Supreme Court Accepts Eldred Case 649
Patrick Fitzgerald writes: "The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to intervene in a fight over copyrights, deciding whether Congress has sided too heavily with writers and other inventors. The outcome will determine when hundreds of thousands of books, songs and movies will be freely available on the Internet or in digital libraries." Openlaw's Eldred v. Ashcroft page has more information about the case, which seeks to challenge the most recent retroactive extension of copyright terms.
The Jury (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The Jury (Score:2)
My ideas (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My ideas (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. From the article at the New York Times:
Once again we see that money interests in Washinton continue to threaten our culture and freedoms. Lobbyists for publishing industries keep upping the anti on copyright duration for their own greed and pride. Meanwhile the works themselves come under threat of extinction. I hope there can be some kind of rebound effect soon.
Re:My ideas (Score:2)
Ironically, one of the arguments for the Disney copyright act was that an extension would give the owner an incentive to preserve the work.
It's about time! (Score:2)
If you were going to propose a reform to current US copyright, what would you do? On the top of my list is that stupid law that says that a work is not public domain until 75 years after the author's death. That, in my opinion, is ridiculous.
:Peter
The issue is not on amount of time (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think so. The major argument is if the change can be retroactive to works already produced.
Re:The issue is not on amount of time (Score:2)
They may also take note of the fact it is publishers and not authors or inventors who lobbied this extension.
The left/right split on this will be interesting. The conservatives could cop out and claim they don't want to mess with Congress. Or they could draw an original intent line in the sand.
Re:The issue is not on amount of time (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The issue is not on amount of time (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly. If the Supreme Court has a brain (or brains), they'll see these two facts:
Re:not 75 yet (Score:2)
Limited means not infinite. 200 years is still limited.
Adding 20 years to the term every 20 years sounds pretty infinite to me.
Re:It's about time! (Score:3, Informative)
Because a copyright isn't something that you created. A copyright is a government-granted monopoly -- an artificial right, in tension with the First Amendment, to prevent others from repeating and building upon your words. The authors of the Constitution considered government-backed monopolies to be extremely dangerous, and corrosive, and deliberately inserted language that restricted the government to granting them "for limited times."
Another argument against inheritance of copyright --
The Constitution specifically forbids the granting of "titles of nobility." The modern conception of "nobility" has more to do with ritual and pretense, but at the time of the Constitution, "titles of nobility" also had the characteristics of:
1) conveying special rights and privileges to the title holder, for instance, the right to carry a sword in public, or the right to participate in some aspect of government, such as the House of Lords.
2) conveying those same rights to the descendants of the title holder -- i.e. the son of the Duke would be the next Duke, by virtue of being born to the current Duke.
It is arguable that, by treating copyrights as inheritable property, Congress has created a new, Constitutionally illegal form of "title of nobility" -- where the children of famous authors -- and remember that in our society, the famous are our "royalty" -- are born into a special privilege -- the privilege to suppress others from repeating and expanding upon the speech of their ancestors, to the detrement of society.
The very nature of the works we are allowed to see is colored by this new hereditary privilege. For instance, the ancestors of Margaret Mitchell tried, and nearly succeeded in preventing any parody criticism of "Gone With The Wind." Similarly, you will never see white actors in a production of "Porgy and Bess", because the ancestors of George Gershwin are using their inherited, hereditary copyright power to wield control over the presentation of this work, created in 1935.
The concept of our culture being held hostage by the ancestors of famous authors is un-American and undemocratic concept, completely divorced from the letter and spirit of the copyright clause, and should be eliminated.
The key here (Score:4, Interesting)
Lawrence Lessig, attorney for the challengers, said the latest 20-year extension approved by Congress in 1998 is ill-timed and unconstitutional.
Key to this is limited times. The current copyright laws are nigh limitless, as far as human lifetimes are concerned. And it only takes an act of Congress to extend terms again, 20 years at a time. (Thanks, Sonny Bono!)
I do believe that authors and artist should profit from their works. But there should be a balance struck between the rights of producers of IP, and the consumers. Reverting to shorter terms (perhaps the original) would fill the bill nicely.
Re:The key here (Score:5, Interesting)
Fifty years is plenty long enough for a corporation to reap its rewards, and an individual should be entitled to rewards for his entire lifetime. We wouldn't want copyrights to end at an author's death, because then an industry would spring up for bumping off authors of important works.
There should also be provisions for abandonment. For example, if a copyrighted work is not available for sale (including for $0.00) from its copyright holder to the public for a total of ten years, then it is considered to be abandoned.
Re:The key here (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, here is another case. Your great grandfather was a famous writer. Your parents never did anything with the property where his house was, but when you inherited it, you went up there and found a first draft, never been published, masterpiece. But it has been far more than 20 years since he died and publishers refuse to publish it because it is already public domain. Which gives you NO financial incentive to see the work published.
All works should have the same set copyright period. I'd pick 20 years (the same period patents enjoy.)
Re:The key here (Score:2)
So when I'm forty, I no longer have the rights to something I wrote when I was twenty? How is that a logical, financially viable, and potentially useful solution?
Re:The key here (Score:5, Insightful)
>
>All works should have the same set copyright period. I'd pick 20 years (the same period patents enjoy.)
(Side note - I agree with your "should have the same copyright period" comment)
Where I differ with you is the "no incentive to publish" bit. That's what's changed in the past 30 years.
There once was a time when "publish" meant "spend a lot of money printing dead trees, or shining light through acetate films onto photosensitive compounds". Today, that family could see to it that the masterpiece was "published" by spending an hour scanning the document through some OCR software and posting it to USENET.
As for Mickey Rat, Disney could still use trademark law to sue the fsck out of anyone selling Mickey merchandise, or making new Mickey cartoons, by saying "Mickey is a trademark of Disney, Inc."
All that shortening the copyright term to 20 years would do allow you to say "Click here to download an MPEG of Steamboat Willie, ca. 1928".
Disney could still make new Rat products, they could still make money selling Rat products back to the '80s. Hell, they could still make money selling a "Limited Edition DVD of Steamboat Willie". (Want the DVD? Buy it from them. Just want the video stream? Download it from some d00d who copied it.)
The other Good Reason (IMNSHO) for shortening copyright terms is because, for intellectual property, there's no longer any substantial difference difference between the aims of copyright and patent law.
Both were intended to give inventors temporary monopolies in order to promote invention/innovation/science/art. But today, they're treated radically differently.
