Disney Wins, Eldred (and everyone else) Loses 1292
hondo77 writes "In a 7-2 decision, The Supreme Court gave Disney what they wanted. Story just broke, no details yet." They're talking about the Eldred case, recently argued before the Supreme Court and mentioned on Slashdot many times. The upshot is that no works produced in the United States after the 1920's will ever go out of copyright. Opinions: Majority opinion, Stevens' dissent, Breyer's dissent.
Illegal Art (Score:4, Informative)
Gotta figger time's running out.
-renard
Re:I hate to make this a party-line issue, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Works can still go out of copyright. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The first thing this makes me think is... (Score:1, Informative)
upshot
1. The final result; the outcome. See Synonyms at effect
2. The central idea or point; gist.
I think the editor knows exactly what it means.
Re:Other nations (Score:1, Informative)
Bullshit. One of the stated reasons for passing the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act in the first place was to 'harmonize our laws with the EU's current laws'. In any case, any time copyright expiration comes up worldwide, American law and executives are very quick to intervene to protect their profits within the U.S. (preventing 'legal' internet transfer inside countries where a copyright HAS expired) and outside it (by lobbying to pass U.S. laws that 'harmonize' with the U.S., the alternative being that our entertainment industry stops releasing entertainment in places like Europe if they don't.
Don't pretend to believe that Europe and other countries are somehow 'immune' to this effect. The New York Times just last week was talking about how Europe has a collection of copyrights for 1950s works that expired at the beginning of this year. Do you really believe that the American record labels will allow Elvis to be traded like one cent postage stamps? They'll perform simple blackmail. 'Re-extend your copyrights, or you can forget about getting new artists in your country'. This is the power of oligopoly when worldwide-popular entertainment is in the hands of one country's businesses which in turn all agree on policy through the RIAA.
Once Mickey Mouse's copyright expires in, say, Britain, what's to stop someone there from distributing it online? Any lawyers know?
On January 14, the American technology industry and Entertainment industry essentially agreed to leave the current copyright system alone. Coupled with court cases like 'Dow Jones' being forced to face a libel suit in Australia for something it printed in the U.S., I don't see it much of a stretch that BMI or Sony music will sue Random Joe European for American copyright violation because they were trading songs in such a way that an American COULD have read it, in the same way that an Australian sued Dow Jones for something an Australian COULD have read.
Anyone who believes that this court decision doesn't extend beyond America's borders are living in a dream world.
Better article - Stevens and Beyer = dissent (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I hate to make this a party-line issue, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Disney:
Rehnquist 1971, Nixon
O'Connor 1981, Reagan
Scalia 1986, Reagan
Kennedy 1988, Reagan
Souter 1990, Bush
Thomas 1991, Bush
Ginsburg 1993, Clinton
Eldred:
Stevens 1975, Ford
Breyer 1994, Clinton
7-2 Rep and 7-2 Dis, but not the same way. Also, the law was signed by Clinton (D) and named after Bono (R).
Re:But not "Happy Birthday" (Score:4, Informative)
-Alison
Re:The first thing this makes me think is... (Score:3, Informative)
1. The final result; the outcome. See Synonyms at effect.
2. The central idea or point; gist.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
From Webster 1913:
Up"shot` (?), n. [Up + shot, equivalent to scot share, reckoning. Cf. the phrase to cast up an account.]
Final issue; conclusion; the sum and substance; the end; the result; the consummation.
Links to opinions (Score:5, Informative)
To be honest, two Justices is more than I thought the Eldred side could get. While I sympathize with their intent, it would have been a remarkable abrogation of Congressional power for the Court to have struck down the SBCTEA. "Ill-advised and stupid" does not, unfortunately, mean "unconstitutional."
Re:Any words from content creators? (Score:4, Informative)
Here is the text of the Supreme Court decision (Score:2, Informative)
Dissenting opinion (Stevens): http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/ 01-618d.pdf [stanford.edu]
Dissenting opinion (Breyer): http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/ 01-618d1.pdf [stanford.edu]
Re:Abe Lincoln says it all : (Score:3, Informative)
MPAA Said Extension Wouldn't Bring Much $ (Score:5, Informative)
The MPAA didn't seem to think so when the extension was being enacted. Fritz Attaway, Senior Vice President, Government Relations and Washington General Counsel of the Motion Picture Association of America, testified before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary, back when the extension was considered in 1997 that:
"First and foremost, term extension will not provide a huge windfall to anyone -- certainly not for the motion picture industry. We do not project a significant revenue increase for movies during the proposed extended term until the year 2020. For us in the movie industry, the importance of US leadership in copyright protection within the community of nations is far more important than short term revenue impact.
