Slashdot Mirror

Currently copyright is multiple generations long.

The "three-generation principle" was allegedly established a century ago. See "The Copyright Term Red Herring" by Leo Lichtman.

For the past century, the copyright term is supposed to reflect the lifetime of those heirs who knew the artist personally. The article "The Copyright Term Red Herring" attributes the extension to updating the formula based on the fact that people are living longer and reproducing later.

When upholding the 1998 extension in Eldred v. Ashcroft, the Supreme Court did so on grounds that it was harmonizing the copyright term to that of a major market for U.S. works, specifically distinguishing it from the sort of "legislative misbehavior" that commons advocates would refer to as "perpetual copyright on the installment plan." At the time, the European Union had recently extended the term from life plus 50 years to life plus 70 years to reflect the trend to start a family later, as the rationale for life plus 50 in the first place had been the life of those heirs whom the author knew personally.

So to what major market would a third successive extension be billed as harmonizing? No good answer would probably mean the third strike shows "legislative misbehavior."

if we had no copyright law and nothing better to replace it, less content would be created and overall the content would be of lower quality.

Perhaps something "better to replace" three-generation copyright would involve a shorter copyright term and/or broader compulsory licensing. Otherwise, how does the legal power to ban the creation of fan-made derivative works decades later encourage the creation of a work now?

That's not what the copyright industry claims. What happened was that the international standard for the copyright term had been the life of the author's grandchildren, with the exception of the United States. In the 1970s, the United States aligned itself with the international standard. But over the course of the twentieth century, health care improvements caused people to live longer and have babies later. This led first the European Union and then the United States to update the details of what "life of grandchildren" is supposed to mean without changing the spirit of the standard. (Source: "The Copyright Term Red Herring" by Leo Lichtman)

The timing between the US joining the international standard and the international standard reflecting human longevity increase is unfortunate but still coincidental, as the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft recognized when failing to find "legislative misbehavior" in the 1998 extension. In theory, if the Congress thinks of a good enough excuse for a third successive extension, it could squeeze another one past the Supreme Court. But barring further drastic improvements in longevity, I can't find an excuse that would keep a third extension from appearing as "legislative misbehavior".

Thus the three short films establishing the character Mickey Mouse will enter the public domain in the United States on January 1, 2024, after the end of the 95th Gregorian calendar year after the films' first publication. They will enter the public domain in the European Union on January 1, 2037, after the end of the 70th Gregorian calendar year after the death of Walter Elias Disney.

I think AC #54319087 was proposing a repeal of three-generation copyright in favor of a return to the copyright term under the Copyright Act of 1790, which was 28 (not 25) years with a maintenance due after 14.

Project Gutenberg specializes in notable books that are more than three generations old.

The original intent under the Berne Convention was that exclusive rights subsist for the life of those heirs most likely to understand and apply the author's intent in the exploitation of a work, namely the author's children and grandchildren. The copyright term of 50 years after the death of the author, set in the early twentieth century, was thus intended to approximate the life of the author's grandchildren. The 20-year extension that began in Europe in the 1990s was intended to reflect the dramatic increase in heirs' life spans over the twentieth century.

And you're correct that a Berne member country isn't obligated to recognize a longer term of copyright in a work than the country of a work's origin. This is the "rule of the shorter term", and it's been trotted out as an excuse to spread the 20-year extension even beyond those highly developed countries that have benefited the most from twentieth-century improvements to health care.

You could try using the three-generation rule that Disney convinced the Congress to enact into law: Until 70 years after the death of the last surviving Holocaust survivor, it's too soon.

Considering both sides of the Atlantic have been ping-ponging the extensions back and forth every 20 or so years to keep Steam Boat Willie in chains.

A copyright term that approximates the life of the author's grandchildren has been standard in Europe for well over a century. The 1990s term extensions didn't change this rationale; they merely amended its implementation to account for health care improvements during the twentieth century. Barring some drastic change to this rationale or a dramatic improvement to human life span within the next seven years, Gershwin and Disney won't be able to use this excuse again before Rhapsody in Blue, The House at Pooh Corner, and the original Mickey Mouse trilogy enter the public domain in the United States by 2024.

