autobiography case—which sections were copyright protected because they were thoughts or illustrations and which were facts of history. It was not adjudicated, but certainly argued.
MR. BAUMGARTEN: That is argued in a lot of contexts.
MR. LEAVITT: I have been a little surprised—and now I am speaking as a participant rather than as a rapporteur —at the narrowness of our approach here in looking at it. As Peter Jaszi pointed out, you have to view this along with the implications, rather than just the specifics of the restrictive legislation. I would like to have heard a discussion of some novel ways to mitigate some of the impacts of these new laws. An example that no one has brought up or discussed is the “use it or lose it” provisions of rights. In other words, copyright is often used to hoard and restrict information rather than just protect ownership. One of the things it means is, I have got it, and you “ain't” going to get it, which is also a property of ownership. Nowhere do I see any avenue to say, “Look, you have the rights and ownership of this which I will view as first rights of refusal. If you have got it and you justify its value, go ahead and use it and realize the value or else lose it.” I have never heard anyone bring these matters up and I would like to hear them.
MR. BAUMGARTEN: I think we have had a limited amount of time. My response to your last question is, Who decides what the reasonable value is?
MR. LEAVITT: The same people who would decide in 15 years.
MR. BAUMGARTEN: So we are going to have someone else deciding what a reasonable value is?
MR. UHLIR: I am sorry we are out of time. There are a lot of other things that we could discuss and should discuss, but we will do that some other time.