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.
The jury selection process has been completed, and a leak from a reputable source indicates that Dr. Dre, Eminem, and members of the band Metallica have already been selected....
Got Rhinos?
Maybe this will mean copyrights will no longer be enforced after authors are dead, or that the government will no longer try to prevent people from copying a CD for their person use, or maybe even that a computer class could examine source code without having to sign non-disclosure agreements and sell their soul to the devil. Copyright is essential, but it has been taken a bit too seriously lately.
If you were going to propose a reform to current US copyright, what would you do? On the top of my list is that stupid law that says that a work is not public domain until 75 years after the author's death. That, in my opinion, is ridiculous.
:Peter
So if I come to your house and steal your TV, then take it home... I'm 9/10 of the way to owning it since I now have possesion?
While that statement might have SOME merit in SOME circumstances, it's certainly not absolutely blanket as you suggest.
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
The Constitution authorizes Congress to give authors and inventors the exclusive right to their works for a "limited" time. In 1790, copyrights lasted 14 years. Now it's 70 years after the death of the inventor, if the person is known.
Lawrence Lessig, attorney for the challengers, said the latest 20-year extension approved by Congress in 1998 is ill-timed and unconstitutional.
Key to this is limited times. The current copyright laws are nigh limitless, as far as human lifetimes are concerned. And it only takes an act of Congress to extend terms again, 20 years at a time. (Thanks, Sonny Bono!)
I do believe that authors and artist should profit from their works. But there should be a balance struck between the rights of producers of IP, and the consumers. Reverting to shorter terms (perhaps the original) would fill the bill nicely.
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
With a name like "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act", it's got to be bad news...
Got Rhinos?
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
Petitioners are various individuals and businesses that rely upon the public domain for their livelihood. Some, such as the lead plaintiff Eric Eldred, build free Internet libraries based upon public domain works; others, such as Dover Press, publish public domain works in high-quality commercial editions. All depend upon a rich public domain to support their work, and many make their work freely available to others.
Isn't this about another group of people that thinks it needs to make a profit? Sure, the current handling of copyrite is absurd, but do we want to see a case won in this way? Couldn't a case be made for the enhancememt of society as a whole -- not some company -- that would justify the taming of current copyrite practices?
I guess my question is, in the fight against bad laws, do the ends justify the means if we're to score a trule moral victory in court?
Method of processing duck feet
I don't think so. The major argument is if the change can be retroactive to works already produced.
Fight Spammers!
There's an old saying that there's nothing new under the sun. I think the publishing industry would like to repeal that notion. In fact, if the publishing industry had its way, you'd have to pay to find out that the saying existed.
Consider, if copyright is extended indefinitely, then there could never be the notion of "classic" literature, freely available in many forms. Instead, there would be controlled literature that could be served up time and time again to a paying public.
Indefinite residuals. An attractive notion.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
This is a cool chart showing what could happen to the amount of public domain work available if Public Domain is unrestricted by term extension. It really shows how we (as a people) are crippling ourselves and restricting knowledge.
Pretty interesting concept. Is a greater public domain worth the cost of less restrictive copytights? I think so. You may not, and that is fine. But just think of the possibilites.
Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
Copyright was meant as an incentive to encourage creativity. It was not considered to be one of the "inalienable rights" that the Constitution was created to defend. The mistake that's being made today is to treat intellectual property as a natural right, which I do not believe it is.
I like having protections for my works but there are limits. Generally, unless you are a Stephen King, a book will go out of print in 5-7 years, usually less, as sales fall to a trickle. Additionly, once an author is dead, who really cares? Books are written to read, appreciated and shared. I don't care if people steal my book, as long as they read it. And read really, if no one is reading your book, or if you are dead, why not release into the public domain. Copyrights should last 25 years, no renewals. Coporate copyrights should last even last less, to spur innovation and inprovement of abandoned product s(Really, why would really want to keep the source code to CP/M in a vault for 99 years)? Just my .02
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
...that we're all going to be disappointed by the outcome... there's too much money on the line for it to go the other way....
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"
Many scholars in the legal community have taken to referring to the Sonny Bono Act as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, reflecting the fact that every time major corporate interests in IP (such as Disney's in its early content) threaten to fall into the public domain, these interests run to Congress for another extension.
Of course, this wasn't really about bringing us in line with EU directives; it was just a convenient cover to save Mickey's ass. Hence, you can bet your bottom dollar that in twenty years, when the most recent extension runs out, the IP lobbyists will once again descend on Capital Hill.
What this case is all about is whether this is unconstitutional. Activists like Prof. Lessig and others have argued that the Copyright Clause of the Constitution is limited by the First Amendment. Because IP rights have to be granted in the name of "advancing progress", there's a real question about whether or not giving Disney another two decades of revenues advances anyone's interests but their own.
Also, because the Constitution only grants authors rights for "limited times", granting an unlimited number of extensions, (20 years, every 20 years) constitutes a grant of an unlimited right.
And I don't think anyone needs to be a lawyer to figure that one out.
It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
Fortunately most of the people perceived as right wingers are also strict constuctionists. Scalia is one of the more right wing of the justices but he's very much a strict constuctionist. If you look at what the constitution lays out for copyright protection, it sets a very clear balance between copyright owners and the public. He's probably somebody would strike down the concept of fair use without a second thought, but if you look at the literal wording of the constitution this is what it says congress has the right to do:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and invetors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
The first part of this phrase is the key to victory. There's no evidence that the items being retroactively considered for copyright extension will have any benefit to the progess of science and useful arts. If anything they are guaranteeing that items that might otherwise be useful to that progress by being released in to the public domain are being allowed to decay beyond the possibility of recovery.
Ultimately it's going to depend on where the balance is struck by the court. Technically speaking the terms of copyright are still limited even under the Sonny Bono extension. It's just a question of how far can congress go before it's violating the first part of the clause.
My feeling is that the supreme court may rule that newly created works may have this extension applied to them, but that there should be no retro-active application. Since this law is to incent production of creative works, it's very hard to suggest this is needed to incent already created works. Such a ruling would maintain the spirit of the law, assuming that they don't believe that the term of copyright has breached the threshold of being limited.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I am glad that this case will be heard, the application to the sciences will be great. It is unfortunate that there are resources wasted in abundance trying to further lines of research when that research has already been done by other companies or agencies.
I agree that creators should have exclusive rights to their material for a while (everybody needs to make a living) and then it should be pushed out in public domain.
Capitalism is the best system available for the short term allocation of resources, but I believe we need to rethink parts of it if we are going to have better long term goals and plans for the whole of humanity.
Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
Not only am I not a lawyer, but I'm also not American... so take any Supreme Court comments from me with more than a grain of salt.
That being said, I seem to recall Lessig commenting that this is not a Right vs. Left issue, especially in the Supreme Court. He made the comment that the argument to the conservatives of the court (notably Scalia, for whom he clerked I think?) might be the easiest...