Patent: I'm Mr. Pfizer, and I invented Viagra. Here's my patent application, which shows you how to make your own. In exchange for sharing my discovery with the world, the government grants me a 17-year monopoly on producing it. Until that time is up, you gotta buy it from us, or pay us royalties to let you make it yourself. After 17 years, you can make a generic version all by yourself, and we'll have to compete on price. We're willing to do that because we think we can make back our R&D costs in 17 years.
Copyright: Here's my song! Here's my movie! Here's my program! I tell everyone how to replicate it by distributing the bitstream on shiny plastic disks. In return, the government gives me a 75-year-plus-life-of-creator monopoly on those bits? What the fsck?
If the company that invents a cure for AIDS is expected to make their money back in 17 years, why can't we ask the same of the company that markets big-titted lip-syncing chicks and goddamn cartoon mice?
A better solution (Score:4, Interesting)
phase 1: full monopoly on terms of distribution and reaping of profits. Lasts 50-60 years for a corporation and 70 years to life for an individual.
phase 2: full credit for the creation must still be given to the creator when distributed, but no monopoly on distribution exists anymore
One viewpoint (Score:3, Informative)
That's your opinion. Disney, who is still reaping plenty of rewards from Mickey Mouse, might think a little differently...
Re:The key here (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
It's not a frivilous question. Creators can produce work for hire, and copyrights can be bought and sold. Copyright is a "thing", a commodity that can be traded like any other. There's no reason to end / extend it to match the creator's lifetime. What if they sell rights for forty years with a reversion clause, then die five minutes later? How long do the purchaser's rights last? Forty years? Twenty years past the creator's death? Their own lifetime plus twenty? The lifetime of their corporation?
Copyright law is in a big old mess as it is, what with work for hire and corporate ownership screwing up the notion of when it should expire. Then there's the convoluted issue of copyrights of images of artifacts (see how many claims of copyright you can find for images of the Bayeux tapestry, for example). Copyright laws need to be simplified and unified.
First, copy rights in all media need to be unified. That means no distinction between music, still pictures, moving pictures, images of art (interpretive or otherwise), or text. One law for all.
Second, one law for all needs to be applied to the rights. Copyright is a "thing". It can be bought and sold. Duration should not depend on who owns the rights. The clock should start ticking the moment the work is created, and it should stop after a fixed time, regardless of who owns the rights at that time.
Third, shorter terms. Twenty years is reasonable. Yes, that would punish some creators, but the vast majority of work is forgotten within twenty years. We're talking about punishing a small minority, admittedly the people who make the very best content.
But isn't the best content exactly the sort that should be entering the public domain?
There's an argument to be made that if you shorten terms, cynical creators might deliberately produce content that's designed to be disposable and not last the test of time. I refer you to my earlier point: we're already swamped with mediocre, disposable content. The best people will continue to create the best content for the best reason of all: because they want to, not because they think that they'll still be raking in royalties in fifty years time.
Incidentally, I'm an author. And I still think 20 years is a reasonable duration. Five years is a good run for most books. Translations in other territories can extend that, but, hey, a translation is an interpretive derivation; it's only common sense courtesy among publishers that ensures that most authors are paid for translations right now!
I've thought this through, by the way. If I write a book that's good enough to be remembered in 20 years time, and if Hollywood decides to make a $500 million film of it and to not pay me a penny for it, then I could live with that. The one right I would want to retain would be the right to be credited as the original author. If I can't leverage that publicity to make a killing on the chat show circuit, or to sell a new bunch of books, then that's nobody's fault but my own.
Re:The key here (Score:4, Insightful)
While that's a nice idea, it has a lot of holes in it. Have you ever seen a professional photographer work? They take a lot of pictures in the field (or even studio) later they go over them very carefully and select the best ones for publication (or to try to sell as stock). It's not uncommon to have less then one "keeper" in a roll of film (i.e. less then one out of 36). A lot of that is because several shots are of basically the same thing but the exposure, angle, or other things are just a little different. There isn't a lot of point to trying to sell all of those, just pick the best one and be done with it. Under your scheme the "almost perfect" shots not being available to the public have been abandoned, and after ten years anyone can use them. Even if the one selected image is a very valuable piece of stock, and the alternate is almost as good... (yes it would require a bit of dumpster diving to get the rejects, but it can happen; and no digital cameras won't solve this since many pros write all their stuff to CD before they sort -- who knows when a "discard" shot of an unknown woman hugging the President may come in handy months after the fact when the woman hits the news...)
Or in a less commercial realm, what if you take pictures of your wife or girlfriend that you (and she!) don't want anyone else to have? Since they are not available to the public at any price the guy at the lab who made an extra copy ten years ago can now sell it...(yes digital cameras make this exact story less likely, but you can get to the same bad place via a different route...)
Ah! On a more geeky note WoTC removed a number of cards from Magic because they were too powerful. Just wait ten years and they can come right back!
Copyright is used for more then just sucking money out of people.
Re:The key here (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't blame Sonny too much, he was dead at the time the bill was passed. (Although his death was cynically used to get it passed by those who pushed for it.)
A little sanity check please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A little sanity check please (Score:2)
and if there is not a limit, then why would some one create anything else if the creation is generationaly popular?
Re:A little sanity check please (Score:3, Insightful)
If a work is in the public domain, how exactly would one go about profiting from it? Let's take a movie as an example.
Since the copyright on Star Wars Episode IV has (theoretically) expired, I can show a copy of it in my small home theater every Tuesday night. I charge $3 for tickets, and make the standard margins on concessions.
This becomes successful; I have a regular group of Star Wars fans who come to see SW on the big screen; I have the odd few who have never seen SW before; and I have the others who just need date material or something to do on a boring Tuesday evening.
Other theaters notice that I've been successful. Since the work is in the public domain, they begin to show a copy of it as well. The people who live closer to that theater go to it instead, while the people who live closer to my theater go to mine.
This works until some people realize they can download SWEP4 in DivX for free, legally, and watch it on their computer. They can also copy the DVD in their Philips DVD burner. So people begin to stay home and watch it instead, because it's cheaper.
I don't like the fact that I'm losing business, so I make things more attractive at my theater, lowering the price of concessions, fixing broken seats, doing a much-needed sound system upgrade, and offering group discounts on tickets.
Eventually, the price of a night out at the theater is so low that it's worthwhile to see the big show as opposed to squinting at a 19" mono TV set at home.
