Kahle v Ashcroft Appeal Filed 359
An anonymous reader writes "Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive has announced that the appeal of Kahle vs. Ashcroft has been filed.
Here is the appeal.
Kahle vs. Ashcroft concerns the constitutionality of changing from an opt-in copyright system (which existed for almost 200 years in the US) to the current opt-out system, where every doodle on a piece of paper is copyrighted for 95 years. Yes, they used the word doodle in their appeal.
Previous stories here, here, and here."
If it ain't broke... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want something copyrighted, you should be responsibile to take care of it. I don't give a shit about your Intellectual Property or otherwise if you can't be bothered to copyrighted.
Different question (Score:4, Insightful)
What are the real goals ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps the real thrust is to force a 'compromise' deal, either to get a hard and fast limit of 95 years agreed (for when Mickey Mouse needs extending) or even to try and reduce that period of time.
When you're shooting against the wind, you have to build in some compensation in order to hit the target...
Simon
Re:You mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Different question (Score:1, Insightful)
Judges shouldn't legislate from the bench. If this Kahle's argument is the right course of action, we should take the case to our legislators to convince them how right it is.
Copyright (c) (Score:4, Insightful)
A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter
Re:Different question (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't. They make judgements based on their interpretation of the law. That's what they're hired for. The phrase "legislate from the bench" is just NewSpeak thrown about to gather support from various groups when they don't agree with a ruling.
Re:Different question (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright has always been a tenuous balancing act between the (imaginary but thought necessary) rights of the copyright owner and the first ammendment rights of a speaker to use that material in his protected speech. There's an important safe harbor for copyright users called "fair use". It's a longstanding collection of doctrines which more or less say that copyright can only go so far, and though Congress has the right to establish copyright law, it can't push it too far into the realm of first ammendment violation.
The recent changes in copyright largely shrunk the fair use region. Congress may not have had the right to do that. This is very much a constitutional issue.
It was broken... (Score:3, Insightful)
Under the old system, somebody could steal your work by taking it and copyrighting it under their name. Even if you could prove you had the earlier work the other guy had a better chance of winning because he had actually applied for, and gotten, the copyright.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when can the dead benefit from finacial gain? Heck, since when should someone have exlusive rights to work they release to the _public_ for their entire life? We live in sad, sad times. I would love to see copyright and patents drop down to 10 years or so. While I don't agree with software patents, I would have a _lot_ less to complain about if software patents dropped to 5 years or so.
Sadly, we will never see these days since our _whole_ government (both republican and democrat) are pretty much paid for by big business or special interest goups.
Re:Innie or Outie? (Score:3, Insightful)
The useful arts are the subject matter of patents. Useful arts are useful technical knowledge. The idea of an art being a kind of skill area is still common in the patent field (e.g. persons having ordinary skill in the art) and even in some idioms in common use, such as 'state of the art technology.'
Let's get grounded here (Score:4, Insightful)
Understand that this is not some change that happened overnight while you were asleep. We have not had an "opt-in" copyright law in the United States since January 1, 1978. And the law was changed even before that -- Congress actually elected to amend the old copyright law in 1976. So I'd be willing to bet that this is the way copyrights have worked since before many of you were born.
And yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Most other country's in the world have opt-out (c) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly, there's nothing natural about not being able to copy a music CD...
Re:Most other country's in the world have opt-out (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, your childhood paintings will be automatically copyright until 70 years after you die!
If a 5-year-old who grows up to be 90 made drawings today, they will still by copyright in 2160! Along with just about every other doodle, plaster handcast, home movie and blog entry every made.
If a researcher wanted to make a book of public domain children's drawings, they'd have to wait a really long time...
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:1, Insightful)
Hmmmm... something is a little off.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly copyright need to expire at sometime, having them extend to infinity is simply unrealistic. The Grandparent post merely feels that the current copyright term is too long and frankly I agree.
Clearly from your post you are one of those that thinks that copyright really is a right. You are wrong in this. It is not a natural right and it is not the same as owning real property. It is like owning air, a thought, or energy. It is not even possible. It is possible for the government to force society to restrict the ability to distribute works, and that is what happens. The goal of this is to give incentives to inventors/creators/writers so that these creations will lead to the progress of all of society. If there is too much protectionism, it can stifle creation. If there is too little protectionism then a market is created in which nobody wants to invest in works of creation. The key is to find the terms of protection which lead to the most progress for each type of intellectual property. I agree with the grandparent in that the current copyright term is far too long. However, I agree with you that 10 years is probably too short for copyrights on photographs.
Re:You mean... (Score:2, Insightful)
Property rights are fundamental. They're basic to our society and our culture. They're inherent in everything that makes up our system of laws and norms.
You're saying that they're not natural. This is, to put it bluntly, fucking ignorant.
Have you ever taken a political science class? Have you ever read Locke?
Re:You mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
Property can only be owned by one person at a time. If someone takes the property, the previous person is deprived of it. This is not so with artistic works and such.
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Isaac McPherson, said the following: "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."
