Kahle vs Ashcroft: Copyright Battle Continues 390
Robotech_Master writes "People may remember librarian Brewster Kahle as the man behind Archive.org's Wayback Machine and the Internet Bookmobile. He was one of the big supporters of Eldred in the Eldred vs Ashcroft case. Well, he's at it again. A new lawsuit, Kahle vs Ashcroft, has been filed as of March 22nd. Lawrence Lessig comments on this case in his blog." Question number 3 of the FAQ explains that while the Eldred case challenged the length of copyright expansion, this case challenges the breadth.
Hasn't this already been settled? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hasn't this already been settled? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you can't find it easily doesn't mean that it should be free for the taking.
Re:Pretty sweeping (Score:3, Insightful)
Most open-source developers take their copyright for granted. One says that his/her code is GPL (or BSD or whatever) and *poof*, like magic, it is.
I don't know what is involved in registering for a copyright, but I'm sure it's harder than doing nothing.
These fears may be misplaced, but I'd like someone to address them.
Summary: burden authors to make his life easier (Score:1, Insightful)
The Million Permission Project (Score:2, Insightful)
In the event that they cannot convince Ashcroft, they could also start another project which would automate and simplify the process of obtaining this permission.
If anything, making it easier to access this type of information would be beneficial for both the authors and those in search of using their work.
Another Possible Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
This suit seeks to have the laws that implement the Berne Convention struck down as unconstitutional. However, my highly inexpert reading of the Constitution reveals that the Constitution and all treaties entered into by the US are the supreme law of the land. The Berne Convention is just such an international treaty. Thus, it would seem that the supremacy clause trumps any argument Lessig et al may bring before the court, since the terms of the Berne Convention enjoy equal footing with the Constitution.
Now, if the US enters into a treaty that is in direct opposition to the Constitution, which document wins? I have no idea if this issue in Constitutional law has ever been addressed.
Schwab
Unconstitional? (Score:5, Insightful)
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Notice how no execeptions are made for abandonware, shareware, vaporware, freeware or any other type. So now the question to ask seems to be what constitutes limited? My limited copyright time doesnt seem to equal Mickey Mouse's.
Jason
Argue About Stuff [arguecity.com]
Re:Hasn't this already been settled? (Score:5, Insightful)
Answer honestly. Do you believe that this is true, that an original content creator has perpetual rights to control the use of his work?
If so, congratulations, you believe in the European model of copyright, where it is an inherent right of a person.
In the US, however, copyright is not an inherent right. Instead, public domain is the inherent right, and the constitution grants a limited monopoly on creative works ONLY so that the public domain is improved. Thus, in the US, once an author/creator/etc. chooses to write down and release a work, he or she has given up perpetual control of that work. The constitution demands that, after a limited monopoly, the public domain shall inherit the work.
Frankly, I agree with the constitution. Some things belong to humanity, not to the greed or whims of those in control. The sum body of human creativity is one of them.
Re:Pretty sweeping (Score:3, Insightful)
I've created works that I have specifically registered with the copyright office. An example is the comic strip, below. I registered this work to protect myself from people reprinting the strip against my will for financial gain. For instance, I don't want to be browsing through a book in a bookstore and come across my strip printed there, and I want to have the full benefit of the tools of financial restitution available to me should that occur.
If, on the other hand, you, Joe Blow, wanted to use the very same strip for your own purposes and you weren't planning to really make money off it and your use really wouldn't do any damage to my ability to "profit" off the strip, in my opinion, then I might just allow you to use it. In fact, even if you never contacted me for permission to use it (but I'd prefer you did), there'd be nothing stopping you. All I'd have to do to "unlock" that terribly "locked up," copyrighted work is
Follow me? One common misconception about copyrights is that they "go away" if you don't defend them. That can be true of trademarks, but not of copyrights. If it's my personal policy to sue Disney when they infringe my copyright, but not sue individuals like you, then that's my business and nobody else's.
On the other hand, he seems to be saying that we should go back to mandatory registration, because at least then works that nobody remembers to register will be public domain. Well, where's the fairness in that?
Who do you think is more likely to register everything they produce: Disney, with its army of lawyers? Or me?