Everybody wins. I win, as I profit from my business. The viewers win, as I work endlessly to make sure that they see my show as opposed to the one across town. George Lucas wins, because Star Wars Episode 10 gets more publicity and more potential viewers. Who doesn't win? The movie distribution industry, charging over and over again for the same material.
I'm not sure what your point is about profiting from Star Wars merchandise. Trademarks and copyrights are two quite different things.
Defending a trademark is perfectly ethical, as trademarks are what differentiates the Real Thing from substandard imitations. Remember where trademarks came from: a smith etching his name into a forged piece of equipment, or a rancher branding his cattle with his own logo.
Defending a copyright, long after the material has made the producer the bulk of its profits, is just misusing what copyrights were originally intended for, and keeping material out of the public's hands.
Do we want to encourage short-term profiteering, or encourage the long-term growth of our nation and society as a whole? That's the tradeoff that we must make when dealing with copyright. Extending copyright only creates a longer length of time in which nobody but the wealthy and priveleged can benefit from the material.
Both copyright and trademark are separate issues from IP as well.
The notion of intellectual property in America stems way back from when people were moving west and grabbing land. Defending one's land with a shotgun is perfectly ethical, as if someone else came along and took that land from you, you'd no longer have it. Ideas are different; they are not material property. If I tell you an idea, I've lost nothing; but you've gained the idea I had. I have, however, lost the monopoly on the idea. This is why IP was coined; once again, we are more concerned about grabbing fast cash in the short term, than improving each other and society as a whole.
Like any argument, there are people who agree and disagree with both sides. I happen to think that improving each other and the future of society is more important than massive-scale capitalistic profiteering, but hell, what do I know.
RCU
Re:A little sanity check please (Score:3, Interesting)
YES!!!!
It's truly disturbing to see how many people are all for limiting the ownership of creative properties when all they want is to profit from it themselves.
When Starwars first came out on VHS, I got them for a birthday present. When special edition came out on VHS, I bought them with my hard-earned cash.
If Lucas's copyright expired right now, then it means I would not have to pay again when the DVD's come out for something I already own 2 nearly-identical copies of.
There is absolutely no reason that anyone should EVER profit off of any star wars merchandise without the permission of the copyright holders.
This is pure profitism. You might as well say that no one should be able to profit by a creative use of electricity (Computers, Home Entertainment, Etc..) without the electric company's permission.
Say I made a ray-tracing of R2D2 in a heroic action pose. Then I printed it out, framed it and put it up for sale.
Sure, R2D2 belongs to Lucas, but the picture, pose, content, frame, etc... were all made or assembled by me. Why *shouldn't* I profit off that?
Copyright's original intention was to keep powerful individuals from picking on weak individuals by stealing their ideas and distributing them before the original creator could.
This has been brutally abused by those same powerful individuals (corporations) it was meant to limit. It no longer protects the weak from the strong but ensures that the strong have yet another whip to keep the weak in line. Unless limits are placed on copyright and patent law, this will only get worse.
Re:A little sanity check please (Score:3, Insightful)
Lessig's detailed answer is here [slashdot.org].
The short version is that Lessig claims (and I agree) that the question is backwards. Copyright doesn't 'take property' or 'force people to give it away'. It silences others' speech.
He argues that that cost (of silencing speech) is worth it for limited times, because it encourages creative activity. But beyond the point where it encourages creativity, the onus should be upon those who want extended terms to justify continuing to silence speech.
If this seems absurd to you, (that copyright silences speech), it goes to show how deeply we have allowed the property/piracy vocabulary to dominate our discourse about copyright. We've forgotten that 'intellectual property' as a concept is a construct, made for a purpose... There is nothing intrinsic in the idea that if you make a song and sing it in public that everyone will have to pay you, forever, if they remember that song and sing it themselves.
Yes! We have no bananas! (Score:4, Insightful)
You want profit? Then create it! Create it, pay for it or slag off!
That may be true for movies, but eventually, it'll become impossible to create new music. U.S. courts have defined copyright infringement on a musical work as the use of at least four consecutive notes [everything2.com] that are substantially similar to the melody of a copyrighted work. Given that there are only 27,000 possible runs of four notes under the "substantially similar" [google.com] standard (transpose melodies to start on middle C, fold rests into previous note, fold notes outside an 11-note range inward an octave, quantize durations to short/medium/long), I'm afraid that the day will come when composers will no longer be able to write new music [baen.com] that doesn't infringe a copyright.
Great Name (Score:4, Funny)
With a name like "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act", it's got to be bad news...
Re:Great Name (Score:2, Informative)
More info here [wikipedia.com].
On the Mickey Mouse Protection Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, this wasn't really about bringing us in line with EU directives; it was just a convenient cover to save Mickey's ass. Hence, you can bet your bottom dollar that in twenty years, when the most recent extension runs out, the IP lobbyists will once again descend on Capital Hill.
What this case is all about is whether this is unconstitutional. Activists like Prof. Lessig and others have argued that the Copyright Clause of the Constitution is limited by the First Amendment. Because IP rights have to be granted in the name of "advancing progress", there's a real question about whether or not giving Disney another two decades of revenues advances anyone's interests but their own.
Also, because the Constitution only grants authors rights for "limited times", granting an unlimited number of extensions, (20 years, every 20 years) constitutes a grant of an unlimited right.
And I don't think anyone needs to be a lawyer to figure that one out.
Text of openlaw annoucement about the case (Score:5, Informative)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
two points (Score:4, Informative)
2. If the supreme court rules in favor of the copyright extensions it's going to be a dark day indeed - there will be no _legal_ recourse left to the forces of good.
Re:two points (Score:2, Informative)
Re:two points (Score:2)
The original ruling I am referring to is the ruling of the DC court of appeals, which I believe is the most recent ruling.
Here is a link to the text [uscourts.gov]
There is also some nice excerpts on the open-law page.
Wrong means to a good end? (Score:4, Insightful)
Petitioners are various individuals and businesses that rely upon the public domain for their livelihood. Some, such as the lead plaintiff Eric Eldred, build free Internet libraries based upon public domain works; others, such as Dover Press, publish public domain works in high-quality commercial editions. All depend upon a rich public domain to support their work, and many make their work freely available to others.
Isn't this about another group of people that thinks it needs to make a profit? Sure, the current handling of copyrite is absurd, but do we want to see a case won in this way? Couldn't a case be made for the enhancememt of society as a whole -- not some company -- that would justify the taming of current copyrite practices?
