Beyond Eldred v. Ashcroft 409
I thought I'd grab up some of the many commentaries and responses to the Eldred decision. If you read only one of these links, see Lessig's blog. Jack Balkin, another law professor who contributed to the case, is discussing it in his blog. The NYTimes has two distinct news stories on the decision (NYT1, NYT2), plus a biting editorial about the decision. Copyright scholar Siva Vaidhyanathan has a piece in Salon. The LA Times posts one of the very few stories to present the decision in a positive light. Reason is one of several to mock the mouse.
Blog (Score:5, Insightful)
I want there to be some good that comes out of Eldred, but right now I'm very disillusioned. So, I'm following Lessig's advice and turning to blogging [salon.com]. Let your opinions be known.
-R
Re:Blog (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Blog (Score:3, Informative)
(Re)Read Breyer's opinion.
I also believe Ginsburg wholly misconstrued the 1st Amendment arguement. Read the Amicus brief [harvard.edu] filed by Burt Neuborne and the Con. Law professor. It reads like a text book on First Amendment jurisprudence. Almost every major decision in the history of Supreme Court First Amendment cases is shown to support a reversal of the Appeals Court's decision that "Copyrights are categorically immune from challenges under the First Amendment."
-R
Re:Blog (Score:4, Insightful)
That's bullshit. It's passing the buck. They should make a stand on what the framers had in mind when they stated "limited times".
My personal opinion is that "limited" should be relative to a human lifespan. As in, we should have access to modern works before we die. Anything created today (and decades before I was born) will still be under copyright when I have turned to dust.
THAT'S SEEMS PRETTY FUCKING UNLIMITED, RELATIVE TO ME.
Furthermore, the Constitution states that all copyrighted works must return to the public domain. NONE OF IT IS ENTERING THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, NOR HAS IT FOR DECADES. Obviously the original intent of the Constitution is being abused.
Re:Blog (Score:5, Insightful)
Has the SC made policy previously? Yes. And it's generally bad when it happens, and acknowledged as being bad afterwards.
I don't like the decision, but I do agree with the reasoning behind it. It is a Congressional matter. And the precedent for the act is set back to the framing of the Constitution.
I may agree with much of what Breyer wrote, but he was wrong to do it from the bench. The majority opinion slams him on this, repeatedly, and in rather harsh language for the Supreme Court at that. Noting that one of your fellow justices writes based out of policy and not out of precedent or rule of law is harsh. It basically says "You're not being a judge".
What Lessig's blog states is correct in that it's now up to the citizens to get Congress to reform IP law. Which, realistically, is how it should've gone in the first place. It's not going to be an easy fight, but the fights that are worth it rarely are. And things may very well get worse before they get better... but that's how it often goes.
I agree that IP law is deeply broken. I don't agree that this was the right way to fix it.
Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no hard and fast rule, so the judges have to decide. The Constitution makes it necessary to decide exactly what "limited" should mean, and it does not grant this power to Congress. What "limited" is interpreted to mean will have a drastic impact on what counts as Constitutional or not, but this does not imply that the SC can avoid making this decision. They are obligated to make this decision. In fact, they have made the decision. Their decision is that even an extension of 100 billion years would be permissible.
Now, something that most people miss is that there is a very easy way to weasle out of this. The Constitution says that Congress "may create limited monopolies." It never says what Congress cannot do. But again, the intention of the framers is paramount. The people writing the Constitution enumerated an ability of Congress. Taken literally, there is no limit applied to this ability. But they clearly intended there to be a limit to this ability. If no attempt is made to divine the intentions of the founders, then SC will leave themselves with very little work.
Where to go from here (Score:3, Insightful)
If in twenty years, they extend copyrights again, then it should be abundently clear to the courts that this is going on, then they might overturn both.
I agree with you that the SC is trying to avoid making policy, and that they were simply not convinced that this was an attempt to circumvent the "limited times" clause. Maybe next time.
However, the real problem is not one that CAM be solved in the courts-- if we had won, we would still have excessively LONG copyright terms. This MUST be solved by going to Congress. This means that any time a proposal os floated, to call, visit, and/or write your congressmen (remember to do this to all three). Also organize, publish, and otherwise educate people as to why copyrights, while necessary, currently are afforded too long a term. Organize, educate, activate, and then we win.
Re:Where to go from here (Score:5, Funny)
This means that we can look forward to corresponding legislation on climate change, the international criminal court, gun control etc. right?
Or is it maybe that big-business sponsored WTO programs [wdm.org.uk] are the real driving force here, and not a desire to match European practice at all?
Re:Blog (Score:4, Insightful)
You really need to re-read Stevens to understand how a logical and therefore constitutional case is made. His argument only refers to constitution and case-law, it's the other guys who mix in the latter-day mumbo-jumbo.
To take just one example, a key plank of the majority position is the constitutionality of the CTEA, but, almost incredibly, here's the justification they quote from the CTEA decision:
"[I]n an era of multinational publishers and instantaneous electronic transmission," the court said, "harmonization in this
regard has obvious practical benefits" [Ginsbury p7]
So now who's making up policy as they go along?
can you explain "legislating from the bench"? (Score:4, Informative)
So you must not agree with Breyer's interpretation of the 1790 copyright "extention" not being retroactive at all but being necessary for the creation of US copyright? You must also not agree with the other dissenting opinion that sharply notes that copyright was designed for authors, not their hires or the rather insightful grasp of how this is a raw deal for everyone but current copyright holders?
