Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Accepts Eldred Case
Patrick Fitzgerald writes: "The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to intervene in a fight over copyrights, deciding whether Congress has sided too heavily with writers and other inventors. The outcome will determine when hundreds of thousands of books, songs and movies will be freely available on the Internet or in digital libraries." Openlaw's Eldred v. Ashcroft page has more information about the case, which seeks to challenge the most recent retroactive extension of copyright terms.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
1. If you read the _original_ ruling in this case you will find that the judges said something to the effect of - it's not up to use to determine if 70 years is "too long". Utter hogwash of course, it is up to them to determine whether a specified amount of time is constitutional under the limited time provision. The whole ruling was just ridiculous - you are encouraged to read it. Pay particular attention to the comments of the (lone) dissenter.
2. If the supreme court rules in favor of the copyright extensions it's going to be a dark day indeed - there will be no _legal_ recourse left to the forces of good.
Absolute statements are never true
It's called that because he helped write and sponsor the bill. It was lobbied heavily for by Disney, since their characters were approaching the public domain.
More info here.
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
I don't think so. The major argument is if the change can be retroactive to works already produced.
Fight Spammers!
Congress could always change the law. However unlikely that may seem.
That's your opinion. Disney, who is still reaping plenty of rewards from Mickey Mouse, might think a little differently...
Got Rhinos?
If I can give my truck to someone in my will, why should I not be allowed to do the same for something I created?
Because a copyright isn't something that you created. A copyright is a government-granted monopoly -- an artificial right, in tension with the First Amendment, to prevent others from repeating and building upon your words. The authors of the Constitution considered government-backed monopolies to be extremely dangerous, and corrosive, and deliberately inserted language that restricted the government to granting them "for limited times."
Another argument against inheritance of copyright --
The Constitution specifically forbids the granting of "titles of nobility." The modern conception of "nobility" has more to do with ritual and pretense, but at the time of the Constitution, "titles of nobility" also had the characteristics of:
1) conveying special rights and privileges to the title holder, for instance, the right to carry a sword in public, or the right to participate in some aspect of government, such as the House of Lords.
2) conveying those same rights to the descendants of the title holder -- i.e. the son of the Duke would be the next Duke, by virtue of being born to the current Duke.
It is arguable that, by treating copyrights as inheritable property, Congress has created a new, Constitutionally illegal form of "title of nobility" -- where the children of famous authors -- and remember that in our society, the famous are our "royalty" -- are born into a special privilege -- the privilege to suppress others from repeating and expanding upon the speech of their ancestors, to the detrement of society.
The very nature of the works we are allowed to see is colored by this new hereditary privilege. For instance, the ancestors of Margaret Mitchell tried, and nearly succeeded in preventing any parody criticism of "Gone With The Wind." Similarly, you will never see white actors in a production of "Porgy and Bess", because the ancestors of George Gershwin are using their inherited, hereditary copyright power to wield control over the presentation of this work, created in 1935.
The concept of our culture being held hostage by the ancestors of famous authors is un-American and undemocratic concept, completely divorced from the letter and spirit of the copyright clause, and should be eliminated.
Disclaimer: IANAIPL.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Second, when the original framers of the Constitution wrote the copyright clause, 28 years was a lifetime
No it wasn't. Thomas Jefferson lived to the ripe old age of 83. George Washington died of throad infection at the age of 67. What skews the "average life expectancy" statistics is infant mortality which was much higher in the olden days. That's why it's called "average".
I recommend that you, and others, buy this fabulous little book. There you will learn about this fallacy and more. Astrology is also debunked, which is a good thing.
My spoon is too big.
Uh, no. It's not a copyright protection mechanism if the work is no longer copyrightable. Then its just another protection mechanism. Take another look at Sec. 1201.
Damn, where's a "+1 - insightful" when I need one?
That's exactly right - and this also applies to pretty much all of the other "Disney Characters" as well. When someone tries to convince everyone that there'll be, say, hardcore porno videos starring Mickey Mouse ("Think of the children!") if they don't keep "copyright" they are duping everyone - even if "Steamboat Willy" (early 1930's?) drops into the public domain so that everyone can legally copy it, Disney STILL has control of the "image" and name of "Mickey Mouse" in the form of trademark (which they defend quite vigorously with expensive lawyers - the story years ago of Disney, inc., suing a daycare center for having pictures of Disney characters painted on their walls without permission is a good example of this...)
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Or, here is another case. Your great grandfather was a famous writer. Your parents never did anything with the property where his house was, but when you inherited it, you went up there and found a first draft, never been published, masterpiece. But it has been far more than 20 years since he died and publishers refuse to publish it because it is already public domain. Which gives you NO financial incentive to see the work published.
Unpublished works are eligible for copyright upon publication. This situation wouldn't happen. On the other hand, if your grandfather had taken out a copyright, published his work, and it had failed in the marketplace, you would be out of luck.
It can (and will be) a copyright protection machanism for *other* copyright protected works. And all the force of the DMCA still applies, even if the works you wish to use this information on is in the public domain.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"Walt Disney Productions is grateful to the Hospital for Sick Children - Great Ormond Street, London - to which Sir James M. Barrie gave his copyright of Peter Pan."
The US Peter Pan copyright was originally set to expire in 1987. But because of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, the copyright was extended to 2007.
I don't know whether Disney actually paid royalties to the Hospital, but I bet they did.
(In the UK, parliament passed a special act giving the hospital an eternal copyright in Peter Pan. It's debatable whether the Berne convention extended this ininite protection to all Berne convention countries.)
--One of the requirements of obtaining a copyright is that you send a copy to the Library of Congress.--
Not since 1976 - everything that is 'fixed into a tangible medium' is copyrighted. To register a copyright you must send a copy to the Library of Congress, but there is no requirement. The scribbles on my notepad have just as much copyright as a Stephen King novel.
Stupid, isn't it?
Don't just complain - DO something about it!