Believing that copyright is a natural right is absolute folly. Copyrights expire (that is, after all, the subject of the article above). A natural Right does not expire!
Let's look at the United States Constitution: "[Congress shall have the power] 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;" A Right, as recognized by the Constitution, is inalienable, endowed by our creator. What the aforementioned passage does is gives people the privilege of a government-granted monopoly over their idea as an incentive to think up more ideas. You need to go here [archive.org] and watch the first video, which covers the difference between Rights and privileges.
Re:You mean... (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. Copyright is about having your cake and eating it too.
Wrong approach to copyright reform. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want fair use exemptions for archiving, fight for that. If you want shorter copyright terms, fight for that. Don't push for a change toward a system that pollutes the world with even more useless copyright filings and notices than we have already while punishing those who don't have a legal department to handle the issue.
Re:True! What a horrible broken system! (Score:4, Insightful)
However the solution is to have a fairly short default copyright that you have to opt-out of. Not just for GPL but to get rid of the legal loophole that *anything* somebody writes is apparenty free for the taking until they manage to get the paperwork done. In a practical sense a short default copyright would stop a lot of unnecessary paperwork because the contributors could think about whether it is worth copyrighting or not, rather than being forced to submit it as fast as possible.
I'm not sure but a length of perhaps 5 years or so would be good. Even a five-year old copy of Linux is not much use so it may not matter for GPL code if nobody filed for the copyright. After that you have to opt-in, and you have to renew the opt-in every 10 years or so after that.
It may also help that the threat that your stuff will go into the public domain if you don't change it and you don't do the paperwork will get some of the authors to work a little more on their stuff and keep it up to date.
Re:It was broken... (Score:3, Insightful)
this is not a race condition, either. there are not two equally valid requests for a single resource, that you need to choose from. one person is the creator, the other is not. you are neither geek nor lawyer seemingly.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
if they keep altering it the way they've done so far.
Re:Innie or Outie? (Score:1, Insightful)
No, but the founders did, by instituting an opt-in system. Moreover, the argument is that copyright should only go so far as to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and no further. Congress doesn't have the power to promote doodling, as it were. As the appeal notes, you don't need an incentive to doodle anyway.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I am a fairly creative person, and yes, I want to leech off the works of others. Trying to create something great without relying on the works of others makes absolutely no sense at all. There is nothing wrong with leeching off of anothers work whether that means paying for use of it or if it has passed into public domain. And yes, protectionism can stifle innovation. Lack of protection can discourage the appeal of investing in innovation because it may lower the returns you get on that investment. Too much protectionism can also discourage investment because it can create a barrier to entry in the market. If competitors are holding defensive patents whether applicable or not, you now have to budget for things like legal expenses and you may also have to purchase rights to use certain technologies.
If complete protection is what is best for society than we should just extend all intellectual property to last forever. Luckily, even the talking heads in Washington realize that complete protectionism would be bad and limit the terms of protection. I merely advocate adjusting those terms of protection to ones that I feel would benefit society as a whole. Those who want to make protectionism vertially limitless are the extremists.
Re:close down IA (Score:2, Insightful)
What is said in the home is private, what is said on the internet is public.e .html [spinsanity.org]
Should web browser caches be illegal?
btw, the whitehouse.gove opts out of the archive cause they have been caught before trying to revise history. http://www.spinsanity.org/posts/2003_08_24_archiv
Why not tax itellectual "property?" (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Unlimited Opt-in... (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to register your copyright to begin with which gets you five or ten years, and then renew your copyright once every five years for a fee of, say, a dollar. You can renew for as long as you like (which would keep Mickey safe and sound) but if your copyright on a work isn't worth a few minutes (we could just have a web based renewal system) and a dollar once every five years, then let the public have at it.
I disagree strongly with this proposal. The worst effect of extended copyrights in my opinion is that publishing houses sit on large collections of works that they refuse to publish, yet prevent anyone else from doing so. There are two reasons why your above proposal will not solve this.
First, it is cheaper to renew all copyrights in their possession for $5 a year then it is to have someone review their catalogue and see what is worth renewing. Second, It is worth $5 a year to keep all the old works from competing with their new releases. This applies to books, music, and movies.
Freedom Now (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem is the length of copyright. The original term of 17 years should never have been extended. If anything, it should be much shorter, now that the time to generously compensate creators for their work is so much shorter in our vast, rapid mediasphere. Something like 5 years, with an option to renew only if no income has been received, to get another chance at compensation for an idea ahead of its time. FWIW, the Internet Archive (which I love) would be a great place to host the opt-out registry, along with MD5 hashes of their free media objects.
Re:close down IA (Score:2, Insightful)
When engaging in a conversation in a restaurant, one should be cognizant that conversations can be overheard, and censor ones self accordingly. If I am in a public place and speaking loud enough for others to hear, they may do so. They may also what they hear in accordance with fair use. Posting on the internet is like speaking very, very loudly, so loudly that the entire world can hear. If this prospect is unsatisfactory then you must lower your voice i.e., use measures that prevent everyone from viewing your speech.
Freedom of speech also includes the freedom to listen and remember.