Your primary beef here is that you think that restricting the will of congress as regards copyright is "legislating from the bench". That's pretty silly, given the long history of the court doing just that with copyright and patent law. This was a review of a law that congress passed that seems to violate the letter and spirit of the constition. It is the supreem court's duty to examine every law for consistency with the constitution as such inconsistency effectively ammends the constitution. Constitional amendments take much more effort and consent to pass than ordinary laws so no law may violate the constitution. Legislating from the bench generally involves creating whole new branches of law or prescribing specific action. This review would simply have tossed out Mickey Mouse's copyright protection. It would not have set up new offices for administrating that removal, it would not have required the raising of taxes or dictated their spending and it would not have created any kind of new laws. That's far from "legislating from the bench," and in fact it is exacly what the supreme court should do.
Re:Blog (Score:3, Insightful)
Not because I don't support a right to abortion, but because it wasn't accomplished politically, and since it wasn't accomplished politically there's no compromise involved.
If there were to be open debate on it, I think conservatives would have to give a little (rape/incest, save life) to get a little (minors need parental consent, no elective abortions in the second or third trimester). And pro-choicers would too, and we'd probably end up with on-demand abortion for adult women in the first trimester, parental consent for minors, and strict limits on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.
The only people unhappy would the zealots at the extreme ends, but they're not the majority and the bad news for zealots is they never get what they want, ever.
Re:Blog (Score:3, Interesting)
"I'm for the death penalty, I'm pro-abortion, I'm pro-assisted suicide, I'm pro-regular suicide. Anything that'll get the traffic moving." - Bill Maher
It doesn't matter if the brain is half way developed. There's millions of innocent people that die every year, thousands of them have fully developed brains and are killed by the US government with full support of the American public. Its called war. So tell me why should a mother have to ask you if she can kill her child.
We've already decided to kill anyone with the potential to be a "terrorist" (Or at least deny them humane rights). But everyone has the potential to be a "terrorist". So fuck it. What does it matter anyway? Its only life.
Disney - life story (Score:3, Funny)
Reg-Free NY Times Links (Score:3, Informative)
20-Year Extension of Existing Copyrights Is Upheld [nytimes.com]
A Corporate Victory, but One That Raises Public Consciousness [nytimes.com]
The Coming of Copyright Perpetuity [nytimes.com]
Blogs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blogs (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but they've already lost the court case. What's needed now is for the general public to become more aware of the issues at hand and a journal is one way of doing that.
Has Always Belonged in Political Realm (Score:4, Insightful)
(It's telling that the Court went out of its way to explicitly state that the Constitution's grant of powers to Congress doesn't mean that Congress will always legislate wisely. Obviously, the Court is telling us that they won't declare a law unconstitutional just because lots of people think it's a bad law. They're right about that. )
Re:Has Always Belonged in Political Realm (Score:2)
Besides, I think I know of a technical solution, that even these crooks wouldn't dare attack.
Re:Has Always Belonged in Political Realm (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? It's the way things work. Convince enough people to vote the way you want them to, and you'll elect a Congress that will change or repeal the Bono Act. If you don't succeed in that, consider that it might just be because not everyone agrees with you, not because they're evil and corrupt.
If you refuse to play the game, don't complain when someone else wins
What really boggles the mind (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What really boggles the mind (Score:5, Insightful)
The reasons that the public domain is valuable to us are the very same reasons why the new content producers fear it.
-Alison
Re:What really boggles the mind (Score:3, Insightful)
People can never create derivative works of disney characters for three reasons:
First, a derivative work can only be created by the original artist or someone they give permission to.
Second, the copyright on the original movies may expire but not on the artwork of the characters as long as Disney keeps using and changing them.
Finally, Disney characters, such as Mickey Mouse, are also trademarked and therefore can never be used as long as Disney continues to maintain that Trademark. Trademarks never expire on their own accord.
Disney is more concerned with not being able to re-release their movies every twenty years and then locking them up again. This is what they have done in the past and it creates a new revenue stream each time because collectors always want the latest version.
Re:What really boggles the mind (Score:5, Insightful)
So Disney got permission from Robert Louis Stevenson to make Treasure Planet?
Second, the copyright on the original movies may expire but not on the artwork of the characters as long as Disney keeps using and changing them.
What's your point? All that means is that it's okay to use the older image and derivations of it, but not the newer one(s).
Finally, Disney characters, such as Mickey Mouse, are also trademarked and therefore can never be used as long as Disney continues to maintain that Trademark. Trademarks never expire on their own accord.
The name may be trademarked, but the image isn't.
Re:What really boggles the mind (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, when was the last time that Disney released any of its classic movies to theatres?
I was looking at boxofficemojo.com the other day, and I don't think I saw a major classic (Snow White, Pinocchio, etc.) released to theaters since 1993. Which is a shame, since I'd rather people take their kids to one of those than to an intern-inked sequel to The Jungle Book (or something even more dreadful). Plus, it'd cost them even less to re-release a classic than to create a new knockoff, no matter how cheap the animators.
So, I guess what I'm asking, off-topic, is why the hell is Disney not re-issuing movies that were actually very good, instead of releasing crap every 4 months?
Re:What really boggles the mind (Score:4, Insightful)
Daniel
Re:What really boggles the mind (Score:5, Informative)
Well, at least until copyright expires. That is the entire point of the discussion. Once copyright expires I can make any sort of derivative work I like (Like Disney itself did when it made the Jungle Book 11 years after the copyright on the source material expired.
Copyright protects a specific concrete creation, not the concept. So while new Mickey works would have a new copyright start date, the old Mickey works do not. Once the copyright expires, I'm free to take a copy of "Steamboat Willie" and edit it into something, or study it carefully to learn how to draw Mickey, then draw (and sell) my own Mickey draws based on that knowledge.
This is true, and creates a fascinating new area for legal sorts to fight over. This clearly limits free speech in an area where something enters the public domain. It hasn't really come up before because prior to Mickey there hasn't been characters in copyright protected works which people wanted to reuse. One possibly defense is that you are allowed to use and reference trademarks as long as there is no possibility of someone confusing the source. This is why I can create a documentary on Disney, even using Disney's logos, even though Disney's copyright does cover the area of documentaries. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Darn shame it will be at least twenty more years before it starts playing out.