Second, term extension will not adversely affect the users of copyrighted material. In most cases the very opposite will be true. This is because copyrights give owners not only the incentive to create works, they provide continuing incentive to distribute them.
Absent copyright, movies, books, songs, etc. have no value. They are free for the taking. Thus, there is no incentive to maintain their quality -- particularly important for films -- or to aggressively market them. What is the sense of promoting the availability of a work if anyone else can capitalize on your promotional efforts?
When asked about the possibility of future extensions, Mr. Attaway said:
It could be that in 2020, circumstances would suggest that an additional term be provided.
Source: Hearings [house.gov]
Opinion Now Online (Score:3, Informative)
You can also now pull the story off your favorite AP source [google.com].
The part I was most interested in was the dissenting opinion. here is the limited info on the dissent included in the AP styory And here is the opening of Stevens' actual dissentMy concern is that we are really undergoing an experiment at the hands of Congress and the Corporate copyright holders. For two centuries the US prospered with a reasonable period of copyright. Now the question is will this essentially unlimited copyright that the SCOTUS has determined can be continually extended, will corporations and the country continue to propser. Were it not for the success of new mediums such as film, radio, video, and the Internet the US would not be a major force in the world economy I would think the Japanese who certainly exceed our capapbilities in the technological realm would be ahead of us.
But now companies will no longer be able to get a jump start in launching new media as they won't have unrestricted access to what has come bnefore on other media which they can modify. Disney made several attempts at re-creating themselves into a Internet centric company and failed miserably. Time-Warner gave up on trying to transform themselves and were bought out by an Internet company. That leaves NBC which has signed over its Internet present to MS, and CBS that has yet to show the same kind of success it had first in Radio and then in TV.
Re:Any words from content creators? (Score:1, Informative)
For academics, PD allows them to create multimedia works that might have a narrow interest and wouldn't be commercially viable otherwise. For example, if it weren't for Bono and the Supremes, I could go out and do a really nice documentary on the early history of talking films. But now, the price for getting the rights to use film excerpts would be so high that it just wouldn't be commercially viable.
A studio will charge you anywhere from $2000 and up for an excerpt for a copyrighted work you want to use in your doc. Half of the time, they refuse, really stifling work that analyzes or critizes media history.
Ever wonder why the History Channel shows endless repeats of World War II documentaries? Because the government war footage is public domain
Re:I hate to make this a party-line issue, but... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Why don't they... (Score:4, Informative)
Traditionally (meaning before the Statute of Anne), there was NO SUCH THING as "Intellectual Property" anywhere in the world. If you wrote a book and published it, anyone anywhere was free to copy it and distribute it as they pleased.
The Statute of Anne gave the English Crown the right to grant monopolies to persons it saw fit to reward, which led to one of the most corrupt periods in English History.
The concept of copyright was created by the fact that the Crown granted a monopoly on book publishing to the Stationer's Guild, and made it ILLEGAL (infringement of a Crown monopoly was a crime, NOT a civil wrong) for anyone but guild members to publish books. Anyone who curried royal favor sufficiently could be granted a monopoly on anything, whether it was an innovation or not, and the monopoly was ABSOLUTE anywhere in the British Empire.
This practice of granting monopolies in exchange for bribes caused many of the abuses which led to the American Revolution, which is why, following the revolution, only the English Common Law was adopted in the United States. This is also the reason why the "Copyright Clause" is included in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution wanted to make it clear that innovation was to be encouraged in this country, that those who would create new works were to be rewarded, but that, in the long run everything belongs to the public domain.
Copyright is NOT a matter of ownership of something an author creates. Copyright is a matter of "Social Contract." The reasoning that applies is the follows:
So, in answer to your question about Tolkien's family, no
The initial copyright law passed by Congress in 1791 set the period for copyright at 14 years, with ONE extension available PROVIDED the author was still living. In other words, the copyright was intended to benefit those who CREATE something of value. It was not intended to create a new class of property.