So the end result of mandatory registration is that companies like Disney continue to amass their ivory towers of intellectual property, while people like you and me lose out. That is, Disney would be able to make use of our works with impunity, because nobody took the time to educate us to be diligent about registering our works if we believe in the protections of copyright.
P.S. And I shouldn't need to remind you that most of us here do believe in the protections of copyright. Copyright law is the very backbone of licensing structures like the GPL.
Re:Hasn't this already been settled? (Score:2, Insightful)
With copyright terms "protecting" works for longer than their recorded medium can hold them, we are faced with a very real danger of our history, culture and knowledge disappearing.
If you want to live in the dark ages, find a cave somewhere. Me, I kinda like some things about the 21st century.
Re:Pretty sweeping (Score:3, Insightful)
It also makes copyright an almost acceptable premise. To expect every idea to be "born copyrighted" is just a little too much. How greedy and lazy can one get? They want all this protection and don't want to put up ANY effort to apply for it. Talk about wanting a free lunch... If you want to have it and keep it, you should have to go out and get it and maintain it.
Re:Hasn't this already been settled? (Score:1, Insightful)
But then, if the creator only gets rights for the length of their own life, are publishers and movie makers going to want to accept material from authors who are in their golden years? Hell no - because they can't make money off the material very long.
So we have the situation we have now. Life of the creator plus.. however long. It sucks, I know.. but what other solution is there? I think it's wrong for material to never return to public domain, but I also think it's wrong to force someone to put their material out in the public for other people to make money off of while they're still alive. What if I'm living in a cardboar box but Random House is still running the 74th printing of my book and raking in cash for themselves? That's just wrong.
Re:Hasn't this already been settled? (Score:3, Insightful)
Often Disney stops production of a video title and lets the market go without new copies for seven or so years then re-releases it. I think under the idea of abandonware, it has been abandoned for seven years.
Re:Dear Mr. Ashcroft (Score:1, Insightful)
If he were a member of the Islam religion and had had similar objections to nakedness, would you take fault with him then?
He also has daily prayer sessions with his staff. Regardless of their faith.
Does he require that his staff attend and participate?
So he should be forbidden from praying? By extension, should all civil servants renounce their religion in order to do their job?
Again, would you object to this if he was a muslim? Or would you just sit silent?
There are also stories of him asking judges to annoint him with oil when he got into a new position... weird stuff. He's just an all around nut.
Have anything to back that up? A link to an eye-witness account of this? Or just more rumors?
Seems to me you (and many others here) are in the business of Ashcroft FUD.
The Court doesn't like repeat challenges (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe they are right and the court is wrong on Eldred, but until a Democratic president can get in for another 8 years and Kennedy and Scalia get the boot, they won't win.
Comments are owned by the Poster. (Score:5, Insightful)
The abandonware issue is more substantial. A requirement that copyright be renewed for $1, or that it be deemed abandoned if nobody is available to offer the rights after a reasonable period of time, is more rational. Perhaps one of those evil "activist judges" will so find.
Re:Pretty sweeping (Score:2, Insightful)
In the case of your comic, twenty years from now you probably won't care much if someone wants to archive it for a non-profit use. In the intervening time though, any contact information that the comic contains on it may no longer be valid. Can you then see the possible benefit of having a central repository of contact information for copyright holders? If it is the responsibility of the user to obtain permission from a copyright holder, shouldn't it at least be possible to contact that person?
Re:Hasn't this already been settled? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Summary: burden authors to make his life easier (Score:5, Insightful)
That's precisely what "unconditional copyright" does. The author is expecting the gov't to automatically protect his work without any effort on the author's part. If the author wants protection, he should have to go out and "buy" it like anything else. Too many people looking for a fast buck on everything they utter. "Endless copyrights"..."automatic copyrights"... What next? Do you want the gov't to go through the trouble of thinking up the idea for you also?
Re:Pretty sweeping (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Hasn't this already been settled? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are no longer making that idea available, then what exactly are the people gaining from your artificial monopoly? What are you gaining? Nothing. The reason for the monopoly is no longer valid.
If you don't want a work published, the solution is simple: Don't publish. If you have published it, but later decided you didn't want to... Well, it's too late, in any event.