Aka: The intention of the Framers (limited time) is being subverted by Congress' perpetually-extending copyright term limits.
(And this is one time Valenti may not have helped his own cause, since he is on the record saying that in his book 'infinity minus a day' is an acceptably limited term)
Oh? What about Star Wars? going on 24 years! Should that entire property have just become public domain a decade ago? It's truly disturbing to see how many people are all for limiting the ownership of creative properties when all they want is to profit from it themselves. You want profit? Then create it! Create it, pay for it or slag off! There is absolutely no reason that anyone should EVER profit off of any star wars merchandise without the permission of the copyright holders. Without them it wouldn't exist in the first place. It's your choice to pay for it, or ignore it. Taking it or forcing people to give it away is absurd.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
>o if I come to your house and steal your TV,
h tm l
>then take it home... I'm 9/10 of the way to
>owning it since I now have possesion?
No, you are 9/10ths of the way to prison for stealing it! An some of the IANAL's and IAALBTINLA's please clarify the "possession is nine points of the law" doctrine? Is this
an English common law thing, or is it a Hollywood
thing?
I found this essay an interesting read...
http://www.essaybank.co.uk/free_coursework/763.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
So correct me if I am wrong here but, if a copywrite gives a copywrite holder exclusive rights to their work then why does anyone even need 20 seconds much less 20 yeas of copyright after they are dead? are they collecting royalties in the after life? Do you need protection from copying when you are dead?
the answer is no, if your dead then you also are not doing any business and have no need to make money, the only thing that you need to do after death is to decompose so the flowers can grow thats it, anyway IANAL and i am not sure if rights transfer but it just doesn't make sense to me.
Jon
Yes, and those very right-wing fundamentalists are our best hope for striking down the CTEA, as those right-wing fundamentalists have a strong propensity for telling Congress that they've exceeded the enumerated powers granted to them by the Constitution. Look up "US v. Lopez" in your favorite search engine. In that case, the right wing of the court (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) and the "moderates" (O'Connor and Kennedy) struck down the Gun Free Schools Zone Act of 1990, on the grounds that Congress had no authority under the commerce clause.
Judge Sentelle of the Federal Circuit cited Lopez in his dissent in the ruling against Eldred, saying
" It would seem to me apparent that this concept of 'outer limits' to enumerated powers applies not only to the Commerce Clause but to all the enumerated powers, including the Copyright Clause, which we consider today."
I predict that those same justices will take one look at the words "limited times" and strike down the CTEA as making a mockery of the constitution.
(On the other hand, I could be wrong. Those very five justices found that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment applied to their preferred presidential candidate, which is about as far from the original intent of the 14th amendment as one could imagine.)
I know it's a little late in the game, but who has ideas on how we can help get the Sonny Bono act shot down? To whom should I give money? Should I try to write editorials and get them published in the judges' home town newspapers? Is there someplace to send comments?
I think the core of Eldred's case should focus not on Mickey Mouse, because as Valenti said, who cares if Mikey isn't in the public domain for another 1000 years. The argument should focus on the 10,027 books published in 1930, of which only 174 are still in print. Who is being harmed by these works being put into public domain ? Certainly Disney isn't hurt, nor the owners of the copyrights, since they aren't making any money anyway. We the people, thats who, each year there are less and less readable copies of these books. If these books are not put in the public domain, we are in real danger of loosing them. Project Gutenberg certainly isn't going to spend thousands of dollars to find out who owns a copyright, just to be told, no. As Lessig pointed out, it also stifles creativity, because no derivitive works can be done. He also pointed out two instances where an author has written a piece based on an older work, spent real money to find the copyright holder and been told NO, not, I will licence it to you for X amount of money, but NO. If we allow these extensions to stand, we get Mickey Mouse, if we don't let it stand, we get to preserve a whole body work for all time and we get a whole new body of work, which will never happen otherwise. This lawsuit should really be called Humanity vs Disney.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
It's very interesting to note how the AP story spins the issue. The very first sentence:
The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to intervene in a fight over copyrights, deciding whether Congress has sided too heavily with writers and other inventors. [Emphasis mine.]
The phrase "writers and inventers" conjures up images of individuals, working alone, and immediately draws our sympathy. The fact is, that the major beneficiaries of the law are corporations, a fact that never comes out in the article. And, of course, "inventors" is completely irrelevent, since inventions are covered by patent law, not copyright.
Indeed, the article's favoring of the status quo shows up even more when they note that the Bono law brings us "in line with the EU," (those Europeans, always hip and up to date), and their characterization of the supporters of repeal as "businesses that specialize in former copyrighted material," (clearly a group that leeches off of those writers and, um, inventors.)
I don't know who'll win the war, but in the propaganda battle, Lessig et al, doesn't seem to have a chance.
I am often in disagreement with the most zealous anti-intellectual property sentiments found on this board. Perhaps because my livelyhood depends on my ability to copyright and sell the reproduction rights of my work (graphic design and illustration). Copyright and patent protections are important to protect financial interests of the creators and inventors in society. Information may "want to be free" but until food, clothing, shelter and a college education for my kids is free too I want to get paid. If you make my information "free" you will get a letter from my lawyer (I've had one company attempt to "liberate" illustrations I did even before the net. They just photocopied product illustrations I had done for their competitor & put them in their own ads.)
But, the current length of copyright protection is obnoxious - and counter-productive. 70 years past the life of the author has nothing to do with encouraging or protecting creativity and invention. It has to do with protecting the interests of estates and corporations that do nothing creative at all but live off of the efforts of some long dead ancestor. Most of the time these buzzards, in their efforts to get the last scrap of meat off the carcass basterdize and demean great works of art. How many times have you heard of an estate or corporation (usually a publisher) doing something with a work of art that must surely have the artist rolling over in his grave.
Why not have a two phase copyright system as follows:
phase 1: full monopoly on terms of distribution and reaping of profits. Lasts 50-60 years for a corporation and 70 years to life for an individual.
phase 2: full credit for the creation must still be given to the creator when distributed, but no monopoly on distribution exists anymore
Okay...if I was to write a book tomorrow and it had to wait until 75 years after my death, then we're talking (optimistically here) about 110 years. Now, assuming that I am like everything else - just a one-hit wonder flash in the pan - chances are that my book will not still be published 110 years from now, or even 11.0 years from now.
To me it seems that public domain makes works avail to people that would otherwise just be stored in a vault and not avail.
So, perhaps it should become public domain 1-2 years after last sale (sale being the time that a publisher made the item avail to a store for resell). This way if the publisher doesn't think enough of the item to keep trying to move it (ie. a useless item, not profitable) then it becomes public domain and the public can decide if it's worth it or not. This way, one way or another it is avail to the public. If it is a marketable item, then the creator is still making money. If it is not, then nothing is lost.
Books - well, if it hasn't been published, then the text of the book becomes public domain. This way if a book becomes a classic (Lord of the Rings) then every year or two it gets republished. Still avail to the public.