I guess my question is, in the fight against bad laws, do the ends justify the means if we're to score a trule moral victory in court?
Re:Wrong means to a good end? (Score:4, Interesting)
Most people do need to make money to eat and stuff like that. What's your problem with that? Somebody was needed with clear grounds to press the suit, and they were it. Dover Press help make college affordable, with $1-$2 public domain books (that look like crap sometimes, but the text is all there.)
Also, did you miss the part about "many make their work freely available to others." This isn't just the companies here.
Rest assured, however, they are pressing the loss to society and all that in their case.
Re:Wrong means to a good end? (Score:2)
The point of including such a range is to show that expanding the public domain isn't anti-commercial. Limiting copyright terms "promote[s] progress" for the public and commercial users better than locking works under copyright control for another 20 years. (In addition, to get to court at all, plaintiffs had to demonstrate standing, meaning they had to show concretely how they are harmed by the law they are challenging.)
Balance (Score:2)
14 or 28 years after publication is good - the new book that had a profound influence on you as a teenager can be the basis of your own book in middle age. But with the current rules, it's pretty much guaranteed that nobody will live long enough to respond in the same way to anything published once they were old enough to understand it.
On the commercial side, look at Dover Books. The original publisher has usually failed to publish the book for years because of limited sales... often because they're continuing to publish the work in hardcover editions, legal expenses in determining who would get residuals, etc. These expenses are so great that most books are unpublished and unpublishable.
Once it enters the public domain, Dover can publish the book in cheap paperback editions. The book is available, the book is affordable, Dover makes enough profit to make the effort worthwhile. Everyone benefits.
Is the original IP owner out of money? Not really - you can't make any profit if you don't make any sales. In the worst cases, the original IP owner may actually make more money once the material enters the public domain since it frees the IP from other legal encumberances.
Of course, that raises the question of the residuals paid to the original author. Again, there's not much of a difference between no money because the IP wasn't sold and no money because the material is now in the public domain. And even if there were sales, it's hard to justify people getting money for something their great-great-great-grandfather wrote 120 years ago (assuming he lived another 45 years and the 75-year rule was in affect). That's uncomfortably close to the classes of nobility that the US Constitution explicitly forbids.
Re:Wrong means to a good end? (Score:2)
Look, I agree with you.
Why is it that when the MPAA and RIAA sue someone, everyone here cries foul, saying, "No company has a right to make money..." But the context of this case ("livlihood") makes it okay for us now?
I just want to be clear on the motive of the lawsuit. Are they suing primarily because: 1) They can't sell the material; or 2) they can't give it away online for free.
(I know they can't do either, if the work is still under copyright.)
Everything old is new again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider, if copyright is extended indefinitely, then there could never be the notion of "classic" literature, freely available in many forms. Instead, there would be controlled literature that could be served up time and time again to a paying public.
Indefinite residuals. An attractive notion.
Chart shows what could happen. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Pretty interesting concept. Is a greater public domain worth the cost of less restrictive copytights? I think so. You may not, and that is fine. But just think of the possibilites.
Re:Chart shows what could happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an awful graph. What exactly is it measuring? Copyright extensions don't take stuff out of the public domain, so why does the unrestrained line keep climbing while the hindered line drops to zero. Why is it linear? I'm unhappy it's being used for my side - it's obviously meaningless.
As a writer... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a writer... (Score:2)
To keep that ugly beast from coming back?!?!?
*shudder*
Ech, CP/M. DEC Rainbow. Bleah.
Soko
Re:As a writer... (Score:2)
Apparently you have no children. Many authors do, and would like to leave them something.
Re:As a writer... (Score:4, Insightful)
Many engineers have children, too, and would like to leave them something. Money, bonds, real estate, all work.
I'd have to agree with Jordan's solution. 20 years after death, and then any kids will be adults, and should be able to take care of themselves, and if not, they have the same recourses as the rest of society.
I predict.... (Score:2, Interesting)
more good than bad... (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that creators should have exclusive rights to their material for a while (everybody needs to make a living) and then it should be pushed out in public domain.
Capitalism is the best system available for the short term allocation of resources, but I believe we need to rethink parts of it if we are going to have better long term goals and plans for the whole of humanity.
Devil's advocate. (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, copyrights and other restrictions are a cornerstone of capitalism. The make it free to everyone approach is the foundation of communism, not capitalism.
The second thought, is that if I devote my life to a project and produce a great work, shouldn't I be able to enjoy the spoils and decide the future of that great work? Shouldn't I be able to go to my grave, comforted by the fact that my magnum opus will provide for my children's future?
Let's face a little fact that we keep forgetting. Rarely, if ever, is a great work supressed or lost. Most often the works *ARE* available to any and everyone. But, you *do* have to pay for it. If it's not worth it to you, then perhaps it is not such a great work. Even the touted "research" that gets bandied about so often *is* available. But, alas you do have to pay Bayer or Pfizer millions to license it.
This is capitalism at its finest. Accept no substitute as you may be the one that is disappointed.
Re:Devil's advocate. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you should not. First off, your children should have to make thier own way in the world. While its a nice thought to provide for them, i think that people are better off providing for themselves.
Second, copywrites should expire just for that reason. You'll be forced to write another great novel to feed yourself. And then later another. You continue to live off your talent, and in the end we have a library of great works, not just one
Re:Devil's advocate. (Score:5, Insightful)
Name one communist system that was based on free dissemination of knowledge.
Your argument relies on the belief as copyright as a natural property right, but this is very difficult to credibly argue. Communism is based on sharing of resources because those resources are scarce.
Knowledge is not scarce. In fact the more you share it, the more of it there is for everybody.
Rarely, if ever, is a great work supressed or lost. Most often the works *ARE* available to any and everyone.
How would you know how many great works have been lost?
What was Lessig's number? Something like 10,000 books were published in 1929, and around 1% are still in print.
shouldn't I be able to enjoy the spoils and decide the future of that great work?
You can if you want. Just don't share it with anybody. Then you have absolute rights over that work. But the second you give it to someone else, they can do what they want with it.
That is how natural rights and natural law work. Our law allows you limited time copyright, designed for the sole reason of encouraging further work. There is no notion of being able to control your work for some 'just' and 'fair' reason. That would you be restricting the rights of others.
Shouldn't I be able to go to my grave, comforted by the fact that my magnum opus will provide for my children's future?