The interim extensions in the 1960s, the Copyright Act of 1978, and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 were all part of the same change: phasing in the "life of grandchildren" standard that the rest of the developed world had been using for decades, including an update to reflect increased overall longevity. The Supreme Court recognized this when it upheld the CTEA in Eldred v. Ashcroft, and the opinion of the Court carefully distinguished this from the possibility of "legislative misbehavior" that public domain advocates would come to call "perpetual copyright on the installment plan". But so far, no major industrialized countries other than Mexico have tried to push anything beyond life of grandchildren. So I don't see a possibility for a drastic shift in the rationale underlying international copyright term standards between now and the end of 2023, when U.S. copyright in the works establishing the characters Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh is set to expire under current law.

In its opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft upholding the Bono Act, the Supreme Court recognized the possibility of "legislative misbehavior" to repeatedly extend the copyright term. So far there have been only two, in both cases to harmonize to the European standard of "life of grandchildren". The Copyright Act of 1976 and the interim extensions that preceded it were the first to adopt the "life of grandchildren" standard, and the Bono Act merely updated it for longer life expectancy. Unless there's a breakthrough in health care that dramatically extends the life of grandchildren, the copyright lobby will have to argue anew that a further extension past the life of grandchildren is not "legislative misbehavior".

The copyright term approximates the life of the author's grandchildren on grounds that those descendants who had personal contact with the author are in the best position to exploit the work as the author intended. The "life of grandchildren" rationale dates back to the nineteenth century. Starting in the 1990s, it was extended in many countries from 50 years after the death of the author to 70 on grounds of drastic improvement in health care over the twentieth century, which allows authors and their children to reproduce later. But until medicine breaks the menopause barrier, a subsequent extension is not justified without abandoning life of grandchildren as the rationale.

First, why say "intellectual property" instead of "copyright"?

Because, as opposed to physical property that can be held in hand, intellectual property is immaterial and is held in the mind. In this case of Konami vs the Shadow Moses team, Konami holds the copyright, the trademark, and the right of publicity, and there is no patent or trade secret. Referring to those combined as intellectual property is more accurate than focusing only on copyright.

Second, When you abbreviate "intellectual property" to "IP", you're making restrictions associated with copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and right of publicity sound as natural as the use of Internet Protocol.

You are completely mistaken about how abbreviations work. For example, in my workplace we have both an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) and Employee Assistance Plan (EAP). We know which is which by the context, not by common use. This applies the same to IP (intellectual property) and IP (internet protocol).

Third, what purpose does legal recognition of copyright serve? In the U.S. legal framework, copyright theoretically exists "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U.S. Const., Article I, Section 8). I fail to see how dog-in-the-manger tactics promote any progress.

The ideal of copyright allows the owner to profit from their own work, and said profits were intended to allow the creator to continue being employed as a creator. Starving artists tend not to have too much of an impact until they're dead and no longer able to make more stuff. Well-fed artists can continue building up their legacy long past their prime. That is actually a downside, but society at large tends to frown on encouraging people to kill themselves just to draw a (many times arguably) pretty picture.

All that just shows how insane the current duration is. Go back to a copyright of 14 years (or less) and this would not even come up.

And the difference between the copyright term and the patent term just shows how insane the term "intellectual property" is. If exclusive rights under one area of law expire 20 years after application, and exclusive rights under another area of law expire 70 years after the death of the last surviving author, how can "intellectual property" be considered a cohesive field of law?

Ultimately, the rationale for the present copyright term is the life of those heirs who knew the author personally. But the entertainment industry is willing to budge on neither the scope nor the duration.

The current copyright provisions are essentially "Disney's Law", and everything since has been company after company abusing and lobbying those laws to make them even more stringent. Copyright should never have been extended. For that matter, patents should never have been allowed to receive extensions. Trademarks are about the only IP that extensions make sense for, and then only if the mark is still in active use. None of that, however, means that copyright by itself is insane. Only the degree to which companies have gone to make it into the current insanity.

The IP holder does not want the content to go out. Why should they not do with what is theirs?

First, why say "intellectual property" instead of "copyright"? The term "intellectual property" lumps together copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and right of publicity. These areas of law have different origins, different scopes, and different reasons for existing. Conflating them just confuses readers.

Second, Konami's IP is 133.221.216.6. When you abbreviate "intellectual property" to "IP", you're making restrictions associated with copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and right of publicity sound as natural as the use of Internet Protocol.

