Lawrence Lessig's Personal Past and Supreme Court Future 136
Slyfox writes "Ever wonder how Lawrence Lessig became one of the most notable figures in the fight over free speech and intellectual property on the internet? Wired has an excellent article about Lawrence Lessig's life; it beginings with his start as a right-wing Republican, and continues by following the events of his life through law school, contributing to the Microsoft anti-trust case, and becoming a top cyberlaw expert. The article describes both his successes and failures, and it forshadows Lessig's biggest challenge yet: arguing Eldred v. Ashcroft before the US Supreme Court in October."
How many billions ARE we talking about ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its surprising no-one has put any numbers on the discussion - the Act "extended the duration of all existing and future copyrights for 20 years - just like that".
You'd have to imagine thats a gift of many many billions of dollars to the copyright holders. And while this is not a zero sum situation, someone has also suffered to some extent. That someone is the public domain, shich is us, the non-copyright holders.
I hope they win and overturn this foul legislation.
Re:Eldred v. Ashcroft is semi-doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
You missed the whole point of Eldred v. Ashcroft.
Eldred v. Ashcroft is not predicated on the argument that copyright must be limited. The argument goes like this. The copyright clause in the Constitution is trumped by the First Amendment. The First Amendment holds supremacy. The only reason copyright has subsequently been held to be constitutional is that on balance it promotes expression. That is, the Constitution establishes a quid pro quo--it gives copyright holders a temporary monopoly; in exchange, it encourages sharing of art and science. Thus, on balance, copyright promotes expression, and it's constitutional.
The argument Lessig makes is not that the "limited term" clause is violated. It is that the act violates the quid pro quo. It gives to copyright holders without maintaining anything in return. In fact, it takes from the public, which is in direct contradiction to the spirit of the founders. He argues that the extension of copyright does not make anyone more likely to express themselves. In fact, they retroactively extend copyright, which makes no sense in the context of the spirit of the Constitution. The point is to encourage expression, but the Sonny Bono Copyright Act applies to works which have already been expressed. As such, it does absolutely nothing to promote progress (and in fact may hinder it), and therefore it is an unfair limitation of the freedom of expression.
Lessig's argument is a first amendment one; the "limited term" argument really is just peripheral.
precedent is against this argument (Score:2, Insightful)
But, unless the web page I have linked to grossly misrepresents past copyright laws (which I doubt), there is incredibly strong precedent for new copyright laws to apply to preexisting works -- in fact, sometimes even to works which were not eligible for any form of copyright at the time of their creation.
For the Supreme Court to decide in favor of Eldred et al., it will have to invent a test which the Bono law violates, but which most previous laws do not. And the Constition provides little guidance for the specific parameters of this test.
Some Supreme Courts have been willing to strike out new territory for the Constitution in this fashion. But this one is not. The conservative members are strongly against reading between the lines except when absolutely necessary. I am sympathetic to this view myself, but unfortunately this will work against us in this case.
Just a tiny comment... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Holy shit (Score:2, Insightful)
-- E. W. Dijkstra
Re:Holy shit (Score:2, Insightful)
Arguing a case before the Supreme Court entails completely different requirements than arguing at a trial court. Of the thousands of cases which are appealed to the Supreme Court, only a tiny fraction of them are reviewed by the court. You can bet that if anyone is going up there to argue, he or she have to be exceptional. I don't think just anyone can go up there, present the case, and then be grilled by nine of the best legal minds in the country.
Considering that Lessig clerked for Scalia, taught as a law professor, performed for years as a public speaker, and has command of the necessary background knowledge, I don't think he'll have issues.
Re:Excellent article? Hah. (Score:3, Insightful)
The article did not talk about him wanting to totally eliminate copyright. It mainly discussed his background, motivations, and the first couple rounds of the Eldred case. And I would hardly consider a bunch of quotes from people saying he is a law genius as "marginalizing him" into a "crazy guy."
Sensationalistic use of the word "smash" to get people to read it, yes. Incorrect content or an inaccurate portrayel, no. I have read Larry's books and the article is totally consistent with his views in the books. I thought it was a great supplement to the books since he doesn't really talk about his life in the books.
Re:Where Disney's Material Came From (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. Some of it like the classical music in Fantasia was hundreds of years old, but many others were much more recent. The last of the Grimm brothers died in 1863, not hundreds of years before Disney. Disney even released some works such as a short Cinderella film in 1922, which would not have been allowed if the Grimm brothers were granted "life plus 70 years" on their copyright. And Disney's "Steamboat Willie" film was based on Buster Keaton's "Steamboat Bill".
A lot of people want to make a quick buck selling merchandise based on characters they didn't have the creativity to invent themselves.
So, Walt Disney didn't have any creativity because he made works based on characters he didn't create himself? Like Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella, and the rest? You seem to forget that artistic creativity can exist on top of previous creativity, just as scientific accomplishments are almost always based on someone else's prior accomplishments. Once material enters the public domain, people won't be able to make "a quick buck" very easily because anybody else in the world has the same material from which to do the same thing. The ones who will make any significant money are those who can use their own creativity to add value to the original creation, not the ones who merely disseminate what is already infinitely available elsewhere.