Copyright is a bargain between the public and authors. When the public is not benefitting from the bargain, then it should be reevaluated. When neither side is benefitting, then the bargain should be abandoned.
Re:Hasn't this already been settled? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the author is allowed to put their works away in a vault with a bomb on a timer that will go off at some point in the future.
While there are criminal and civil statutes surrounding copyright now, copyright has been more of a social contract than anything else. This social contract says basically "Sure, you can control the creative expression of the idea for a limited time, but after the limited time, all of society may benefit from your idea".
Actually, it does (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice, however, that it is quite clear about the reasoning. It is to promote progress, in other words, to make sure the work is distributed. Also notice it is clear about the limited times, in that the author can only have control for a while, then it belogns to everyone.
So it's clear that it is unconstutional to use copright to try and maintain control forever and not share with anyone.
*How* (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dear Mr. Ashcroft (Score:5, Insightful)
I would take fault with anyone who looks at a statue of justice and sees nakedness.
"So he should be forbidden from praying?"
On the job? Absolutely, unless he's doing it during his lunch break and in private.
This would affect Open Source as well (Score:3, Insightful)
I can just see the legal tangle such a change would cause for Linux, et al. I also question how well such a change would work with the Berne Convention, since we're not talking about a novel here, written in one country, but a product written by hundreds of contributors from around the planet, both US and elsewhere. IANAL, but this looks like it would be a real mess, with no one winning but the lawyers.
Re:Summary: burden authors to make his life easier (Score:3, Insightful)
2. The plaintiff is specifically concerned with books that are no longer published but are still protected by copyright. Books that would otherwise be unavailable to the public.
3. The progress clause of the consitution limits Congress' authority to laws which "promote the progress of science and useful arts". I fail to see how automatically protecting works that are unavailable to the public promotes progress of anything.
Copyright is the means, not the end. The end is the benefit society receives by making creative works available to the public. Copyright is the incentive to do so. If the works aren't available to the public, why do they deserve protection?
Re:Dear Mr. Ashcroft (Score:1, Insightful)
Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just use a burka?
Re:Hasn't this already been settled? (Score:1, Insightful)
It is a LIMITED license to have complete control for a limited time of your wirk with the limitation that your Amazing, fantastic world changing work becomes the property of the entire planet,solar system,galaxy at the end of that time.
Yes your "property" will be ripped from you and given to everyone on the plnet for free while we ridicule you.
Granted scumbags like Sonny Bono and other complete nimrods have bastardized american copyright law to become pretty much a perpetual copyright which in it's self very wrong but is not the issue at hand.
if the author doesn't want it released, he should have NEVER copyrighted it in the first place. I.E. keep it secret, hidden, or destroyed.
If you ever release something, then it is out there forever and ever unless you go and KILL everyon that has seen it.
the MPAA learned this as DeCSS allows people to view the DVD's at will without the content or viewing controls that CSS provides (no copy protection is part of CSS... understand that?)
the RIAA is learning that you cant kill mp3's or music sharing, something that has been happening cince the 1950's anyways....
it's about time that programmers and writers learn.. YOU DONT OWN ANYTHING! IT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE PLANET AND YOU HAVE A LIMITED LICESNE TO EXPLOIT IT...
got it?
Re:Hasn't this already been settled? (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, how much money should you be allowed to rake in from something. If you can't profit from it in TWENTY YEARS, do you honestly think it is worth anything. How many publishers or movie distributors are going to see the latest novel/film, and say - screw them, I can publish it for free if I wait twenty years?
What is this "I'm still alive so it's mine" fixation? That logic got extended to - who will feed my kids when I die? Now we have life + XX years
Re:Hasn't this already been settled? (Score:3, Insightful)
SydShamino has his finger on the pulse. He's pretty accurate. In fact, SydShamino, would it be OK to copy a sentence or two from your post for the Respect The Public Domain Web site? I'd probably put some of the text from your fourth paragraph onto the following page:
http://www.respectthepublicdomain.org/what.html [respectthe...domain.org]
I think your wording is more succinct and accurate than mine.