CD's - this would have to be done on a song by song basis - that way "Safety Dance" could be published on a "Greatest Hits" CD every so often, but any other song that noone's heard of (except possibly Pop Goes The World) would fall into the public.
Movies - same as books really - keep it avail to the consumer or let go.
I guess it comes down to shit or get off the pot with the items. Either use it because it is a valuable property like you claim, or let others use it.
Of course there would probably have to be stipulations in there that producing a one-off of a movie, selling it to yourself doesn't count, etc... and there should still be a max limit.
Just my idea. I dunno.
That's your opinion. Disney, who is still reaping plenty of rewards from Mickey Mouse, might think a little differently...
Got Rhinos?
There needs to be some balance here. Copyrights are not granted for the benefit of the owners of IP, they're granted for the benefit of society as a whole. History clearly shows a curve where no IP rights harm society (since few people are motivated to create new IP), as does excessive IP rights (since the IP holders ruthlessly suppress any competitors and progress stagnates). In contrast, society benefits when people have enough rights to get a good return on their effort, but can't suppress others for long.
14 or 28 years after publication is good - the new book that had a profound influence on you as a teenager can be the basis of your own book in middle age. But with the current rules, it's pretty much guaranteed that nobody will live long enough to respond in the same way to anything published once they were old enough to understand it.
On the commercial side, look at Dover Books. The original publisher has usually failed to publish the book for years because of limited sales... often because they're continuing to publish the work in hardcover editions, legal expenses in determining who would get residuals, etc. These expenses are so great that most books are unpublished and unpublishable.
Once it enters the public domain, Dover can publish the book in cheap paperback editions. The book is available, the book is affordable, Dover makes enough profit to make the effort worthwhile. Everyone benefits.
Is the original IP owner out of money? Not really - you can't make any profit if you don't make any sales. In the worst cases, the original IP owner may actually make more money once the material enters the public domain since it frees the IP from other legal encumberances.
Of course, that raises the question of the residuals paid to the original author. Again, there's not much of a difference between no money because the IP wasn't sold and no money because the material is now in the public domain. And even if there were sales, it's hard to justify people getting money for something their great-great-great-grandfather wrote 120 years ago (assuming he lived another 45 years and the 75-year rule was in affect). That's uncomfortably close to the classes of nobility that the US Constitution explicitly forbids.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
First, the Supreme Court could just as easily side with Copyright holders making the current extension of Copyright legitimate. Many fail to face this reality, assuming their "moral high ground" argument will automatically win the case for them.
Second, when the original framers of the Constitution wrote the copyright clause, 28 years was a lifetime. The average life expectancy wasn't that long and assuming you didn't actually have the funding to create your inventions, scientific discoveries, author books or songs, or paint pictures until you were 30, add 28 years to this and you might expect to live 10 years without copyright protection. Put in this light, the copyright extensions isn't that much of a stretch, we just happen to live longer.
If the Supreme Court sides against copyright holders, it STILL won't be a boon for applications like Napster given that the material transferred over these networks was generally current works and applications, images and music sent over other peer to peer networks would still be protected under original copyright provisions. This will NOT be a free for all, grab the intellectual property you want some here seem to be making it out to be.
My proposal would be to keep the extensions but make them renewable every 15 years after the first 45 or death of the author, whichever comes first. At the beginning of each renewal period, if it can be shown by a third party that the works are no longer profitable and releasing them into the public domain is the only recourse to ensuring the works will be around for the public to benefit from in the future then the works are released.
By placing the burden on third parties to argue for the public, this will hopefully alleviate the pressure on the legal system as each and every copyright will not likely be contested, only the ones there is a strong case for the public to benefit from. After the current copyright period is up (life + 70) there can no longer be any extensions and the intellectual property will be released to the public.
I definitely suffer the "free is for me" mentality, but.......
First off, copyrights and other restrictions are a cornerstone of capitalism. The make it free to everyone approach is the foundation of communism, not capitalism.
The second thought, is that if I devote my life to a project and produce a great work, shouldn't I be able to enjoy the spoils and decide the future of that great work? Shouldn't I be able to go to my grave, comforted by the fact that my magnum opus will provide for my children's future?
Let's face a little fact that we keep forgetting. Rarely, if ever, is a great work supressed or lost. Most often the works *ARE* available to any and everyone. But, you *do* have to pay for it. If it's not worth it to you, then perhaps it is not such a great work. Even the touted "research" that gets bandied about so often *is* available. But, alas you do have to pay Bayer or Pfizer millions to license it.
This is capitalism at its finest. Accept no substitute as you may be the one that is disappointed.
Limited means not infinite. 200 years is still limited.
Adding 20 years to the term every 20 years sounds pretty infinite to me.
Reboot macht Frei.
Well, it is by way of might.
However, as property rights (and increasingly intellectual rights) are state-enforced, *lawful* posession of property is 9/10 of ownership.
However, if you look back in time, during the feudal system, farmers 'owned' common land to which they had family rights. They used it, they worked it, but they didn't _possess_ it, per se. (That is, there was no need for an authoritative force to control access to it; such details were administered co-operatively by the farmers who used it to suit the needs of the community best. The land was shared, and those who abused the land were punished and shunned.) After Adam Smith did his thing, this 'ownership' was revoked by feudal lords (via the installation of hedges to prevent farmers from using this land), and they 'posessed' it. Then, using Adam Smith and Locke's drabblings, they claimed 'ownership' of it. It is a common misconception that this fundamental shift in social attitudes to property rights was little more than a natural progression of a commodity based economy. (Heck, you wern't even allowed to own land. As with labour, land was considered such a basic right that it was considered by the people of the time as something which should not be left to the market.)
Just don't forget that under capitalism, anything unclaimed can become 'owned' by way of posession. This was not neccessarily the way in which other societies and economies worked, so it's not exactly a truism outside of capitalism.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I don't have too much faith that the Supreme Court will come down on the side of the people and the constitution, but it's our best shot.
I agree with you about them not coming "down on the side the people" but that is NOT the Supreme courts job (congress is the one with the job to come down on the side of the people). The supreme courts job is to come down on the side of the constitution without regard to the policy merits of the law. And unfortunately the constitution is the stumbling block here - CONGRESS (which is SUPPOSED to be looking out for our interests) is responsible for copyright law. I think the law sucks (and speak and vote accordingly) and so may the judge but that is not his concern when it comes before him in the court. 70 years past the life of the author is WAY too long, counter-productive, bad policy, evil, no-good, very-bad etc. But it IS strictly speaking "a limited time" which is the only condition set in the constitution which otherwise leaves the details up to congress. The Supremes may decide that the time limit is so long that it is somehow "not limited" but to do so they are simply replacing a probably corrupt but elected and accountable opinion with their own unelected and unnaccountable policy opinion. I think such a result would be a better policy but the price is to abandon (in a small but vital way) a democratic system with an oligarchic system.