Re:What really boggles the mind (Score:2, Interesting)
Part of the problem, I belive (and may be wrong), is that Disney sells this as "protecting the image of Mickey Mouse", and goes around telling lawmakers that unless "Steamboat Willy" always has copy protection, we're going to start seeing Mickey in porno movies.
But Mickey Mouse & all the other characters are Trademarks... the only thing the expiration of copywrite will allow is that we can trade Steamboat Willy on KaZaA Lite all day long and not break any laws, it won't give us the right to remake movies with Mickey playing the part originally played by Ron Jeremy.
Re:What really boggles the mind (Score:2, Insightful)
If you see Ron Jeremy in a Mickey suit, there isn't any real chance that anyone's going to just assume it's a Disney movie. Nobody is getting confused about who is trying to sell them the movie. Nobody is going to draw a false inference about the quality of the movie, or be surprised. I can't imagine someone mistakenly thinking, "Oh my god, this movie isn't what I expected at all. Disney ripped me off!" Thus, such use would not conflict with the purpose of trademark.
If an act does not conflict with the purpose of a law, then it should not be prohibited by that law.
Re:What really boggles the mind (Score:3, Interesting)
And why should that be such a problem? Is it possible that kids will be confused when Mickey starts boinking Minnie? If so, my question is not "Why was Mickey allowed to do porn?" but rather "Why is some kid watching porn?"!
Note I'm not saying the parent post agreed with the argument. I'm merely addressing the argument Disney might put forth. Mickey's innocent image (whatever) might be tarnished, but only in the eyes of the people that saw the porno movie. And should Disney really be concerned about how those people view Mickey's innocence?
Re:What really boggles the mind (Score:2)
Not so, grasshopper... (Score:2, Interesting)
For instance, if I rememeber correctly, the label that owns the rights to Maria Callas's recordings gets 15% of their revenues from her alone... And she's been dead for decades
For many film, record and book companies, it's the back list that provides the strong base to their revenues--a hit this year may turn out profits, but that's only because the stuff they did 20+ years ago is keeping the lights on
Re:What really boggles the mind (Score:2, Informative)
We're talking about more money than you probably think.
According to Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion [stanford.edu], only 2% of copyrighted works between 55 and 75 years old retain commercial value, but that that 2% is conservatively estimated to bring in $400 million a year in revenues to the copyright holders.
That's billions over the next 20 years.
Re:Small tax rebate (Score:3, Insightful)
The LA Times Article (Score:5, Insightful)
To quote the woman in the article, about her grandfather's films:
"I'm happy that people won't be able to take his art and show it in a way that would diminish or hurt it, or put it in a way that he wouldn't have wanted," she said.
From what I can tell, she's mainly worried about people selling tapes on EBay. How horrible. People VIEWING AN ACTORS FILMS! I'm sure that's the last thing he wanted.
I'm glad this woman cares for his legacy. I commend her work. But in the bigger picture, her win is the loss for many of us. I'm sure in 20 years, when the companies go to congress asking for a longer copyright extention, there will be some other justifications.
But in the end, I'd rather see a legacy for all. No man stands tall except on the shoulders of others.
Re:The LA Times Article (Score:2)
Re:The LA Times Article (Score:2)
Which bring up the interesting question: Are properties like these handled by estate tax, just like phyical property?
Re:The LA Times Article (Score:5, Interesting)
I've had some brushed with asshole IP a few times in my travels. Notably, I once worked on a set of commercial CD-ROMs for some classic rock bands. We had a spectacular - nay, epic - struggle with Jimi Hendrix's sister, who for all intents and purposes lives off the ghost of her dead brother. She has all rights, and doesn't actually *do* anything. Long story short, we spent weeks and weeks bending over backwards, crossing and dotting all letters, only to have her change her mind at the last minute.
Another example: Grateful Dead. There are exactly 2 approachable sources for interview footage of Jerry Garcia: the BBC, and Some Guy in the States. Some Guy purposefully bought up all this footage, and now that's his job. He lives off Jerry's ghost.
Even if you are the rightful descendant/heir to some great artist, I don't, in my opinion, think you have the slightest shred of 'rights' to that work. None. Son, daughter, whatever. The only cocnession that makes sense is a wife/partner, and even then it just seems unjust. The LA Times article crowed about how this woman can now 'lovingly restore' her ancestor's works at her own personal expense, but she's selling tapes on eBay. Better than it dissappearing, but what if she was the one misrepresenting, defiling, or otherwise tainting the name of her ancester? No recourse.
It just makes no sense to me. Someone tell me why its a good idea to 'inherit' copyrights. If they made a ton of money with those rights, fine, let the children inherit that money. Rights, I don't think so.
Re:The LA Times Article (Score:3, Interesting)
If the author dies immediately after finishing his/her magnum opus, it makes sense that their immediate family should recieve some benefit. Additionally, publishers would be extremely reluctant to publish a book by a 90 year old author, expecting that they would not have exclusive rights for long. That's the argument, at least, and I agree to an extent. That extent, for me, leads me to support a life+15* term. That way, the kids get a nest egg, but they can't live off the ghost. Also, publishers have at least 15* years to milk the profits.
* let 15 represent a number close to the average publishing run for a reasonably successful book.
Re:The LA Times Article (Score:5, Insightful)
Were the orginal to go to public domain, it would not harm the copyright of her derivative.
Lets put it in perspective. Were she complaining that his work was about to go to public domain and that no money would come to her over something she never put any work into, she would be a leech. However, she is adding value. This added value means that she should be confident in letting the older work to to public domain. She will still be able to make money, through her added value.
