Lawrence Lessig/blog/2002/11/27/1203/6

responds to::Lawrence Lessig/blog/2002/11/27/1203 when posted::December 3, 2002 2:56 AM author::John Gregory Surely the concern of AOL/TW is not about books - and probably there aren't a lot of book publishers who would be worried about losing the 1976 extension either. I would imagine that the concern is all about movies. I think it is a serious weakness in the figures that the authors simply *assume* that the availability of old movies is the same as that of old books - so that about 97% of the movies of the relevant period would not be available. I doubt that - though replace "available" by "worth watching" and I would concur.

I suppose one could use as a surrogate for Books in Print some of the thicker movie guides in print - the ones that rate thousands of movies, for video renters or late-night-TV watchers. If the film is listed in one of these books, probably its author has seen it, or knows someone who has seen it, in the past 10 or 15 years - so it's probaby still available.

Is it another problem with the stats that percentage availability does not address value? Maybe only 3% of the old movies are available, but they include Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, etc etc - big earners still. Likewise the books include the Great Gatsby, much of Hemingway, etc.

One can legitimately argue that the authors and even - more to the point - the publishers, including broadcasters, have had their rewards, and it's the public's turn. I think that's a very good argument. I just don't think that the figures are all that significant.

BTW how would one get these numbers before the Justices anyway? Can one file supplementary briefs after oral argument?