Re:Dear Mr. Ashcroft (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ok, I'll Clarify (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, tracking down the authors (or, rather, their rights-holders) can be an impossible task for just one work. And what if all of the survivors of the author don't know which one of them has the rights? Or even if any of them have the rights?
What if even the records of who owns the rights have been lost? It's almost a self-referential problem...in the era before computers, not only works but the legal documents about the works were stored as paper. And paper can get misplaced, or eaten by insects, or destroyed in fires, floods, etc. What happens to a work that there is no way even to find out who owns it anymore?
Multiply that by the tens or hundreds of thousands of works out there that are lying fallow, and you begin to see that it's not just "a lot of work." It's an immense, totally impossible amount of work. It's akin to the Augean Stables of Greek myth.
Thus, just as Hercules creatively rerouted a river through those stables to clean them out, Kahle and the co-plaintiffs are hoping to make the problem of finding the rights-holders for abandoned works irrelevant.
They're not even talking about stuff that people are still publishing and making money off of. If they're doing that, then they know who the rights holders are, and the rights holders care enough about the stuff to keep it available. They're talking about the stuff that's lying fallow and not benefiting anybody.
To me, this seems like a pretty good compromise between the Mickey Mouse contingent and the Information Wants to Be Free contingent, if it goes through. Let Disney keep Mickey...let people who care about their works keep them. But let us have the stuff that nobody else wants anymore.
I'm sure that there will be some sort of well-reasoned and fair mechanism for determining what's been abandoned and what hasn't. I don't think it'll be arbitrary. I do think that it will do us a world of good to make sure this information does not get lost.
Hrm. (Score:3, Insightful)
"If they want to use my work, then I can grant them the rights to use it."
Only if they can find out that you are the copyright holder and if they can also find out how to contact you.
The problem that this is trying to address is the thousands of works that currently cannot legally be archived or utilized due to the near-prohibitive cost of trying to research who (if anyone) is the proper person to contact.
"If I am required to register my copyright, then I lose some of the ability to protect it."
I don't see how this sentence makes any sense at all. If you are required to register your copyright, or to include some useful copyright notice with the original, it merely gives would be (re)users a standard way to determine that you are the copyright holder they need to talk to. You don't lose anything...
not radical at all (Score:3, Insightful)
With copyright, you get a government-guaranteed monopoly, backed and enforced by police and courts, paid for by tax payers, lasting decades. It seems entirely reasonable to ask you to at least affirmatively assert your copyright.
(Note that GPL stuff very definitely uses copyright as its base. Do you want to have to register every little release to have a valid GPL on it?)
Yes, of course--why wouldn't I? This could be handled completely automatically, with a nominal, tiny fee. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be every tiny release; even with registration requirements, you get a significant period of time to register. So, GPL'ed software could be registered once per year.
Re:Pretty sweeping (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, under the current rules, this text is copyrighted as soon as I hit the Submit button. However, I don't know whether I am the copyright holder. It's possible (and on
So I may be the copyright holder, or I may be a criminal engaged in copyright iinfringement. How can I know which I am? Right - I can't. There is no way that I can possibly know whether someone already owns the copyright to these words. This is because they don't have to register their copyright, and they don't have to publish there words any place that I can find them.
So I have two choices: I can take the risk of infringing someone else's copyright. Or I can keep quiet and not worry.
This seems as clear a violation of free speech as you could possibly have. Any words that I "publish" entail a serious threat of civil and/or criminal charges for copyright infringement, and my only way to avoid this is to say nothing.
Let's see; should I hit the Submit button and take the risk? Ah, why the hell not?
Re:Hasn't this already been settled? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Hasn't this already been settled? (Score:3, Insightful)
> I believe that a person should be able to profit from their own work. Even if that work is "intellectual property."
> Some people believe that such property is actually owned by everyone - not just the creator of that work. That means that others can profit from someone else's work.
It's easy to look correct when you only offer extreme options. The vast majority of us are between these two visions. We believe that yes, someone should be ABLE (not guaranteed) to profit from his work. FOR A LIMITED TIME. You present the other side as saying "abolish copyright, all work is immediately public domain," which is obviously untrue. You are being quite dishonest in stating the "two sides."