In the end, she's not actually gaining ANYTHING from the extension of copyright, only hampering fans of her grandfathers work from buying and selling it.
Misleading and emotional pieces like this make me more disgusted with the media every day.
Who is the public domain? All of us. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for Justices Breyer and Stevens, the Supreme Court has sold out. They have given their Nihil Obstat to perpetual copyright, and ignored the Constitution, no matter what they say in Justice Ginsburg's majority opinion. We can expect another Copyright Term Extension Act every twenty years. Citing this precedent, the Supreme Court will do nothing about it. I guess I should have expected as much from the Supreme Court that decided to throw out the results of the 2000 election, and coronate Bush.
Soon, no one but historians will know what the public domain even was. We are all the public domain, and have all been robbed. An idea once expressed belongs to us, and is only on loan to copyright holders. Now, the loan can last forever. Copyrights frequently do not even go to the artists, scientists, and inventors who do the actual creating, but to parasites who exploit them. From now on, as the public domain, we should all engage in "piracy" as a form of civil disobedience, and take back what rightfully belongs to us. To hell with unjust laws that the corporations bribed Congress into passing, and bribed 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices into upholding. We, the public domain, must declare them null and void, and ignore them.
Imagine that the perpetual copyrights the corporations have created always existed. The King James Version of the Bible would be copyrighted. To print copies of it, you would need permission from the British Crown, or at least the Church of England, and would also have to pay them royalties. The KJV is so widely published because it is in the public domain, and anyone who wishes to may make copies of it. Now, nothing created after 1923 may ever belong to us all in this manner again.
It seems that Government of the people by the people and for the people has perished from the earth. We are left with government of the people by the corporations and for the corporations. I challenge Congress or the Supreme Court to prove me wrong.
Woah there doomboy! (Score:2)
You forgot about one of the other milestones of freedom [gnu.org]
Re:Who is the public domain? All of us. (Score:4, Insightful)
It has often been said that movements gain by losing in the Supreme Court. Some feminists say it would have been better to lose Roe, because that would have built a movement in response. I have often wondered whether it would ever be possible to lose a case and yet smell victory in the defeat. I'm not yet convinced it's possible. But if there is any good that might come from my loss, let it be the anger and passion that now gets to swell against the unchecked power that the Supreme Court has said Congress has. When the Free Software Foundation, Intel, Phillis Schlafly, Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase, Kenneth Arrow, Brewster Kahle, and hundreds of creators and innovators all stand on one side saying, "this makes no sense," then it makes no sense. Let that be enough to move people to do something about it. Our courts will not.
This is a call to civil disobedience. Public has been betrayed by their own servants. Supreme Court has given a go-ahead to a string of events that will never place anything into the public domain again. Your post rightfully says that all inventions belong to public, on loan to owners, not the other way around!
Re:Who is the public domain? All of us. (Score:3, Funny)
And aliens are helping us clone babies. Want some proof? Just visit http://www.rael.org.
Beware. (Score:2)
Result? My spirit will haunt violators of my work, as I hold a copy of the DMCA over their heads and haunt their dreams.
DMCA + Eldred Case = All your works are belong to us. Soon enough "fair use" will go away too...then what?
Re:Beware. (Score:2, Informative)
The public domain has been assimilated... (Score:2, Funny)
Go Europe (Score:2)
Lessig in his blog sounds almost like there's nothing to be done. But I think there is, in fact, a lot -- just maybe not in the USA. The real battlefront is in Europe now, where a shortened copyright term of 50 years has held up since 1985. Is it in danger? This is tied with the bigger question of whether Europeans allow Bruxelles to become a business lobbying turf just like Washington.
Re:Go Europe (Score:3, Informative)
NY Times article I submitted [nytimes.com]
Non NYT article:
Copyrights Expiring in Europe [bayarea.com]
Re:Go Europe (Score:3, Interesting)
The French reduced the term to 50 years (for books, films, music) in 1985 [adminet.com], and so far as I understand this has been adopted across Europe. (In any event, the healthy industry of independant reissues which this decision spun also flourishes in Spain, Austria, the UK,...)
Of course as the limit now approaches the beginnings of the LP era, the RIAA is starting to call this piracy [nytimes.com].
It should also be undestood that "Copyrights" (or "Author's rights" as they call them) have a different meaning over there. For one thing they belong to the author forever -- publishing companies cannot buy them as part of their contracts.
(The day they can be bought is probably the day we'll hear a clamor to extend them in order to "protect the artists" :-)
Benefits of Public Domain (Score:5, Interesting)
When your really think about it, the fact that they are trying to prevent stories from enterring the public domain is even more hypocritical.
Re:Benefits of Public Domain (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm being serious. This is a company that built it's empire simply rehashing other people's stories.
Let me think.. Ummm...
Lilo and Stitch
The Fox and the Hound
Aristocats
101 Dalmations
Bambi
Fantasia (in a new artwork for old music kind of way)
thats all I got
I'm sure there are a few live action or cartoon shorts that are original works.
Try and make a feature length cartoon about the Hunchback of Notre Dame or the Jungle Book and see how long till Disney is threatening you with C&D orders and lawsuits. That's what really burns. It's as much about stealing our culture as it is about 'protecting' their IP.
Re:Benefits of Public Domain (Score:3, Informative)
"Bambi" was taken from the Felix Salten novel of 1926, rights acquired by Disney in the late 30s and released as a movie in 1942. In true Disney fashion, Salten was bent over and fucked. His daughter inherited his rights and then when she died, her husband. When he decided that his copyright (remember, we're promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, here) should have brought him more money, Disney pointed to a short story publication of "Bambi" from 1923 lacking a copyright notice and claimed that the story was public domain from the get-go and even if it wasn't, it was _now_ because Salten's daughter didn't file for a copyright extension in time (assuming that the clock began ticking with the 1923 publication).