The so called "Sunny Bono Act" extends copyrights for works that are already existing. Now the people that created these works obviously did not need that 20 year extention as an incentive to create them. In fact that extra 20 years is quite pointless, even for people creating right now. I mean how in the world would any one know wheather your work will be worth squat 20 years after 70 years after the day you die. Thats like between 100- 150 years for most people. You cannot even be sure that people will be cinsuming the same kind of art forms after 150 years. And certainly you will not get a corporation to pay you anything extra for those extra twenty years. Now you think that you should have ownership rights to your works in perpetuity, not only for incentive reasons but for moral ones. Because you created them your grandchildren should own them etc, etc. Well you are free to have that opinion but that is clearly unconstitutional. Congress only has the power to give those right for a limited time. And if congress decides to extend that period indefinately it will not be for a limited time. I think there are good reasons behind this constitutional rule, and it should be given power and not scuttled.
From what I heard before the Bono Extension passed, there were miles of historically significant film rotting away in vaults and basements. There were also archivists eager to get their hands on that footage, so that they could preserve at least some of it before it deteriorated entirely.
The Bono Copyright Extension passed, and it's quite likely that now those pieces of history will be gone, forever. But I guess that's OK, because Steamboat Willie will be safe in Disney's vaults.
I agree that this has to be interpreted along the lines of the original Constitutional Framers' thoughts, and that line appeals more to the conservative sides of the bench.
After all, if the mere ability to make money sufficed as a Constitutional argument, self-employed prostitutes should take their cases to the Supreme Court.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The basis of property ownership is natural law, under which who has a thing owns it. However, under our civil law, we have said that merely taking a thing does not transfer ownership, thus to protect the original owners from unjust siezures of valuable property.
"Intellectual property" is a little different. The natural law right is to use any ideas that you come across. If you have a great idea about how to make a device to catch troublesome pests, I have not stolen from you to use that idea to make such a device. If I steal your book, I've stolen from you, because your property holding has been diminished, while if I simply reprint it, I have not stolen from you, because you still have the book. It was a novel point to our Constitution to allow for any concept of a monopoly on works of creativity or invention. The intent was to spur creative and inventive acts by giving those who created or invented a monopoly to earn money for a limited period. Then, the public would have those ideas and creative works for free use, which they would not have had for any use had the creator or inventor not had an incentive to create them beyond the natural desire to create or invent. The intent was never to reward past creativity or invention.
It is clear to me that the law has become skewed in such a way as to *reduce* the amount of ideas and inventions available for free public use, rather than to enhance it. Why should Disney create new characters and stories, for example, when the existing ones are so profitable, and can be rehashed essentially forever?
-jeff
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
>>The court may be conservative on social issues, but conservatives also believe in a strict interpretation of the consitution.
In theory. In practice, conservatives on the court have acted very differently, ruling in favor of police and corporations. Look at decisions involving police powers for example.
I have a feeling that at least Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist will come down on the side of Disney et al. That means the case will likely be decided by Kennedy and/or O'Connor.
The briefing a little to nebulas for me to grok, so i googled up this link on copyright extension, this one is regarding Disney.
I think the main problem with IP law is that it is too cut and dry. For example I agree that Disney should be able to hold it's copyright to Mickey Mouse, but disagree that movies made by MGM 70 years ago are still not public domain.
Mickey Mouse is a very important piece of Disneys brand, and Disney is a brand based company, so it's essential to their survival. Where movies from 70 years ago are simply rotting away, and will probably vanish.
I think IP law needs to be based of need. A auction system would work better. Where after a relatively short period, say 20 years. the rights to the IP would become public domain, but are then up for auction. Disney would only have to be the highest bidder, which they could probably do, being that it's more important to them then to anyone else. The public needs to set a price however on buying it back, in case no-one else shows up to bid. I don't know how that would work exactly, but i imagine something based of it's past worth like 20% of the generated revenue from the IP. Of course calculating revenue from an IP isn't cut and dry either.
While IP that companies don't care about are not worth the time or money to renew, and then become public domain. A good example would be old video games, the company that holds the IP have essentially forgotten about them. When the time is up, they either have to buy it back from the public, or give it away.
-Jon
this is my sig.
It is my understanding we are talking about copyright here, not trademarks. The Star Wars movies might become public domain, but the merchandise would still be protected by trademarks. Any derivative works would be protected by their own copyright starting from the date of publication.
Furthermore, the constitution states that there is a reason for people to profit off the work despite the copyright holders: for the benefit of society at large.
Copyrights aren't a God-given right, they're a constitution-given right, and one that the creators weren't sure was a good idea either.
We are not forcing people to give something away. We are waiting for their temporary monopoly on the creative expression of an idea to lapse - a monopoly given to them by we the society so that they might benefit more than if it didn't exist.
It's a gift, and its for a limited time only.
Your reply seems to take as a given the concept of "Intellectual Propety". I for one do not share your conviction that such a thing exists.
I don't want profit. I want freedom of expression that allows me to include what are now cultural icons in my work if I think it will enrich the experience I wish to create. I want to do this without someone else being able to dictate how I use it.
---
I applaud their efforts, and contribute some of my own. But that is their voluntary gift to the world. If an author chooses not to do so, I don't see why the law should force them to. I am not a lawyer, but it sounds to me like the removal of copyright protection is a "taking".
Much has been written so far about how society as a whole benefits from placing works in public domain. I do not deny this. Society would probably benefit from my other possessions as well, but they have no right to them and are not allowed to take them, no matter how long I've owned them.
The difference is that an exchange has taken place. The public has granted that author a monopoly on that work for a limited term in exchange for the availability of that work to the public domain after a limited term.
When the work fails to enter the public domain, that benefits the author (or copyright holder) at the expense of the public domain, and that is an inequitable modification to the original agreement.
Capitalism is a way to remove individual bias from the distribution of resources by allowing markets to decide prices among competing vendors. Monopolies cause this system to fail because one person decides the price of a given good.
The idea ownership system people refer to as "intellectual property" is nothing but a set of government-sponsored monopolies over goods.
Intellectual property requires a monopoly, monopolies are inconsistent with free markets. As Linus is fond of saying, "...repeat until enlightened."
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
One of my biggest gripes about our system is the fact that works can completely disappear before they enter the public domain. I would suggest that anyone who wishes to apply for a copyright be required place a high-quality, unencrypted, unrestricted, and preferably digital (or easily digitized) copy of their work (1st-gen film print, HTML for books, 24+ bit audio masters, digital TV masters, etc...) in escrow with the Library of Congress, to be released into the public domain at the end of the copyright. This way, no matter how far they push the copyright, nothing will be truly "lost" in the long run. Under the current system, companies have a nasty habit of locking things away after their marketable life to prevent older stuff from competing with newer stuff-- which results in things disappearing completely.
