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.

Comments

Text of openlaw annoucement about the case

[Seth Finkelstein]

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:27:11 -0500
To: openlaw-announce [at-sign] eon.law.harvard.edu
From: Wendy Seltzer
Subject: [openlaw] Eldred v. Ashcroft to the Supreme Court

From Lawrence Lessig and the Openlaw team:

We are extremely pleased to report that the Supreme Court has today granted cert in Eldred v. Ashcroft. After the case was listed on the court's conference calendar 4 weeks in a row, the court decided to hear the full range of issues in the appeal.

We have gotten this far because of the extraordinary work and support of many many people -- especially the plaintiffs in this case, but also the extraordinary pro bono work of the law firm of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.

We would also not be here but for the extraordinary help of a wide range of law professors and volunteer lawyers, who have used the Openlaw process to make our work better. Those professors signed the amicus briefs in this case, as did the Eagle Forum and Cato Institute.

There's just one more step in this process of reversing Congress' mistake: After getting 0 votes in the District Court, 2 votes in the Court of Appeals, and now at least 4 votes in the Supreme Court to hear the case, we now need just 5 to prevail.

Thank you for your continued interest and support. Read more background on the case and join the Openlaw process at http://eldred.openlaw.org/

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

two points

[cats-paw]

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.

The issue is not on amount of time

[www.sorehands.com]

Are they really going to decide if 75 years are too much?

I don't think so. The major argument is if the change can be retroactive to works already produced.

One viewpoint

[zpengo]

Fifty years is plenty long enough for a corporation to reap its rewards...

That's your opinion. Disney, who is still reaping plenty of rewards from Mickey Mouse, might think a little differently...

Re:It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Disney bites itself?

[RulesLawyer]

IAAL, and I saw "Return To Neverland" yesterday (don't bother... very dull). The most interesting part of the film came at the start of the closing credits:

"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.)

Re:Already done!

[GemFire]

--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?