"101 Dalmatians" (with an 'a') was written by Dodie Smith in 1956 as an adaptation of her story "The Great Dog Robbery", published in Woman's Day magazine. Disney bought the film rights and released the animated film in 1959.
Face it, folks, even when Walt was running the company they were villainous, scurrilous, thieving bastards cashing in on adults' desire for their children to see big-eyed animals that sang.
Since CTEA went into effect, what science and useful art has Disney progressed? Well, there was the sequel to "The Little Mermaid", which you may recall was based on the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale. There was a sequel to "Sleeping Beauty", which you may recall was based on the Brothers Grimm fairy tale. There was "The Tigger Movie", which you may recall was based on characters created by A.A. Milne. There was a remake of "The Parent Trap". There was a sequel to the remake of "Dalmatians". There was a sequel to "Mermaid". There was "Tarzan" and then a sequel to "Tarzan", the creation of Edgar Rice Burroughs. There was a sequel to the stolen "Lion King". There was a sequel to Victor Hugo's "Hunchback of Notre Dame". There is "Treasure Planet", a/k/a 'Robert Louis Stevenson's "Treasure Island" in Space'. There's a sequel to the musical adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's "The Jungle Book". I could go on, but I can't go on, if you know what I mean (and I think you do).
Re:Benefits of Public Domain (Score:3, Interesting)
They spin it so it sounds like they're doing charitable work by take these old stories that are central to our culture and making them *more* accessible.
Of course there's no mention that they're trying to kill the public domain. Besides preventing stories from enering, they hijack the stories they borrow. If I tried to make a movie based on the fairy-tale Beauty and the Beast, then Disney would sue me even though I didn't take anything from their movie. What's more disappointing is most people wouldn't like my moving because they're used to the disney version and since mine is different, it must be all wrong.
Jason ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:Benefits of Public Domain (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=50808&cid=5
I would like to say that in the long run protectionism, which this really is, has never worked. Unfortunately I'm not enough of an historian to really say that. OTOH, maybe someone will back up this opinion, or tell me I'm full of it.
go suzzie ... go suzzie (Score:5, Insightful)
now i'm sure suzzie has worked hard for her digitally remastered films, but just because they were grandpa's films doesn't mean they're hers. it's been said over and over and over again. usefull art and science... to the creator... for limited times... NOT to the creator's grandchildren for decades to come for century old media.
Re:go suzzie ... go suzzie (Score:3, Insightful)
- Securing a limited monopoly to the uathor so they can profit from their works
- Giveng them... A BRAND NEW CAR!!!
- Giving them the comfort of mind to know that even if they shoudl die, their children (and grandchildren) will still be ok
- An all-espense trip to grlitzy Las Vegas!
Yes, the consitution said the monopoly is given only to the authors. But it was to give them incentive. Securing their children's well-being, as any good parent would like to do (who is the beneficiary of you and your wiife's life insurance policy?). That also is an incentve to create. Now, whether or not its constitutional for Congress to grant that incentve is another story.That's just for the US (Score:2)
Re:That's just for the US (Score:2)
While this may rile up some Americans, I agree. But that doesn't mean the verdict pisses me off any less. Surely you can see *why* it would make us upset. If anything, the fact that the rest of the world hasn't embraced stupid regulations like this should be an indicator of how silly it really is. Of course, for the rest of the world, I just hope they don't look at US companies, see how much money and power they hold over the population, and try to emulate that.
Re:That's just for the US (Score:2)
Still that's a LOT of content (good or bad - that's subjective) that is locked away from US citizens.
Re:That's just for the US (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, ever since the Berne Convention intellectual property rights have become enmeshed across international borders.
The signatory nations have agreed to respect the intellectual property rights granted by the member nations. That effectively makes international copyright law the sum of the most restrictive versions.
Of course, if another country strongly disagrees with something, their enforcement could be minimal. That is really all we have to hope for.
I mailed my Congresscritters (Score:5, Insightful)
I snail-mailed and e-mailed my Congresscritters yesterday. The short version of it is:
Something like that...
-l
Re:and we all know (Score:2)
-l
Corporations rule this country. (Score:2, Insightful)
WSJ editorial, too (Score:3, Informative)
This is not really about the Eldred case, but about why American mass-market culture sucks, and perpetual copyrights are listed as a contributing factor.
Just had lunch with Lessig (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, he's still very shaken up by the ruling and honestly didn't see that decision coming. He said that in all the cases he's ever been a part of, this was the single one that he lost the most sleep over (and he's lost a good chunk of change as well).
He seemed to be more concerned about copyrights and the world at large than his own personal loss, however. He also had a twinkle in his eye though, which seemed to indicate that although he was down, he was far from out.
Expect to hear much more from Larry in the near future, and hopefully his appeal will be granted.
Re:Just had lunch with Lessig (Score:5, Funny)
>> Expect to hear much more from Larry in the near future
NO DOUBT!
Re:Just had lunch with Lessig (Score:4, Funny)
Appeal? This was the SC, you know. What're you expecting Lessig to do, pray to God to overturn the verdict?
Re:Just had lunch with Lessig (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot. News for Nerds. Stuff that Larry Lessig eats.
Re:Just had lunch with Lessig (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard enough for most of us to find stable jobs these days
I'm the senior Information Technology (IT) chairman for the state of Maryland's public schools from grades K through 12.
Wow! How do you find time to chair Maryland's Educational IT department, meet with Larry Lessig in California, and still try to find a stable job?