No. They should have to work for themselves. Why should we support a system that encourages laziness?
Re:Devil's advocate. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, no, and no.
Spoils? Yes, if someone is making money off your work, you deserve a cut. Control its future? No; it is not only immoral, but impractical to attempt to control what others do with ideas that happen to arise first in your particular 1500cc of meat computer. Your heirs? No; immoral and unconstitutional.
At its clearest, perhaps, as it shows how capitalism is reliant upon the state to create, define, and defend artificial property rights.
20 years after Death? (Score:3, Insightful)
the answer is no, if your dead then you also are not doing any business and have no need to make money, the only thing that you need to do after death is to decompose so the flowers can grow thats it, anyway IANAL and i am not sure if rights transfer but it just doesn't make sense to me.
Jon
Re:20 years after Death? (Score:2)
It also keeps people from knocking off a copyright holder to open up his exclusive use rights to the public.
Re:20 years after Death? (Score:3, Insightful)
Murder is already a crime. Let us not write millions of laws outlawing things that "might lead to murder" in our perpetual fear of murder. For then we will have disallowed all human activity, because it "might lead to murder".
One principle, one law. That is enough.
--Bob
Re:20 years after Death? (Score:2)
why does anyone even need 20 seconds much less 20 yeas of copyright after they are dead? are they collecting royalties in the after life?
In a way, yes. The rights can pass to your next-of-kin, that is, your estate, or whomever you may have given it to explicitly in your will. They are the ones who would continue to collect.
That's my understanding anyway. IANAL neither.
Re:20 years after Death? (Score:2)
It provides protection for the sake of the copyright owner's estate. Donald Knuth might not finish The Art of Computer Programming if he didn't think it would help his wife and kids.
It avoids providing an incentive to kill owners of valuable copyrights.
Re:20 years after Death? (Score:2)
U.S. Grant, formerly supreme US Army commander, five-star general and United States President, was completely broke before he died as a result of a bunch of lousy business deals.
To provide for his family, he wrote his memoirs while he was dying of throat cancer (those cigars are a bitch). So, the only reason he wrote them was to leave his family in good shape after he died.
What can I do to help? (Score:2)
Re:What can I do to help? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What can I do to help? (Score:5, Insightful)
Add your informed discussion to OpenLaw at http://openlaw.org/eldredvreno and help us prepare legal briefs.
Read up on copyright law and the case there so you are better informed, then communicate with your friends. Write your local newspaper editor.
Support online books! See http://www.eldritchpress.org/support.html
Join and send money to the Electronic Freedom Foundation: http://www.eff.org
Mickey Mouse should not be the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mickey Mouse should not be the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Creativity and derivative works? (Score:3, Interesting)
While a direct rip-off, "The further adventures of Frodo" or similar, might not be very creative, pieces of older works can be used to great effect by skilled authors and especially musicians.
For an example in music, Carl Orf's "O Fortuna" was based on pieces of famous music and blended together to create something new. Later Apotheosis came along, borrowed heavily from Orf, and produced their own sogn, a techno rock version of "O Fortuna". Orf's estate sued them.
Now, it seems that it should have been fair, what goes around comes around, and all. But the copyrights are much longer now meaning that it gets harder to use anything contemporary.
Being that nobody exists, or existed in a bubble, but were shaped by the creativity of those around them, they should let their creativity shape the next generation as well. Seems only fair to me, as long as we ensure that they're also given a chance (though maybe not life + 75 years) to profit from their creativity directly.
Bias in the reporting (Score:5, Insightful)
It's very interesting to note how the AP story spins the issue. The very first sentence:
The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to intervene in a fight over copyrights, deciding whether Congress has sided too heavily with writers and other inventors. [Emphasis mine.]
The phrase "writers and inventers" conjures up images of individuals, working alone, and immediately draws our sympathy. The fact is, that the major beneficiaries of the law are corporations, a fact that never comes out in the article. And, of course, "inventors" is completely irrelevent, since inventions are covered by patent law, not copyright.
Indeed, the article's favoring of the status quo shows up even more when they note that the Bono law brings us "in line with the EU," (those Europeans, always hip and up to date), and their characterization of the supporters of repeal as "businesses that specialize in former copyrighted material," (clearly a group that leeches off of those writers and, um, inventors.)
I don't know who'll win the war, but in the propaganda battle, Lessig et al, doesn't seem to have a chance.
Re:Bias in the reporting (Score:4, Interesting)
Creative people have an interest in the balance between copyright protection and expiration. Author's life plus twenty, or mayby twenty-five years is reasonable on unassigned copyrights. Corporate copyrights and assigned copyrights should expire in fifteen years, maybe twenty on the outside. What kind of business decision have you ever seen that has a fifteen year horizon? Very, few.
To avoid economic calamity, I'd phase in a change in corporate copyright terms this way: existing corporate copyrights would extend fifteen years from the adoption of copyright reform, and new works would be copyrighted twenty years from their creation.
There is no rational public interest in extending corporate copyrights further.
Re:Bias in the reporting (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a case of the pigeons coming home to roost. Disney has helped to create a culture of artists that is particularly sensitive to the market for licensing derivative works. As it becomes harder for them to license original work with acceptable margins, they turn to...the public domain.
This is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
But, the current length of copyright protection is obnoxious - and counter-productive. 70 years past the life of the author has nothing to do with encouraging or protecting creativity and invention. It has to do with protecting the interests of estates and corporations that do nothing creative at all but live off of the efforts of some long dead ancestor. Most of the time these buzzards, in their efforts to get the last scrap of meat off the carcass basterdize and demean great works of art. How many times have you heard of an estate or corporation (usually a publisher) doing something with a work of art that must surely have the artist rolling over in his grave.
Should it be tied to last use instead? (Score:4, Interesting)
To me it seems that public domain makes works avail to people that would otherwise just be stored in a vault and not avail.
So, perhaps it should become public domain 1-2 years after last sale (sale being the time that a publisher made the item avail to a store for resell). This way if the publisher doesn't think enough of the item to keep trying to move it (ie. a useless item, not profitable) then it becomes public domain and the public can decide if it's worth it or not. This way, one way or another it is avail to the public. If it is a marketable item, then the creator is still making money. If it is not, then nothing is lost.
Books - well, if it hasn't been published, then the text of the book becomes public domain. This way if a book becomes a classic (Lord of the Rings) then every year or two it gets republished. Still avail to the public.