Third, what purpose does legal recognition of copyright serve? In the U.S. legal framework, copyright theoretically exists "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U.S. Const., Article I, Section 8). I fail to see how dog-in-the-manger tactics promote any progress.

All that just shows how insane the current duration is. Go back to a copyright of 14 years (or less) and this would not even come up.

And the difference between the copyright term and the patent term just shows how insane the term "intellectual property" is. If exclusive rights under one area of law expire 20 years after application, and exclusive rights under another area of law expire 70 years after the death of the last surviving author, how can "intellectual property" be considered a cohesive field of law?

Ultimately, the rationale for the present copyright term is the life of those heirs who knew the author personally. But the entertainment industry is willing to budge on neither the scope nor the duration.

Oh and see here for more information. http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/08/biden-and-ip/

I find it ironic that I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes about copyright abuses and yet points to a Web site whose coalition includes the MPAA, among others. Ironic and self-defeating it seems, you silly copyright zealots!

He is not right technically or practically:

Here is the definition of a legal right:

In modern English and European systems of jurisprudence and law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society.

Under this legally accepted definition the description of fair use is in fact clearly a legal right as it entitles certain parties to do something.

I emailed Ross directly and below is his reply:

Thank you for writing. I find it interesting you're citing US Code and aren't familiar with "affirmative defense." It sounds like you need to speak with a copyright attorney, but you can start by reading our FAQ on fair use at http://www.copyrightalliance.org/copyrightsandyou/ fairusefaqs

I'm glad you wrote because your confusion makes my point for me. As you yourself point out, fair use is a limitation on an otherwise exclusive right. Congress, empowered by the Progress Clause of the US Constitution, in 1790 granted limited monopoly rights to creators. Nearly 200 years later, a fair use section was added to copyright law, that puts limits on those rights.

Imagine I own a farm and you like to fish downstream from my farm. I have property rights over my farm, but the government imposes limits on my exclusive rights. For example, I can't leach hazardous biochemical waste produced on my farm into the stream. That's good for you and the fish that you caught, but you have no "rights" related to my farm. I have limitations on my rights that benefit you and everyone else who wishes to use that stream.

The confusion you've shown here over the use of the word "right" shows exactly why it would be dangerous to use copyright warnings to explain fair use. Whole courses in law school are taught on this; it is not summed up by citing a portion of the US Code, nor is it summed up in my op-ed. It is far more complicated than that.

You might also want to read:

"What's 'Fair'? Why those Concerned About Copyright Fair Use Need to Say What They Mean," U. of Utah Professor Lee Hollaar, Institute for Policy Innovation, April 11, 2007 at http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPublications.nsf/4e3087e 6ce3d8be6862567d8006fd628/33230e94b3b08de8862572c0 0053aa5e?OpenDocument

"Stepping on the Toes of Giants: What Not to Think About Copyright," Solveig Singleton, Progress & Freedom Foundation, May 2007 at http://pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2007/ps3.6warmfuzzyt hinking.html

"Mountains Out of Molehills: How Believing the Worst Makes Technologists Ineffective, And What They Can Do About It," Lee Hollaar, Institute for Policy Innovation, April 26, 2007 at http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPublications.nsf/f726f49 98ba46f86862567d80074727a/3b640346db49973d862572cd 00598873?OpenDocument

"Artists and Culture: Empowering the Former to Foster the Latter," Patrick Ross, Progress & Freedom Foundation, May 2006 at http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.6artistc ulture.pdf

To answer the question in your title, an extreme position is one that does not recognize the other possibilities in the debate. So, "copyright is evil" is extreme, as is "all copyright should be under perpetual protection and be protected with an iron fist."

"From your post, you seem to think that legally protected rights to access data are "extreme". You refer to the alliance as "balanced" and I say there's no such thing when there's not even the acknowledgement of my information access rights."

You didn't look at the research section on their page, did you? As I recall, they have at least one article there talking about the DMCA and how well it has fared: http://www.copyrightalliance.org/documentsandresea rch/research

Aside from which, I never mentioned access rights one way or the other. I simply said that they had good information on their site, and that if they can provide a balanced and informed view of both sides, they can do a lot of good. So, I would ask that you not put words in my mouth.