Please use links that do not require registration. (Score:3, Informative)
NYT1: 20-year extension of existing copyrights is upheld [nytimes.com]
NYT2: A corporate victory, but one that raises public consciousness [nytimes.com]
Biting editorial: The coming of copyright perpetuity [nytimes.com]
It's a Wonderful Life! (Score:5, Interesting)
It was rotting away, unwatched in film company vaults. They probably weren't even planning on making archival prints when the originals finally turned to dust. Then, in the 1980's, it reverted into the public domain just at the same time that a burgenoning cable industry was looking for a source of cheap filler for the holidays.
BOOM! Instant classic!
- If it had stayed under copyright, it wouldn't now be a part of our common, errrr... public culture
- It was the greedy media companies stealing from themselves that made this happen.
My point? These people don't know what the hell they're talking about. They have no idea of the effect of their decisions."The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone."
Jack Valenti, MPAA
Re:It's a Wonderful Life! (Score:2)
Or at least that's what I heard....
This is what it's all about (Score:3, Interesting)
That is the power we have, a power that is woefully un-utilised. Look at the power slashdotting has over websites that are unprepared. Imagine if that were translated into letters to representatives, letters to the editors, and dare I say it, votes. 'If we don't hang together, we shall surely hang seperately.'
Internet now included in publication ban [xnewswire.com]
Compare this to Mortgages (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the same as when you sign a mortgage contract. You agree to pay $xxx/month for 30 years and then the house belongs to you. It would be insane for Congress to come along 28 years later and decide that, because that house is still valuable to the mortgage company, your 30-year mortgage is suddenly an 80-year mortgage. The contract you signed 28 years ago is void, and instead of 2 more years of payments ahead of you, you have 52, then they'll do the same thing.
Yes, that would be insane. But the Congress doesn't think so and the Supreme Court doesn't think so. And that, my friends, is "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," as Americans accept it today.
Re:Compare this to Mortgages (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone thought of suing? (Score:2, Interesting)
Great opportunity for Mickey Mouse Jokes (Score:5, Funny)
Why Copyrights Must Die (Score:5, Interesting)
2nd, copyrights are a fraud in that they don't help creators that much. Often you'll hear it cried from the rooftops that the artist is king and that anybody who finds a need to copy is a self centered brat that offers nothing of value to society. Perhaps this is intentional as to distract from the fact that for every artist that makes it big, 10000 are in dirt poverty.
3rd, they are worthless as a free market property right. If I said I had no incentive to grow apples unless I could plant them in your yard, or I said that I had no incentive to grow cotton without owning slaves on the plantation - people would see it as the worthless arguments that they are, but if I say I have no incentive to bring things into the public domain without a copyright monopoly - they just take it on faith, they don't even question it. If the govt gave someone a monopoly on growing peaches and then called it free market because he could buy and sell shares of that monopoly - people would see it for what it is, a fraud. The same is true with copyrights. Since peoples activities have a natural limit in supply and demand, and not information, it is the activities that should be equated to market value and not information.
4th, information is so easy to copy and manipulate that we are quickly reaching a point where either all of it must be controlled or none of it. The copyright industries know that and so should you.
On to Golan v. Ashcroft! (Score:5, Interesting)
The CTEA took some works which were previously in the Public Domain in the US and restored their Copyright. Golan, a conductor, lost the use of some compositions which were formerly in the PD in the US. This case will now procede.
RIghtly decided (Score:3, Informative)
Whether this law is wise or not is another matter. If the Constitution prohibited Congress from passing unwise laws, the Supreme Court would be striking down laws as fast as Congress could pass them.
If you don't like it, the proper thing to do is complain to your representative in Congress. It these guys thought they'd lose even 1% of the vote by doing this, they'd turn around so fast you wouldn't see it.
Biting editorial? WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Allow me to summarize this "biting editorial":
1) The Supreme Court's decision that extensions to copyright were constitutional really just favored copyright holders. Holy fuck, no kidding?
2) Even the defense didn't really think that the laws Congress passed would be declared unconstitutional, but they still tried.
3) The public benefits from public domain. Also, an unsupported assertion about how the public domain is a "great democratic seedbed of artistic creation" is put forward. A fine sentiment, whatever, still nothing "biting".
4) The author concludes that this is a setback for the public domain, and adds some doom and gloom nonsense about how it's the beginning of the end for it.
Come on, people. Is this what "biting" has come to mean these days? No fucking way.
"Biting" would have been to call Lawrence Lessig a bumbling idiot for presenting such a ridiculously weak case to the Supreme Court. "Biting" would have been to further berate him for his self-serving commentary that basically boils down to "well, gosh, I knew I wouldn't win but I had to try. Ain't I such a great person for trying? Now, it's your turn. You go fix the problem."
What a chode. Opponents of the DMCA and other copyright extensions had a great chance to make a compelling argument about the benefits of the public domain, and Lessig fucks it up. How many similar cases do you think will make it before the Supremes now? That's right, ZERO. It's called a precedent and it now works against us. Thanks, Lawrence.
Moving on to other potential targets, a "biting" editorial could also have noted that Disney, who has drawn heavily from public domain, is downright reprehensible for refusing to give anything back.
Similarly "biting" remarks could have indicated that the Disney films which drew most heavily from public domain material (Beauty and the Beast, the Little Mermaid) have been enormously successful, while those which come from the febrile, impotent imaginations of the hacks at Disney (Pocahantas, many others ad nauseaum) tend to do quite poorly.
One might also "bitingly" observe that if Disney would just throw these harebrained plots back into the public domain pool and let them profit from others' efforts for a decade or so, by the time Disney ripped them off once more they might be halfway watchable.
Such a "biting" editorial could also have targeted those jackals in Congress who routinely sell out the public's interest in these matters to Disney and other megacorporations. Fuck you, Senator Hollings.
I prefer a little more bite in my "biting" editorials, thanks all the same.
Here's a tip, Michael: if you're going to throw in snide, jackass remarks and unsolicited observations, at least do everyone the courtesy of making them reasonably intelligent.