This is not a solution to the problem of ever-expanding copyright terms, but it does prevent us from losing things irretrievably.
Please remember that the system of capitalism is founded on the concept of an element of trade being a tangible item. I own an apple. I sell the apple. I now have money, but no longer have an apple. The buyer has lost money, but now has an apple.
"Intellectual property", a recently coined term, is very different. I own a program. I sell a copy of the program. I now have money, and I still have my program. The buyer has lost money, but now has a program.
I disagree that the idea of capitalism even covers "intellectual property", and believe that espousing freedom of information is not communist. It is also my opinion that having a system in place to protect it does more harm than good.
I would like to offer my congratulations to Lawrence Lessig and the contributors to OpenLaw for even getting this far; the Supreme Court does not agree to hear every case that is submitted to it, and therefore it is probably felt that there is at least a cogent argument that the time period of copyright is unacceptable. Whether he wins or loses, to continue thus far is a great achievement, although I for one would be grateful if copyright were weakened.
That there should be a period of copyright is not in doubt; there is no argument that a period of protection should exist for which authors are compensated for their work. However media is the only product which a craftsman can make, where the design can be protected for 95 years. Everything else you are free to make an (almost) exact copy if you have the materials to do so and provided it is not protected by patents (15-20 years) and trademark (which just prevents you naming your copy the same as the original).
I am unfortunately an EU citizen (and a UK subject), and the change in the US law was designed to match European law (amongst other reasons). I hope that a change in US law will bring about a similar rolling back of copyright in the EU.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
If I take your television, you still own it. This is something that can be proven by receipts, by testimony from people familiar with you, etc.
If, however, you leave a television in the middle of the desert and have no ability to prove that you own it, and I stumble upon it, then it is indeed at least 9/10ths mine. More like 10/10ths, actually, regardless of whether or not you wished to repossess it.
This is because:
1) I broke no laws in obtaining the television, as it was not on private property.
2) You and I have equal claim to the television, in that neither you nor I have any ability to prove that we own the television, or to prove that the other person does not.
3) I am currently in possession of the television, making me the de facto owner.
It's all in how you define possession, of course. And in that possession cannot be taken via an illegal act and still be viewed as legitimate possession.
-l
Frankly, I think this is a way in which "strict constructionists" are not very strict at all. By ignoring the express purpose for which the copyright power was granted Congress, strict constructionists grant Congress more power than the framers intended.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Disclaimer: IANAIPL.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
why is there a Microsoft Visual Studio .NET banner at the top of the page here?
I have seen a lot of strange things in my time. This is one of them.
The government's case in Eldred v. Ashcroft depends on at least three lies. We need to expose them and debate the real issues in order to have an informed public decide on proper copyright law.
1. CTEA "harmonizes" U.S. law with the E.U. No--it is not possible to have the same copyright term as the E.U.'s, because until 1976 term was measured from first publication, not from author's death, in the U.S. but not the E.U. The 1998 retroactive extension was not harmonization. In any event, E.U. term still differs substantially in works for hire, film productions, and anonymous works. As an example, a work first published in 1923 might be in the public domain in the U.S. if not renewed, but protected until 70 years after death if author was European. No way to harmonize this--it is just protectionism for U.S. works in Europe, for which the U.S. public pays.
2. Perpetual or lengthy terms are needed in order to preserve old films and other material. Not so--currently, film studios don't preserve even all the films they own copyright on--you see ads on TV where they try to collect money from the public for preservation. In fact, two plaintiffs in Eldred v. Ashcroft are film preservation groups who argue that the term extension makes it impossble from them to find copyright owners in order to preserve old films.
3. Authors benefit from longer terms. No--the difference between 50 years after death and 70 years is not enough incentive to cause anyone to write a book now. See the brief by Berkeley economist Hal Varian at http://openlaw.org/eldredvreno.
We assert that the ones who benefit from the CTEA are large corporations not authors--they are the ones who lobbied for the bill and paid large sums to campaigns of legislators to buy the bill.
The ones who will be hurt if we fail are authors who wish to prepare works that are derivative or try to enjoy fair use of existing works. And the public will not enjoy the fruits of their publication--innovation will be stifled if the public domain is privatized. The Internet now and the next Internet, whatever it will be, will be threatened--instead, big corporations will own all content and license our popular culture to us as pay-per-view.
Uh, huh. And where was the Democratic president with the "Veto" stamp?
And what about this in the congressional record? - "10/7/1998:
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. "
"Unanimous" doesn't sound like "The Republicans but not the Democrats" at all, does it? Sounds like Democrats were hanging out at the Big Media(tm) crackhouse quite happily as well. In short - This isn't a 'political party' issue!. This is a "Big Media offers Big Bucks to ALL politicians, and ALL mainstream party senators (and, presumably, representatives, but it's hard to say, it passed the house by voice vote) are happily taking bribes.
Pointing at whichever of the two mainstream parties you hate most and saying "it's all THEIR fault" just makes your least hated party happy to have the attention drawn away from them, whichever of The Two Parties(tm) they may be, and keeps this sort of thing "business as usual".
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
On the other hand, look at it as evolution in action. The guy died because he skied into a tree. A little research yields OT7-48, where he'd be instructed to "Find some plants, trees, etc., and communicate to them individually until you know they received your communication.".
Hey, maybe if he'd paid his $300,000 to said nut cult, the tree would have gotten out of his way.
Let's apply some government moderated capitalism here.
Copyrights are obviously valuable, otherwise corporations would not be prepared to spend so much defending them. However, they cost nothing to create. The government is missing an obvious source of revenue here - simply tax the ownership of a published copyrighted work that is itself sold. If you don't pay the tax, it becomes public domain. Copyrights for free items would be free of this tax.
To add spice, double the tax each year the copyright runs. For example:
Tax in year 1 - 1 cent
Tax in year 2 - 2 cents
Tax in year 3 - 4 cents
...you know where this is going.
An up-front fee (or pre-payment of tax) of $10.23 protects your copyright for 10 years.
An up front fee of $327.67 preserves your copyright for 15 years.
But you can see that after 25 years, the next fee is $335,544.32 - you need a serious income to preserve the copyright. If you don't pay, it becomes public domain.
You get the opportunity to profit. The government gets a revenue stream, and items become public domain after a reasonable time.
Obviously, the starting point and the exponential could be varied, but explaining it with a pile of pennies and a chessboard - move one square per year and double the number of pennies - keeps it simple. The fees in the early years are very reasonable, encouraging people to profit from their work quickly.
Problems?
This line intentionally left..uh..blank?
You're a total idiot. You obviously don't have ONE SINGLE FUCKING CLUE what the school-zone gun law was about. Will you please shut the fuck up, read about it (instead of just pulling its meaning out your distended ass), and come back when you have at least one coherent thought in your brain. Jesus fucking Christ, wake up, dipshit.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Any public domain material protected by a copyright protection mechanism still protecting copyrighted works (and you can bet MPAA will release a DVD every 50 or 100 years until hell freezes over to make sure that it does) is still legally unaccessible. It's impossible to extract the work in question without violating the DMCA.