Lord of the Rings is a great work that required a LOT of creativity to spin the tale. However, it was not totally the creation of J.R.R.Tolkien. Elves, halflings, wandering magicians and evil sorcerers existed in literature LONG before Tokien wrote his book. In short, Lord of the Rings is a derivative work that "stands on the shoulders" of those who went before. Those of us who believe in limited lifetimes for "Intellectual Property" believe that those who take from the public domain should have to give back so that others can stand on their shoulders in turn.
Re:Have protect those exports! (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. The U.S. is the biggest exporter in the world and the majority of exports from the U.S. are manufactured goods. (Check Statistical Abstract on the Census Bureau's web site and the CIA World factbook.)
Re:Have protect those exports! (Score:2, Informative)
I'm a little disappointed that the previous post was rated a 3 given the lack of merits and relevance.
Oops - is "chicken little" copyrighted?
Owner of IP of dead corporations (Score:2, Informative)
The band is no longer together, the label they published under is no longer in business (IIRC) so who exactly, am I "stealing" from?
You are infringing a copyright owned by the entity that acquired the dead label or purchased the dead label's assets at auction.
Re:But not "Happy Birthday" (Score:3, Informative)
Also, if the venue you're singing at already has an ASCAP license (as nightclubs and restaurants generally do), then there is no problem. However, ASCAP has been trying to shake down Girl Scout camps [umkc.edu].
Thanks (Score:5, Informative)
Especially we would like to thank Larry Lessig, the lead attorney, along with Kathleen Sullivan, Jonathan Zittrain, William Fisher, Charles Fried, Charles Nesson, Geoffrey Stewart, Edward Lee, and the law firm of Jones, Day, Reavis, Pogue, all of whom worked tirelessly to try this case. We also thank those who contributed to the Eldred Defense Fund to make it possible.
What next? It seems that the decision gives a license to Congress to extend copyright term indefinitely, so there will be an effort within the next 20 years to make another extension. We can oppose that politically. We can also oppose efforts by the media giants to embed DRM in electronic devices, and other such legislation.
Also there will be efforts in other countries such as Japan, Taiwan, Europe, and so on, to extend copyright from the present 50 years after author's death, especially for music and movies. We can support efforts to oppose that.
Our case was built on the notion that copyright, as the Framers of the Constitution envisioned it, was a proper foundation for creativity and innovation in the Internet age. Now copyright will be used to lock up works instead. If the only way to access one of these works is to use illegal means, then some will turn to that. Peer-to-peer networks such as Freenet will be the only alternative for many.
The page turns. But the effort was worthwhile. The level of discussion has advanced considerably and citizens are better informed because of this case. Let's hope the next decisions will be better.
Analysis of the case by SCOTUSBlog (Score:4, Informative)
Today's Opinions. Today, the Supreme Court delivered the opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft. This case concerns the Copyright and Patent Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, 8, cl. 8, which empowers Congress to "[t]o promote the Progress of Science ... by securing [to Authors] for limited Times ... the exclusive Right to their ... Writings." Pursuant to this authority, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) in 1998 which extended the duration of all copyrights, both existing and future, by 20 years. Petitioner claimed that Congress exceeded their authority under the Constitution's Copyright Clause by applying it retroactively to already existing copyrights. Further, petitioner claimed that the Act violates First Amendment free speech protections. Both the district court and the circuit court rejected petitioner's claims.
The 7-2 majority opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg, here, upheld the CTEA against both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment claims. As per the Copyright Clause, Ginsburg wrote that the text, history, and Supreme Court precedent all confirmed that Congress is empowered to prescribe "limited times" for copyright protections and "to secure the same level and duration of protection for all copyright holders, present and future." Accordingly, the Court concluded that the CTEA, which continues "the unbroken congressional practice of treating future and existing copyrights" equally, is a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Copyright Clause.
Turning to the First Amendment claim, Justice Ginsburg wrote that the proximity in time of the enactment of both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment suggests that the Framers viewed copyright's limited monopolies to be consistent with free speech principles. Additionally, the Copyright Clause has "built-in First Amendment accommodations," by protecting "expressions" but not "ideas." Further, the "fair use" defense even allows the public to use copyrighted "expressions" in limited circumstances. Accordingly, Ginsburg wrote that, because Congress has not "altered the traditional contours of copyright protection" with the CTEA, further First Amendment scrutiny was not necessary.