"Biting editorial" my gangrenous left testicle.
Which Experiment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Take it out of petty cash (Score:3, Interesting)
What I can never get over is how incredibly inexpensive it is for these companies to massively influence legislation. From another excellent Reason article [reason.com], linked from that marsupial interview:
Say it with me in your best Dr. Evil accent: "One *thousand* dollars!". And from Disney's bank account? Boy, that's gotta smart. For that matter, why are the legislators and parties affected in the least by these paltry sums? They may not be paid huge salaries, but they can't be that broke. If this is all it takes to get laws passed, perhaps all we need to do is take up a collection. Even I can afford $1000 for some juicy bill.
(The same thing impressed me with the Salt Lake City / IOC scandal - so you can get your own Olympics for a few pizzas now?).
M-i-c, k-e-y .. (Score:5, Funny)
How to fight back... (Score:2)
Artists, we can place our works under the public domain, FDL or a creative commons license that allows for redistribution and modification. If we can't count on our collective governments to stand up to the entertainment industry then we'll have to build our own open body of work much as the Open Source and Free Software movements have. There is already a very good head start available in the way of material available on the internet to download which is in the public domain.
Possible legal correction (Score:4, Insightful)
Proposed: The owner of a copyright must be actively engaged in "use" (publication, distribution, derivation, etc) of the work, or it goes into the public domain after a period of 14 years. (The original copyright term)
Unfortunately it "allows" Disney to keep their works effectivly eternal. But at least it minimizes collateral damage. Disney's IP isn't that big a chunk, it's all of the other stuff that gets taken out of the public domain in Disney's quest to keep Steamboat Willie that's the real crying shame.
Really, my suggestion to be an official sanction for the "abandonware" concept and applies it more generally. In Disney's interest, it keeps works going into the public domain for them to harvest. To Disney's dismay, it forces them to do something about, "Song of the South." OTOH, it also gives them an out, because it lets them release it and pass the blame onto new copyright law.
From what I understand, copyright law allows libraries to copy during the last 20 years of the copyright. IMHO, there are two problems with this. First off, we don't really know when the last 20 years are, because none of us doubt that there will be another extension when Steamboat Willie's copyright next threatens to expire. Second, nobody is served by allowing a work to languish for the extra 50-70 years under allowed under current law, compared to my proposal. The public isn't served, and since the work has been abandoned, the copyright holder isn't being served, either. Perhaps we can question exactly *how* "promotion of the arts and sciences" are being served by eternity-minus-one-day copyrights on active works, but on inactive works it clearly isn't.
Just a reminder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, the fact that the **AAs have a tremendous amount of power in other countries, but as recent rulings in other countries have shown, their courts are more willing to protect the rights of individuals over the rights of corporations. So while we may lose the battle here in the States, the "world war" may have a far different outcome.
Re:Just a reminder... (Score:3, Informative)
What?? PLEASE DO YOUR HOMEWORK. The Sonny Bono Act extension of the copyright terms equal the WIPO World Copyright Treaty terms from the Berne Convention, which almost all of Europe follows. Thirty-five countries are party to the treaty. The EU's Information Society Directive required EU members to implement the terms of the treaty by the end of last year.
What possibly made you think that the world was any different, aside from your obvious bias against the US?
The WSJ Opinion page gets it right (Score:3, Informative)
Opting Out of Hypermass [opinionjournal.com]
and this one, which ran in the printed edition but on the WSJ site is only for paid subscribers, but appears for free on Yahoo! (go figure)
0.2% For The Mouse [yahoo.com]
Reparation suit against the US? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, I am not a lawyer and I am not even an American so I'm talking out of my ass here but:
1. Before the SBCTEA (Sony Bono Copyright Terms Extension Act) copyrighted works were owned for a duration of N years (for simplicity) and then it was public domain (owned by everybody) from N+1 to the end of time.
2. Since the SBCTEA the "contract" (a very solid contract, it was signed in a law) about the copyrighted works that were produced before its enactment has changed and twenty years that were by this contract owned by the public domain (everybody) have been "seized" by the government* and given to somebody else.
3. The US constitution says "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (fifth amendment)
Unfortunately, the government has grabbed public property (public domain) for a private use so it probably doesn't apply but couldn't there be a way to argue something along the line that by taking these twenty years out of the public domain they have to compensate the American public for the value of what they have taken because it wasn't theirs?
In other word, they give N years to some private party and the rest to everybody else and then they go back on their word (only talking about retroactive extensions here) and take back twenty years that they had given to everybody and give it to the private parties, shouldn't they compensate everybody else for doing that???
Wouldn't it be worth a try to nail them on that? Imagine, given that they would have to compensate you justly (that is, for at least the amount what they have taken was worth) they would have to compensate you for each time you purchase a license to that copyright (say, a tape or DVD of Star Wars Episode IV) or, to see it in another fashion, these works (from 1926 to 1996 or whenever the SBCTEA was enacted) would be tax deductible
Even if this doesn't work (quite likely), if it went far enough (say, it wasn't thrown out of court from the go) it would be a good way to attract the public to the fact that a retroactive copyright extension is the government indirectly giving their money to big companies.
Ok, somebody will probably point out why this is stupid but at least I will have it out of my chest.
*It can't be argued to be government's property so they can do whatever they want with it given that they have to put copyrighted stuff they write in the public domain because they can't own it themselves.
In defense of Disney... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are four major candiadates for worst bas guy here, and I'm curious who would pick which (and i have my own ideas):
Now, whatever you think of the Court, they're the only one in the list that didn't act of financial interest. My guess is the majority simply did not take the interests of the petitioners seriously, and vaguely relied on what's left of fair use to sweep up.
