THE COPYRIGHT MIXTURE IN A MIXED LEGAL SYSTEM Fit for Human Consumption? (1) David vaver(2 Readers are reminded that this work is protected by copyright While they are free to use the ideas expressed in it, they may not copy, distribute or publish the work or part of it, in any form, printed electronic or otherwise, except for reasonable quoting, clearly indicating the source. Readers are permitted to make copies, electronically or printed, for personal and classroom use Contents IV Notes I propose to examine some aspects of the interaction of common law and civil law systems in the field of intellectual property law, particularly copyright and authors' rights My primary focus will be on the United Kingdom as a member of the European Community, although the discussion will inevitably range beyond those confines. (3)In Europe, of course, the subject is inextricably bound up in the European Commission,s project to harmonize intellectual property law, so that national differences do not 'impede the free movement of goods and freedom to provide services, and distort competition of the internal market [and the smooth operation of the internal market (4) A useful starting-point is the following outburst in a leading specialist text on the 'modern law of copyright, co-authored by an eminent high court judge and two equally eminent silks We are alarmed by the stream of copyright-related legislation which has begun to flow from Europe. Sometimes poorly drafted, seldom properly vetted, it is difficult to say where it is all going to end. The Term Directive, with its disgraceful reasoning, may serve as an example. Life of the author plus 70 years is simply too long, and unnecessary. It would be something if it benefitted authors, but of course it will not. Those who gain will be the lazy and inefficient. The public will be the losers. In our view one can have too much intellectual property protection. The Victorians had a better attitude. But then, they lived in a society which knew that survival depends on people making things, not granting each other monopolies. 5)THE COPYRIGHT MIXTURE IN A MIXED LEGAL SYSTEM: Fit for Human Consumption?(1) David Vaver(2) Readers are reminded that this work is protected by copyright. While they are free to use the ideas expressed in it, they may not copy, distribute or publish the work or part of it, in any form, printed, electronic or otherwise, except for reasonable quoting, clearly indicating the source. Readers are permitted to make copies, electronically or printed, for personal and classroom use. Contents I II III IV V Notes I propose to examine some aspects of the interaction of common law and civil law systems in the field of intellectual property law, particularly copyright and authors' rights. My primary focus will be on the United Kingdom as a member of the European Community, although the discussion will inevitably range beyond those confines.(3) In Europe, of course, the subject is inextricably bound up in the European Commission's project to harmonize intellectual property law, so that national differences do not 'impede the free movement of goods and freedom to provide services, and . . . distort competition of the internal market [and] the smooth operation of the internal market'.(4) I A useful starting-point is the following outburst in a leading specialist text on the 'modern' law of copyright, co-authored by an eminent high court judge and two equally eminent silks: We are alarmed by the stream of copyright-related legislation which has begun to flow from Europe. Sometimes poorly drafted, seldom properly vetted, it is difficult to say where it is all going to end. The Term Directive, with its disgraceful reasoning, may serve as an example. Life of the author plus 70 years is simply too long, and unnecessary. It would be something if it benefitted authors, but of course it will not. Those who gain will be the lazy and inefficient. The public will be the losers. In our view one can have too much intellectual property protection. The Victorians had a better attitude. But then, they lived in a society which knew that survival depends on people making things, not granting each other monopolies.(5)