That's a great question. I'm certainly concerned. I disagree with the view that Dr. Geist has expressed about term extension, for example. The example he gave about the author waking up and deciding not to write because of a 50-year term post-mortem rather than 70 years may be true, but the term of copyright is highly relevant to the decision of the publisher as to whether to invest and how much to invest in the publication and promotion of that work.
It may or may not be relevant to the writer—although I'm sure there are writers who do wake up wondering when they're going to have to get a different job—but from the commercial aspect of things, that's becoming more and more difficult every day, considering the level of investment in the dissemination of creativity, which is also a critical part of the copyright system. In my view, the extension of term from life plus 50 to life plus 70 is something that's long overdue.
Some before the committee have been suggesting that copyright in an audiovisual work ought to go to the writer or the director or some combination thereof. I disagree with that for similar reasons. It all has to do with the practical workings of the copyright system and how these ideas would work out in practice. As a lawyer in private practice dealing with all sorts of different copyright stakeholders, my primary concern is not to introduce aspects of the system that will get in the way of or perpetuate barriers to successful exploitation of commercial works. It's so important now in the digital era to make sure that there's less friction, not more.