The Disneys greedily acted in the interest of profit, which is exactly what they're supposed to do in capitalism; their shareholders could rightly toss them out for taking a pass on billions in revenue. Arguably they only exploited the opportunities available, assuming they didn't outright bribe anyone. Remember, soft money regulation is a recent accomplishment.
The President
Sorry to be cynical (unlike Congress), as no one has mentioned it, but it did not hurt that the act was named after a tragically dead Congressman/singer and sponsored by his widow.
I blame the Congress first, last, and foremost. It should have been obvious that the extension was not in the public interest. I don't know how well anyone lobbied against the act, but the politicians should have taken a close look at a decision involving billions of dollars and backed by a handful of very wealthy sponsors. That Congress has so many members makes it difficult to focus on whom to blame. That they passed the act by voice vote (I didn't know you could do that) during a time of national distraction was a craven and venal act.
I'm not saying I'm surprised Congress didn't do a better job. Which brings us to the vital need to get money out of politics.
So there. Talk amongst yourselves.
good example of advantage of extended copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:good example of advantage of extended copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
How you market it does matter. Shakespeares works are still selling well. If Harold Lloyds family restored and digitized his films then sold them as a DVD set with new material to encourage fans to buy the set, they would sell, with or without copyright.
What's at stake here is money.
Without copyright, the right to sell those films at a premium is lost, and essentially the only money made is on the new work (eg a book about the films, documentary about his stunts, family films etc). Sure, Joe Blow can sell the films but he would have to offer something extra that film fans would want to buy; Buy the familys package with all the goodies, or Joe Blows without any goodies? Sure Joes sells for $5 but you don't get the book/history/behind the scenes that the $30 version gives you.
With the copyright extension those films can be sold at a premium, and they don't even have to try to make new material that would encourage sales because they know they are the only one that can produce these. There is no incentive to actually try to make these appeal to people, plus now they can sell the set for $100 because they can.
As with almost anything where congress gets involved, just follow the money, then you will find out where the real interest lies.
Re:good example of advantage of extended copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
How many movies are rotting away right now because the copyright owners won't let anyone digitize or restore them and yet won't do it themselves?
Re:good example of advantage of extended copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a good reason for extending copyrights, and it betrays the fact that our dialogue on copyrights is entirely reversed from where it should be.
It is first of all an incredibly tenuous assertion that nobody would go to the trouble of restoring these films without the ability to make a buck from them. For instance, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has recently begun to work on preservation of our film heritage as part of their educational and cultural activities.
Many films could be saved from decay by educational institutions.
Second of all, even if it were true that nobody would restore such films without a monetary incentive, there is no reason to believe that
the author and/or his heirs should be the only
ones to benefit. I think it is pretty safe
to say that the market for Harold Lloyd's films
would be large, and if they had reverted into the
public domain, some publisher could step in and
make a fairly good chunk of change off the restoration and pressing of DVDs. If his films
reverted to the public domain, the market would
take over and inexpensive versions of Lloyd's films would be widely available for the public to
enjoy.
The situation now is the same as if all the
films had been lost in a fire: everyone is deprived of a significant contributor to early
film. You can hardly blame his heirs for trying
to make a buck, but arguing that it is the best
of all possible outcomes seems horrendously naive.
Suzanne Lloyd (Score:4, Insightful)
Posted on a message board [ezboard.com], after Suzanne announces DVD will not be available yet (emphasis mine)
And another:
It goes on and on. A lot of Harold Lloyd fans are feeling stiffed by the trust, it seems.
Extensive list of links (Score:3, Informative)
Corporate Personhood is the Problem (Score:3, Informative)
Many folks don't know two facts regarding corporate personhood:
1) The American revolution was in large part a revolution against the Govt. supported practices of large (British) corporations. In post-Revolutionary America, corporations were far more limited and were established primarily to serve the public good, as one can see from the various state laws regarding corps, the interests of stockholders was supposed to be secondary to the commonweal.
2) Corporate personhood was established in 1886 (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) without debate by the USSC, either by accident in an extraordinary example of judicial activism (sources differ) that has in many ways set (non-incorporated) individuals back to the position wrt to Corps. that our forefathers rebelled against.
Refs & More info [reclaimdemocracy.org]
Now it's pretty obvious that the framers never intended corporations to be given the rights of personhood, and thus the ability to extend their copyright far beyond the lifetime of the author.
But so long as the little slip the 1886 court that let corporations demand the full protection granted 'all persons born or naturalized' by the 14th Amendment remains unchallenged, the domination of mere mortals by immortal corporations is likely only to get more and more extreme.
Tax IP annually at 5% of self assessed value (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Copyrights vs. socialism (Score:3, Informative)
Your line of reasoning seems to be to compare intellectual property with normal physical property, where in a socialist society, physical property is often nationalized, versus in a capitalistic society, where property belongs to its owner in perpetuity (except in certain situations, such as the right of eminent domain, but I digress...).
The reasoning is wrong because intellectual property is _not_ analogous to physical property in several very important ways:
1) Intellectual property is non-rivalrous. That is, unlike the car in your driveway, if you share a song, or the text of a book, or any intellectual property, you do not lose your ability to use it.
2) All creativity somewhat depends on the creativity of others who have come before. Are your ideas truly ever yours alone?
It is because of these two reasons (and others, i'm being very brief) that the framers of the constitution believed that the rights to intellectual property should not be in perpetuity.
There are certainly many other cases where the greater good of society as a whole is deemed to outway the "rights" of an individual to do whatever they please, hell, that is the basis of all laws really. In the case of copyright, the benefit to society of a striking a balance between creating a financial incentive for creators to produce new works, and making it possible for others to continue the "progress of the arts and sciences" is many times greater than the benefit produced by treating IP as other property, and allowing creators of works to forever control any derivative work (and everything, everything is derivative of something.) It has nothing to do with socialism.