CD's - this would have to be done on a song by song basis - that way "Safety Dance" could be published on a "Greatest Hits" CD every so often, but any other song that noone's heard of (except possibly Pop Goes The World) would fall into the public.
Movies - same as books really - keep it avail to the consumer or let go.
I guess it comes down to shit or get off the pot with the items. Either use it because it is a valuable property like you claim, or let others use it.
Of course there would probably have to be stipulations in there that producing a one-off of a movie, selling it to yourself doesn't count, etc... and there should still be a max limit.
Just my idea. I dunno.
A couple things to consider... (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, when the original framers of the Constitution wrote the copyright clause, 28 years was a lifetime. The average life expectancy wasn't that long and assuming you didn't actually have the funding to create your inventions, scientific discoveries, author books or songs, or paint pictures until you were 30, add 28 years to this and you might expect to live 10 years without copyright protection. Put in this light, the copyright extensions isn't that much of a stretch, we just happen to live longer.
If the Supreme Court sides against copyright holders, it STILL won't be a boon for applications like Napster given that the material transferred over these networks was generally current works and applications, images and music sent over other peer to peer networks would still be protected under original copyright provisions. This will NOT be a free for all, grab the intellectual property you want some here seem to be making it out to be.
My proposal would be to keep the extensions but make them renewable every 15 years after the first 45 or death of the author, whichever comes first. At the beginning of each renewal period, if it can be shown by a third party that the works are no longer profitable and releasing them into the public domain is the only recourse to ensuring the works will be around for the public to benefit from in the future then the works are released.
By placing the burden on third parties to argue for the public, this will hopefully alleviate the pressure on the legal system as each and every copyright will not likely be contested, only the ones there is a strong case for the public to benefit from. After the current copyright period is up (life + 70) there can no longer be any extensions and the intellectual property will be released to the public.
IP law is wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the main problem with IP law is that it is too cut and dry. For example I agree that Disney should be able to hold it's copyright to Mickey Mouse, but disagree that movies made by MGM 70 years ago are still not public domain.
Mickey Mouse is a very important piece of Disneys brand, and Disney is a brand based company, so it's essential to their survival. Where movies from 70 years ago are simply rotting away, and will probably vanish.
I think IP law needs to be based of need. A auction system would work better. Where after a relatively short period, say 20 years. the rights to the IP would become public domain, but are then up for auction. Disney would only have to be the highest bidder, which they could probably do, being that it's more important to them then to anyone else. The public needs to set a price however on buying it back, in case no-one else shows up to bid. I don't know how that would work exactly, but i imagine something based of it's past worth like 20% of the generated revenue from the IP. Of course calculating revenue from an IP isn't cut and dry either.
While IP that companies don't care about are not worth the time or money to renew, and then become public domain. A good example would be old video games, the company that holds the IP have essentially forgotten about them. When the time is up, they either have to buy it back from the public, or give it away.
-Jon
Trademark, not copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Mickey is a very important Disney trademark. Releasing the copyright on specific Mickey Mouse films does not jeopardize their ongoing trademark use of Mickey. In fact, it would enhance the value of their current exploitation considerably.
Re:IP law is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
A law that outlawed cars to protect the horse and buggy industry is bad because it hurts the people, clearly. A law that protects Disney logo is not bad for the people. The prosperity that Disney enjoys employees millions of people, which is clearly good for the people. Also Disney creates entertainment and amusement parks, also for the peoples enjoyment. Stifling Disney's business by taking away their rights to there mascot is not clearly good for the people, as it is clearly good for other business and bad for Disney.
-Jon
Copyright Escrow (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not a solution to the problem of ever-expanding copyright terms, but it does prevent us from losing things irretrievably.
Re:Already done! (Score:3, Informative)
Not since 1976 - everything that is 'fixed into a tangible medium' is copyrighted. To register a copyright you must send a copy to the Library of Congress, but there is no requirement. The scribbles on my notepad have just as much copyright as a Stephen King novel.
Stupid, isn't it?
3 lies by government (Score:5, Insightful)
1. CTEA "harmonizes" U.S. law with the E.U. No--it is not possible to have the same copyright term as the E.U.'s, because until 1976 term was measured from first publication, not from author's death, in the U.S. but not the E.U. The 1998 retroactive extension was not harmonization. In any event, E.U. term still differs substantially in works for hire, film productions, and anonymous works. As an example, a work first published in 1923 might be in the public domain in the U.S. if not renewed, but protected until 70 years after death if author was European. No way to harmonize this--it is just protectionism for U.S. works in Europe, for which the U.S. public pays.
2. Perpetual or lengthy terms are needed in order to preserve old films and other material. Not so--currently, film studios don't preserve even all the films they own copyright on--you see ads on TV where they try to collect money from the public for preservation. In fact, two plaintiffs in Eldred v. Ashcroft are film preservation groups who argue that the term extension makes it impossble from them to find copyright owners in order to preserve old films.
3. Authors benefit from longer terms. No--the difference between 50 years after death and 70 years is not enough incentive to cause anyone to write a book now. See the brief by Berkeley economist Hal Varian at http://openlaw.org/eldredvreno.
We assert that the ones who benefit from the CTEA are large corporations not authors--they are the ones who lobbied for the bill and paid large sums to campaigns of legislators to buy the bill.
The ones who will be hurt if we fail are authors who wish to prepare works that are derivative or try to enjoy fair use of existing works. And the public will not enjoy the fruits of their publication--innovation will be stifled if the public domain is privatized. The Internet now and the next Internet, whatever it will be, will be threatened--instead, big corporations will own all content and license our popular culture to us as pay-per-view.
Copyright Win-win (Score:5, Interesting)
Copyrights are obviously valuable, otherwise corporations would not be prepared to spend so much defending them. However, they cost nothing to create. The government is missing an obvious source of revenue here - simply tax the ownership of a published copyrighted work that is itself sold. If you don't pay the tax, it becomes public domain. Copyrights for free items would be free of this tax.
To add spice, double the tax each year the copyright runs. For example:
Tax in year 1 - 1 cent
Tax in year 2 - 2 cents
Tax in year 3 - 4 cents
...you know where this is going.
An up-front fee (or pre-payment of tax) of $10.23 protects your copyright for 10 years.
An up front fee of $327.67 preserves your copyright for 15 years.
But you can see that after 25 years, the next fee is $335,544.32 - you need a serious income to preserve the copyright. If you don't pay, it becomes public domain.