Other than that I'm from Europe and we've got 70 here, but I don't like laws being applied retroactively. Note - it's not retroactive as in an ex post facto law so it's not unconstitutional for that reason - Congress is within their full right to change the copyright length of a work.
Personally I think life + 70 is way too long. If I wrote a work today, lived to be a hundred or so it'd enter the public domain in 2150. 2150! Maybe your grand*x-children will read it someday...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The solution, of course, is for all Slashdotters to move to Montana and take over the political scene there...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Most everything we do is derivative of the works of others. That's simply how people learn and are influenced.
While a direct rip-off, "The further adventures of Frodo" or similar, might not be very creative, pieces of older works can be used to great effect by skilled authors and especially musicians.
For an example in music, Carl Orf's "O Fortuna" was based on pieces of famous music and blended together to create something new. Later Apotheosis came along, borrowed heavily from Orf, and produced their own sogn, a techno rock version of "O Fortuna". Orf's estate sued them.
Now, it seems that it should have been fair, what goes around comes around, and all. But the copyrights are much longer now meaning that it gets harder to use anything contemporary.
Being that nobody exists, or existed in a bubble, but were shaped by the creativity of those around them, they should let their creativity shape the next generation as well. Seems only fair to me, as long as we ensure that they're also given a chance (though maybe not life + 75 years) to profit from their creativity directly.
I concur. Authors have no place in demanding that people respect their self-proclaimed copyrights. The respect is engendered by the people at large, who find their own interests satisfied by granting a boon to authors. However, the public will act in its own self-interest -- they will not grant a right to authors (for long anyway; they can take a while to notice) that causes a greater public harm than a public good.
No, copyrights aren't natural. The lawyer, the philosopher, the historian: they can all agree on that.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
We wouldn't want copyrights to end at an author's death, because then an industry would spring up for bumping off authors of important works.
It isn't often I encounter someone as or more cynical than myself. I salute you!
-- MarkusQ
Nobody is arguing against copyright protection (well, on Slashdot they are, but nobody in court).
The argument is whether Copyright terms should be extended, and further, retroactively extended for existing works. The extension violates the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
If the plaintiffs win, copyright will not be eliminated. They will go back to being author's life + 50 years. Possibly the court could rule that future copyrights go life + 70, but existing works revert to life + 50.
Keep in mind the only reason copyright exists is to encourage people to create useful works. That is the only reason.
I was doing a bit of searching lately (specifically, I was wondering if the classic silent film "Metropolis" had dropped into the public domain yet. According to one "Public Domain Movies for sale" site (LSVideo.com), the answer boils down to "probably"...), and stumbled on a couple of sites offering "public domain" material.
This one, to my surprise, actually offered a number of cartoons that seemed shockingly recent (heck, I think I have some of them on commercial VHS!) - including even a handful of Disney shorts. Apparently, there was a window of time before copyright extension became automatic, where a lot of works evidently didn't get renewed, and therefore hit the public domain.
Unfortunately, that site vehemently denies any availability to normal people (i.e. they are a company tailored for and catering only to broadcasters with professional equipment who want some public domain material to broadcast).
Anyone know if archive.org will be getting any of this material? And for that matter, good pointers to other "public domain material" sites?
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
What???
Umm... Dude. A share of stock, whether it's a certificate or a book entry in a broker's ledger, isn't in itself tangible, but the share of the company it represents is entirely tangible. A future is a contract, and contracts are based on tangible property (unless the contractees are idiots, which happens all too often). Insurance is also a contract that again, unless you're stupid, you've checked to see that it is based on tangible assets. Interest is money, which is tangible (sorta). A piece of software is intangible, in that nothing makes it unique, or limits its duplication; a copy is a copy is an original.
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
One of the requirements of obtaining a copyright is that you send a copy to the Library of Congress. This is even true, technically, if you take a de facto copyright by labelling your work as copyrighted; in fact, it is a violation of law if you don't, though I've never heard of it being enforced. This is done in hardcopy, though, not digitally.
Just try looking up something at the LoC, though.
"Mickey Mouse is a very important piece of Disneys brand"
Yes. Mickey is a very important Disney trademark. Releasing the copyright on specific Mickey Mouse films does not jeopardize their ongoing trademark use of Mickey. In fact, it would enhance the value of their current exploitation considerably.
The copyright on characters expires with the expiration of the first copyrighted work containing that character.
If that's true that means that the characters of "Popeye", "Superman", "Tom and Jerry", "Daffy Duck", "Felix the Cat" and others are now in the Public Domain.
All fo these characters starred in cartoons which didn't have their copyrights renewed and are now in the Public Domain. http://www.retrofilm.com/cartoons/. Somehow I doubt that I could make a film or a comic book of Superman battling Popeye without having a ton of lawyers come down on me.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Scalia is one of the more right wing of the justices but he's very much a strict constuctionist.
Unfortunatly, in Bush v Gore, Scalia and the rest of the Nixon/Reagan appointees proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that their "strict constructionist" principles are for sale to the highest bidder at a moment's notice.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
"Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's [of the MPAA] proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress."
After reflecting on the concept of copyright the past several months, wading through legal documents and laws, and the process that brought it to where it is today, I have begun to ask myself very serious questions about the direction the concept of copyright has traveled in the past 40 years or so. Initially, when copyright was first introduced to this country, the means to distribute copyrighted works was really quite simple? It was by horse or by foot. If it was sent, by mail or messenger, it arrived by horse or foot. This meant that it literally could take months or years to distribute to the "maximum market". The copyright term of 14 years plus 14-year extension must have been determined in part by the physical constraints created by the ability to distribute the work in a timely fashion. For the creator of the work to see rewards for his work would take years, simply because of the inability to get the work to the potential buyers any more quickly. It could take 14 years or 28 years to realize a return. Now fast forward to 2002 and here we are with copyright extension after extension, to the point where individual copyright is now life plus 70 years, and corporate copyright is 95 years. Yet, here we are with the internet, satellite TV, cell phones, Ipaqs, wireless networks, cable TV, newspapers are distributed to the regional printing plant electronically, Ricochet, Aircard, that literally provide instant access to distribution. Airplanes, UPS, Fedex, 18 Wheelers, fax machines, distribute products in mere days (if not minutes) rather than months or years. Rather than extending copyright, shouldn?t we be shortening copyright? Say to 7 and 7? Same thing with corporate copyright, shouldn't they be shortened as well?
As they say in academic circles "Publish or die" Talk about an incentive to create! If you can't sit back on your laurels, then you must continue to create. This would benefit the culture greatly. One has to ask what would Disney have come up with if Mickey and his pals where going into the public domain as scheduled? What would Mike Stoller and his partner Jerry Leiber produced in the years since "Stuck in the Middle with You" (1972), had there been an incentive to keep creating? At the very least in 1979 they would have started working again to produce more of those wonderful tunes they were so adept at producing in the 50's and 60's.