Justice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the CTEA's extension of existing copyrights, as opposed to future copyrights, was invalid. Stevens based this opinion on Supreme Court precedent holding that Congress may not extend the life of a patent beyond its expiration date. In Stevens's view, the same restrictions should apply to copyrights as well. Justice Breyer also wrote a dissenting opinion. He argued that the CTEA 20-year extension does not make the copyright term limited, as is required by the Copyright Clause, but instead "virtually perpetual." Further, Breyer argued that the CTEA's primary effect is not to promote science, but to inhibit it. Conceding that the Copyright Clause grants broad legislative power, Breyer nonetheless concluded that the CTEA falls outside that grant, thereby making it unconstitutional.
Re:EVER?! (Score:5, Informative)
No, it doesn't. The copyright term for copyrighted works held by private citizens was harmonised by the CTEA. At the same time, the CTEA created a larger disconnect between EU and US copyright law in other areas. Detailed information can be found here [asu.edu]
The "harmonisation" argument was, IMHO, an excuse for increasing the corporate copyright term with 20 years in order to save Mickey.
Def. - "Venial" (Score:2, Informative)
venial adj.
Easily excused or forgiven; pardonable: a venial offense.
Roman Catholic Church. Minor, therefore warranting only temporal punishment.
Judge Stevens' insightful dissent (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Destroying the diversity of works... (Score:2, Informative)
Not from the interpretation of the dissenters. I managed to get a dozen or so pages into each of the dissenting opinions (I read about that much of the majority opinion as well), and the point that the dissenters wanted to make was that the main part of the copyright/patent thing was to protect the public. If the works in question never pass into the public domain, who loses? The public. Breyer's dissenting opinion goes into considerable detail on this point (in addition to being the easier to read of the two, IMNSHO). The other dissenter talks a lot about the history of the various copyright extension legislations, and apparently there have been quite a number of Congressional copyright acts which benefitted one company, some of which were from the distant past (lke about 1807 or so). The majority opinion talks about the fact that the Constitution doesn't specifically spell out what a "limited time" is, and the fact that the current copyright terms do have a limit, so the test is fulfilled.
That said, all of the opinions are serious slogs to try to read, so make sure you're very awake when you start...
Re:What has happened to the USA? (Score:3, Informative)
And they wonder why... (Score:3, Informative)
Make your own laws? They say? I've heard that kind of remark before. "Let them eat cake," [straightdope.com] so said another of high ranking authority who also distained the common man's plight.
Make our own laws? But who will get them passed in Congress? It is like a peasant fighting a knight, on horse back, with a broadsword, shield, and expert training. When you are up against a company which makes well over a billion dollars a year, can buy and sell lawyers, corporations, and even Congressmen - what hope does someone have of getting a law passed that does for the common man what it removes from the common corporation? The answer is none.
Like kingdoms of old we now have kings to whom we give our allegiance. They are known as CEOs, CFOs, and the board of dictators - sorry - directors. The writings of the forefathers of the USA warned us of this happening. Of the influence which the wealthy can have over those of lesser men. They told us we would become slaves if we were not always vigilant. But we have slept and we find that, in the silence of the night, we have been shackled by invisible chains. We are told that, like errant children, we must be punished for wanting what our forefathers had.
"It is a new world," they say. "The same old laws no longer apply." The laws were good laws I say. They kept tyranny, despotism, conspiracy, and slavery at bay. Now, we have no protections. Like Orwell's 1984 we now have people who are disappearing never to return. Towers of minitruth, minilove, and minipeace. For spin doctors have found a way to twist the truth so that you or I might just simply vanish. No proof is needed any longer. Just a word - that's all.
"And how does this hurt us?", you ask? It used to be that you could expect to be able to use something within a generation or two. Now you will die before these things are free. Your children will die and your grandchildren will die. And even then they may not be free. It is not so much that Congress has the right to extend the "limited time" clause but that they do so to the exclusion of the needs of the American people. That is to say - the balance has not only be overweighed by Congress' rash actions but the balance can't even be located any longer. Congress has done away with it. So who cares if Mickey Mouse is saved so the Walt Disney company can make money? The idea is change. We have stagnation. Inertia at its best. And oh! Don't touch that scared cow - it might produce better milk if treated right but we will make due with what little trickles from it's udders.
Here is a prophesy for you: When people begin refusing to pay money to the corporations, the corporations will attempt to force everyone to pay them willingly or not.
Anyone for DRM? Secure Internet? It's only for your own good you know. Oh! You want your freedom? Silly person! You really just want this new CD right? Or maybe this game? Just give us your mind, body, and soul and we will give you just about anything you want. See? Now you can be happy!
Personally? I think it all sucks.