You get the opportunity to profit. The government gets a revenue stream, and items become public domain after a reasonable time.
Obviously, the starting point and the exponential could be varied, but explaining it with a pile of pennies and a chessboard - move one square per year and double the number of pennies - keeps it simple. The fees in the early years are very reasonable, encouraging people to profit from their work quickly.
Problems?
What HAS dropped into public domain? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was doing a bit of searching lately (specifically, I was wondering if the classic silent film "Metropolis" had dropped into the public domain yet. According to one "Public Domain Movies for sale" site (LSVideo.com [lsvideo.com]), the answer boils down to "probably"...), and stumbled on a couple of sites offering "public domain" material.
This one [retrofilm.com], to my surprise, actually offered a number of cartoons that seemed shockingly recent (heck, I think I have some of them on commercial VHS!) - including even a handful of Disney shorts. Apparently, there was a window of time before copyright extension became automatic, where a lot of works evidently didn't get renewed, and therefore hit the public domain.
Unfortunately, that site vehemently denies any availability to normal people (i.e. they are a company tailored for and catering only to broadcasters with professional equipment who want some public domain material to broadcast).
Anyone know if archive.org will be getting any of this material? And for that matter, good pointers to other "public domain material" sites?
Re:What HAS MATURED into public domain? (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh...just been poking around in writings online about public domain, one of which pointed out the peculiar phrase everybody (including me - see the subject of my parent post) has been using about this - "falling" into the public domain. As if to imply that a public domain work is somehow "less" or "degraded" due to finally being released from the copyright-protection asylum...
Therefore, I think I'll be making an effort to call it "'Maturing' into the public domain" instead...unless someone has even better suggestions?
Have we looked at copyright in the proper light? (Score:4, Insightful)
As they say in academic circles "Publish or die" Talk about an incentive to create! If you can't sit back on your laurels, then you must continue to create. This would benefit the culture greatly. One has to ask what would Disney have come up with if Mickey and his pals where going into the public domain as scheduled? What would Mike Stoller and his partner Jerry Leiber produced in the years since "Stuck in the Middle with You" (1972), had there been an incentive to keep creating? At the very least in 1979 they would have started working again to produce more of those wonderful tunes they were so adept at producing in the 50's and 60's.
It's my hope at least one court in this land of ours has some common sense, and interpets the intent of the law.
Disney bites itself? (Score:3, Informative)
"Walt Disney Productions is grateful to the Hospital for Sick Children - Great Ormond Street, London - to which Sir James M. Barrie gave his copyright of Peter Pan."
The US Peter Pan copyright was originally set to expire in 1987. But because of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, the copyright was extended to 2007.
I don't know whether Disney actually paid royalties to the Hospital, but I bet they did.
(In the UK, parliament passed a special act [hmso.gov.uk] giving the hospital an eternal copyright in Peter Pan. It's debatable whether the Berne convention extended this ininite protection to all Berne convention countries.)
Modest Propsal (Score:5, Funny)
SD
Re:Modest Propsal (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, provided they properly do the research to achieve this and properly patent the technology (so that it becomes public domain in 20 years!) I could cope with this. Something like this would be quite handy to the medical community, I suspect.
On the other hand, the sorts of corporations we're talking about here would probably just freeze the bodies solid, and then warn everyone that the "thawing them out again" technology is still under development, so you can't try to thaw them to see if they're still alive because the process can kill them (and if you try, you get flung in jail for manslaughter, AND get sued by the corporations for loss of potential income they claim the author/artist would have earned them...)
I'd better stop, I'm scaring myself... :-)
Prospective vs. Retrospective (Score:3, Insightful)
The extension of pre-existing copyrights is the best attack based on rational basis review. It is a big transfer from my ability to read and disseminate to the ability of authors to maintain their works in a grip-of-death.
We could well end up with a decision that "you can do that, but you can't do it retroactively." As for the "IP is bad" crowd, only Justices Breyer and Stevens are particularly sympathetic, and even they limit their depredations to narrowly construing copyright. (See Tasini case.) They are not Justices that are disposed to limiting Congressional power under the Constitution.
Promoting the arts -- fast return required! (Score:3, Interesting)
My argument is that the CREA96 is that the term granted was not shown "to Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" are required by the US Constitution. In fact, it can be fairly shown it hampers said progress since no incentives it gave could possibly have influenced past creativity yet the extention reduces creativity of those who would use the materials once they enter the public domain. Somebody might want to make a competing "Mickey Mouse" comic strip!
IMHO, copyright term should reflect the use of the work, and the likely motive behind creating it. For projects made for commercial exploitation (most mass media), this period should match that used by the company's financial analysts or stockholders. They seldom look beyond 20 years simply because the power of compound interest reduces the value of any future revenues to insignificance. So I would make the copyright period 20 years after first sale. This is generous, because most investors demand 2-5 year pay-back! For unsold works, some of which are potentially private papers, I would make the period longer, say life of the author plus 20-50 years.
Unfortunately, the "takings clause" doesn't apply since that only forbits the uncompensated taking of private property for public use, while CREA96 takes public property for private use
Re:Real laws of ownership (Score:2)
While that statement might have SOME merit in SOME circumstances, it's certainly not absolutely blanket as you suggest.
Re:Real laws of ownership (Score:2)
>then take it home... I'm 9/10 of the way to
>owning it since I now have possesion?
No, you are 9/10ths of the way to prison for stealing it! An some of the IANAL's and IAALBTINLA's please clarify the "possession is nine points of the law" doctrine? Is this
an English common law thing, or is it a Hollywood
thing?
I found this essay an interesting read...
http://www.essaybank.co.uk/free_coursework/763.
Re:Real laws of ownership (Score:4, Interesting)
"Intellectual property" is a little different. The natural law right is to use any ideas that you come across. If you have a great idea about how to make a device to catch troublesome pests, I have not stolen from you to use that idea to make such a device. If I steal your book, I've stolen from you, because your property holding has been diminished, while if I simply reprint it, I have not stolen from you, because you still have the book. It was a novel point to our Constitution to allow for any concept of a monopoly on works of creativity or invention. The intent was to spur creative and inventive acts by giving those who created or invented a monopoly to earn money for a limited period. Then, the public would have those ideas and creative works for free use, which they would not have had for any use had the creator or inventor not had an incentive to create them beyond the natural desire to create or invent. The intent was never to reward past creativity or invention.