It's my hope at least one court in this land of ours has some common sense, and interpets the intent of the law.
In the context of Star Wars, you have my attention. Why should the rest of us or someone else profit off of George Lucas' investment? I know that limited copyrights were concieved to protect society, but how does allowing everybody to pirate George Lucas benefit society?
I doubt it would...
However, There are MANY other copyrighted works which truely benefit society. Did you bother to think to include school books, academic journals, trade journals and magazines, encyclopedias, instructional video, and other reference material in your example??? (We're just to scratching the surface)
I'm going to create a scenerio where we release this type of information to the public. For our example: We'll release everything prior to 1975. Now, keep in mind where technology, art, literature, education, and science was in 1975.
Keep this in mind: Information in the public domain is no longer READ-ONLY.
Out of that HUGE spectrum of information copyright up to 1975, we're going to take a small spectrum of that (education) and we're going to figure out HOW this information would be useful. Teachers from all over are now free to annotate, organize, use snippets, rewrite, and do whatever they want to the all of the curriculum of 1975. Some would mix the contents of 3-5 books to adapt to thier individual teaching styles, while others may use the best diagrams and problems from each book. Heck, with the Internet, teachers may even use the collaboration tools to share each others works and best ideas.
Some teachers might want to spend thier time teaching other teachers to teach better. Now, I'm pretty sure there were a number of good child-psychology books, elementary education theory, yada yada yada, available at the time. I'm pretty sure there are a number of people who would love to compile a Best Techniques from each one of those books.
Do you understand that this would create a new type of content industry where people create content based on existing content? The possibilities are endless in just the small spectrum of education. Why don't you consider the impact it would have on many other spectrums?
That's only the beginning. A lot of us programmers aren't great content creators, but we know how to process content digitally. With a little imagination, there are endless possibilities when one can freely blend software with content.
By allowing anyone to merge, annotate, index, simplify, mix and integrate thousands upon thousand of works, you'll end up with compound works that are increasingly more useful then the individual pieces themselves...
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Wow, nothing like using the word "gun" to bring
out the nut cases on both sides of the fence.
For the record, I didn't say what the Gun Free
Schools Zone Act of 1990 was about. All I said
was that it was ruled unconstitutional by
the SCOTUS on the grounds that Congress had
exceeded the authority granted to it in the
commerce clause.
Which is exactly how I predict that the SCOTUS
will rule regarding the CTEA and the authority
granted to Congress by the copyright clause.
so will probably be dismissed by the court immediately.
Which was my point in my angry flaming reply - the SCOTUS wasn't ruling on whether guns in schools are good or bad, but on the legality of Congress's act. Of course, I couched it in enough rudeness and vulgarity to be almost unreadable, but hey, I've had a bad day...
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
I never said that I thought it was okay to carry
guns in a "school zone" (defined in the law as
1000 ft from a school), nor did I even say the
law was a bad one.
What I said was that the Supreme Court ruled
(correctly in my opinion) that Congress had no
authority to pass such a law.
The question before a court is never whether a
law is a good one or a bad one. In this case, as
in the Lopez case, the question is whether
Congress has authority to pass the law, whether
it's good or bad.
The fact that she needed her staff to tell her that perpeptual copyright would violate the Consititution speaks volumes about the sorry state of our representation in congress today.
You'd think a representative would be at least required to have *read* the Consititution. I know I was required to in 11th grade government class.
The CTEA changed copyright for individuals to life plus 70 years. This is discriminatory toward older creators. Should Mike Stoller start writing again, his work will not enjoy the same protection, as would a Toby Slater creation , simply because of his age! Toby would have many more years to maximize the profitability of his work. Same thing applies to male and female creators of the same age at creation of their work; by averages the woman will enjoy greater protection. What about a creator who is physically disabled, or has aids? They will usually have a shorter lifespan than a creator who isn't disabled or ill. People of differing ethnic backgrounds have a different life expectancy than others. Just because you fall into one group or the other should you enjoy more or less protection? Is the CTEA discriminating due to age, sex, health and race? Certainly appears so.
but when the 1928 Mickey Mouse cartoon copyright expire, anyone else will be able to use the Mickey Mouse character in their own, original cartoons.
They could copy the mouse but they couldn't call him Mickey. Mickey Mouse is still an active trademark and no matter what happens to the movies you still can't make a Mickey Mouse movie.
well they are not going to have time to write a novel or paint a picture or write music would they.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Say you invested 40 million dollars in a housing project, sold all of the houses, and accepted 30 year mortgages from the new owners. After those 30 years, when all the people stop paying you, should you be able to go back to your housing project and reclaim the houses?
When you publish, you are SELLING your work to the public. SELLING!!!!! You accept a copyright in exchange (i.e. a limited monopoly that lasts say, 30 years.) After that period, the note is paid and you have collected your due. The public should not have to pay one penny, one minute more once the period, agreed upon when you published, has expired.
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
"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.)
Indeed, the article's favoring of the status quo shows up even more when they note that the Bono law brings us "in line with the EU," (those Europeans, always hip and up to date),
Which isn't even a correct assumption. The EU is life +50, not life +70, which was taken care of by the Copyright Act of 1976....
What the Bono Act did, in part (as did the DMCA) is put us into position to accede to several international treaties on copyright-- the Berne Convention (which was ironically started in the 19th century to differentiate those oh-so-stylish Europeans from the US, which didn't even allow foreigners to copyright until 1870!), the TRIPS agreement, and the WIPO Copyright Treaty. (The WIPO Treaty is where the anti-circumvention language of DMCA comes from, though the WIPO Treaty is much less harsh.)
As I recall, many European countries were opposed to the Bono Act's increased terms for copyrights-- it took nearly 30 years for the US to match the European standard of life plus 50, (Adopted by the Berne signatories in 1948) and they didn't want another situation where copyright terms were different in the US.
Yes! I'd make the term of the first phase shorter, but that's the right approach.
Suppose you write a novel. Consider a time far in the future, say, 30 years after you're dead. Your children are dead; you're grandchildren are old, and they would hold the copyright. How upset would if:
1) Someone reprinted the novel, but didn't pay your grandchildren, but kept the profits themselves?
2) Someone reprinted the novel, paid your grandchildren, but claimed to have written it themselves (without permission)?
3) Someone reprinted the novel, paid your grandchildren, attributed you, but changed the story so the moral and meaning were completely different (without permission, without noting there was a change)?
I, and I think most people, would be far more upset with (2) and (3) than (1). The credit and integrity of the work should be protected for a long time. Monetary rights aren't nearly as important, not in the long term.*
Still not convinced? Consider:
4) Someone wants to reprint your work, but your grandchildren, who own exclusive rights to your work, hold out for more money, and in the end won't let them.
