Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright owners to
+do this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are
+thousands of copyright owners who don't even know they have a
+copyright to give. Whether they are free to give away their copyright
+or not—a controversial claim in any case—unless they know
+about a copyright, they're not likely to.
+</para>
+<para>
+At the beginning of this book, I told two stories about the law
+reacting to changes in technology. In the one, common sense prevailed.
+In the other, common sense was delayed. The difference between the two
+stories was the power of the opposition—the power of the side
+that fought to defend the status quo. In both cases, a new technology
+threatened old interests. But in only one case did those interest's
+have the power to protect themselves against this new competitive
+threat.