It is clear to me that the law has become skewed in such a way as to *reduce* the amount of ideas and inventions available for free public use, rather than to enhance it. Why should Disney create new characters and stories, for example, when the existing ones are so profitable, and can be rehashed essentially forever?
-jeff
Re:Real laws of ownership (Score:2, Interesting)
However, as property rights (and increasingly intellectual rights) are state-enforced, *lawful* posession of property is 9/10 of ownership.
However, if you look back in time, during the feudal system, farmers 'owned' common land to which they had family rights. They used it, they worked it, but they didn't _possess_ it, per se. (That is, there was no need for an authoritative force to control access to it; such details were administered co-operatively by the farmers who used it to suit the needs of the community best. The land was shared, and those who abused the land were punished and shunned.) After Adam Smith did his thing, this 'ownership' was revoked by feudal lords (via the installation of hedges to prevent farmers from using this land), and they 'posessed' it. Then, using Adam Smith and Locke's drabblings, they claimed 'ownership' of it. It is a common misconception that this fundamental shift in social attitudes to property rights was little more than a natural progression of a commodity based economy. (Heck, you wern't even allowed to own land. As with labour, land was considered such a basic right that it was considered by the people of the time as something which should not be left to the market.)
Just don't forget that under capitalism, anything unclaimed can become 'owned' by way of posession. This was not neccessarily the way in which other societies and economies worked, so it's not exactly a truism outside of capitalism.
Conservative != MPAA (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright was meant as an incentive to encourage creativity. It was not considered to be one of the "inalienable rights" that the Constitution was created to defend. The mistake that's being made today is to treat intellectual property as a natural right, which I do not believe it is.
Actually not too bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and invetors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
The first part of this phrase is the key to victory. There's no evidence that the items being retroactively considered for copyright extension will have any benefit to the progess of science and useful arts. If anything they are guaranteeing that items that might otherwise be useful to that progress by being released in to the public domain are being allowed to decay beyond the possibility of recovery.
Ultimately it's going to depend on where the balance is struck by the court. Technically speaking the terms of copyright are still limited even under the Sonny Bono extension. It's just a question of how far can congress go before it's violating the first part of the clause.
My feeling is that the supreme court may rule that newly created works may have this extension applied to them, but that there should be no retro-active application. Since this law is to incent production of creative works, it's very hard to suggest this is needed to incent already created works. Such a ruling would maintain the spirit of the law, assuming that they don't believe that the term of copyright has breached the threshold of being limited.
The permanent damage of the Sonny Bono Act (Score:3, Insightful)
The Bono Copyright Extension passed, and it's quite likely that now those pieces of history will be gone, forever. But I guess that's OK, because Steamboat Willie will be safe in Disney's vaults.
I agree that this has to be interpreted along the lines of the original Constitutional Framers' thoughts, and that line appeals more to the conservative sides of the bench.
After all, if the mere ability to make money sufficed as a Constitutional argument, self-employed prostitutes should take their cases to the Supreme Court.
Re:The Supreme Taliban Court (Score:4, Interesting)
That being said, I seem to recall Lessig commenting that this is not a Right vs. Left issue, especially in the Supreme Court. He made the comment that the argument to the conservatives of the court (notably Scalia, for whom he clerked I think?) might be the easiest...
Aka: The intention of the Framers (limited time) is being subverted by Congress' perpetually-extending copyright term limits.
(And this is one time Valenti may not have helped his own cause, since he is on the record saying that in his book 'infinity minus a day' is an acceptably limited term)
Re:The Supreme Taliban Court (Score:2)
Judge Sentelle of the Federal Circuit cited Lopez in his dissent in the ruling against Eldred, saying
" It would seem to me apparent that this concept of 'outer limits' to enumerated powers applies not only to the Commerce Clause but to all the enumerated powers, including the Copyright Clause, which we consider today."
I predict that those same justices will take one look at the words "limited times" and strike down the CTEA as making a mockery of the constitution.
(On the other hand, I could be wrong. Those very five justices found that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment applied to their preferred presidential candidate, which is about as far from the original intent of the 14th amendment as one could imagine.)
Re:Let's hope for the best (Score:2)
I agree with you about them not coming "down on the side the people" but that is NOT the Supreme courts job (congress is the one with the job to come down on the side of the people). The supreme courts job is to come down on the side of the constitution without regard to the policy merits of the law. And unfortunately the constitution is the stumbling block here - CONGRESS (which is SUPPOSED to be looking out for our interests) is responsible for copyright law. I think the law sucks (and speak and vote accordingly) and so may the judge but that is not his concern when it comes before him in the court. 70 years past the life of the author is WAY too long, counter-productive, bad policy, evil, no-good, very-bad etc. But it IS strictly speaking "a limited time" which is the only condition set in the constitution which otherwise leaves the details up to congress. The Supremes may decide that the time limit is so long that it is somehow "not limited" but to do so they are simply replacing a probably corrupt but elected and accountable opinion with their own unelected and unnaccountable policy opinion. I think such a result would be a better policy but the price is to abandon (in a small but vital way) a democratic system with an oligarchic system.
Re:Congress got paid off to extend copyrights..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, huh. And where was the Democratic president with the "Veto" stamp?
And what about this in the congressional record? - "10/7/1998:
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. "
"Unanimous" doesn't sound like "The Republicans but not the Democrats" at all, does it? Sounds like Democrats were hanging out at the Big Media(tm) crackhouse quite happily as well. In short - This isn't a 'political party' issue!. This is a "Big Media offers Big Bucks to ALL politicians, and ALL mainstream party senators (and, presumably, representatives, but it's hard to say, it passed the house by voice vote) are happily taking bribes.
Pointing at whichever of the two mainstream parties you hate most and saying "it's all THEIR fault" just makes your least hated party happy to have the attention drawn away from them, whichever of The Two Parties(tm) they may be, and keeps this sort of thing "business as usual".
Yeah. (Score:3, Funny)
The solution, of course, is for all Slashdotters to move to Montana and take over the political scene there...
Hmpf..... (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd think a representative would be at least required to have *read* the Consititution. I know I was required to in 11th grade government class.
Re:DMCA has already made it unlimited... (Score:3, Insightful)
First, the US Constitution demands that copyright term be limited. When Congress retroactively expands copyright term, it breaks that limit.
As for the argument that it's not ex post facto -- well, I have heard that piece of hair-splitting argument (I won't call it "Jesuitical"--it's not!), and it helps me to understand where Bill Clinton's "It all depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is..." comes from.