Down with capitalism!
Even under socialist schemes these things are not "free" somebody must work to produce them.
Tell you what... draw me a pretty picture, and I'll cook you dinner. How's that?
OK, you can cook and I can draw. But I don't want dinner right now, I want firewood. Perhaps if we came up with some arbitrary thing (perhaps little bits of paper) that you could give me in return for the drawing, then I can give it to the wood guy. He can give it to you for the meal. Or we can get a big guy with a club to distibute everything (food, firewood, "pretty pictures") evenly. Of course history tells us the guy with the club can't be trusted.
Or are you scared of "Reds"?
Having a family member that spent time under their tender care being "re-educated". YES!
What is to keep a MegaCorp from stockpiling authors to keep their copyrights intact. I envision an X-Files room under corpHQ with rows of authors, poets and musicians in cryotubes with hearts beating once a minute. "See, they are still alive!"
SD
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
The "limited time" argument in terms of saying whether it should be 10, 30, 50, 70 or 100 years is not the kind of question that the Supreme Court can well put itself in the position of answering. The "rational basis" test is really a very deferential one that takes little to satisfy. True, the current Court has taken to rapping Congress on the knuckles for overreaching a lot in the past 20 years, but not with the tool of the rational basis test.
The extension of pre-existing copyrights is the best attack based on rational basis review. It is a big transfer from my ability to read and disseminate to the ability of authors to maintain their works in a grip-of-death.
We could well end up with a decision that "you can do that, but you can't do it retroactively." As for the "IP is bad" crowd, only Justices Breyer and Stevens are particularly sympathetic, and even they limit their depredations to narrowly construing copyright. (See Tasini case.) They are not Justices that are disposed to limiting Congressional power under the Constitution.
If your book was selling from your publisher you should still be getting paid. It is only if people stop buying it and download it that you will lose out.
Also, you do deserve to be rewarded for a great work but for how long? Every other working stiff doesn't expect to get paid for work they did 20 years ago. If your work was truly great then you will have made in those 20 years enough money to fully compensate you for your effort. If your work was only mediocre then you better start writing or get a job.
And before you denounce me take a look at a site I created 2 years ago - writingpads. I created it with the idea of amateur authors publishing short stories for everybody to enjoy without expecting to make money off it. I actually published the first chapter to the book I was writing at the time (look under fiction) but ended up abandoning the site because I became too busy with another project. I also have wrote music for jazz ensemble. If anybody is interested I can send them a copy for free.
The strict constructionists lost during the Washington presidency in the fight between Jefferson and Hamilton on assumption. Hamilton, the correct and consistent thinking, won out over Jefferson, the illogical and incorrect strict constructionist. If the Constitution give the President or Congress to the power/authority to do X, then it IMPLIES that they have the authority/power to do it in the best way, whether it is spelled out or not.
In this case, the intent of copyright is NOT to give the creator or artistic/creative works a lifetime of control and monetary gain, and it CERTAINLY wasn't intended to give heirs a fat, lazy paycheck for doing jack squat.
I think we'd be better served by NON-strict constructionists in this case. A strict constructionist, like a fundamentalist Baptist, is full of crap, has no imagination, and usually fails to see the logical inconsistencies inherent in interpreting their preferred document(s) literally.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
So write another book. Article I section 8 of the Constitution says "limited times" - the fact that you believe you're entitled to royalties from such a book for your entire life shows just how perverted this law has become.
By writing another book, you're doing your part to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" just as the authors of the constitution intended.
The Bush administration has come down on the side of Disney. I don't anticipate the future Chief Justice wanting to deviate too much from the President's desires.
The second thought, is that if I devote my life to a project and produce a great work, shouldn't I be able to enjoy the spoils and decide the future of that great work? Shouldn't I be able to go to my grave, comforted by the fact that my magnum opus will provide for my children's future?
Honestly, sir, that depends on what you think of your children. If you believe them to be nothing but animals that can be prefectly happy living a world of grunting, eating and pooping, and believe thier mental devolution is completely tangential to thier survival in the world, then by all means, you are thinking correctly.
If, however, you believe that someday they, or thier decendants, will benifit from living in a world where ideas and thought are thier primary motivators, then you need to rethink your argument.
If you really do write a pivitol work, something that can really inspire and affect people, then you are doing a DISSERVICE to your decendants. Sure, your children will have a little extra bread, but all the people they interact with (and breed with) will be that much dumber and less informed. If ever author thought this way, that means that YOUR children will not have access to those works, and thus not have the insights and knowledge that your peers could provide them with.
If you happen to be the next plato or shakespear, then you will be harming your decendants by limiting thier selection of quality thinkers to marry. You will be hurting"humanity", which you may not "feel" you are a part of, but your decendants surely will be.
Think of it this way, if you discover the cure for cancer, and you pass this knowledge only on to your children, then sure, *they* will be cancer free, but the men and women who could have been inventing the flying cars and the free energy machines or whever wonderful things that would make your children's lives better might die of cancer before they can provide these things. The men and women that they could be marrying and having children with could also be dead. You may think you have helped your children survive, but that survival will only be for a very limited time. After a few more generations, your "generosity" will be the end of your family line.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Every other working stiff doesn't expect to get paid for work they did 20 years ago
Which is exactly why I have a problem with long copyright periods. In a fair system, if you want to keep getting paid for your creativity, you should have to keep creating. And I don't buy any of the BS about descendents deserving profits (a common excuse for life+20 type periods). If you are Thomas Edison's son, good for you, but earn your own damn money.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Heh...just been poking around in writings online about public domain, one of which pointed out the peculiar phrase everybody (including me - see the subject of my parent post) has been using about this - "falling" into the public domain. As if to imply that a public domain work is somehow "less" or "degraded" due to finally being released from the copyright-protection asylum...
Therefore, I think I'll be making an effort to call it "'Maturing' into the public domain" instead...unless someone has even better suggestions?
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
The Supreme Court -- every court -- is free to consider policy arguments.
They can consider policy arguments about whether a policy or law in it's effect conforms to the law or constitution. Beyond that they are not supposed to consider whether a law or public policy is (in their opinion) "right".
Of course through vague laws and a very expansive view of their authority to interpret the law and consitution the courts often do go beyond ruling on the law and venture into the realm of making policy (which means WRITING the law). In such cases the court is overstepping it's bounds, just like the executive and the legislative on occasion over step their bounds.
And of course, they're perfectly accountable.
To whom? The congress can try to write a new law but if the court is exceeding it's authority they will simply overturn the new law as well. A constitutional amendment would do it but that is incredibly difficult and is a radical step to take when the problem is not the constitution but the excesses of one branch of government. They are supposed to be limited by the fact that they are NOT policy makers only the interpreters of policies written by others and bound to what those other wrote. When they use loopholes and sophistry to exceed their authority there is very little that can be done.
Actually, I am going too far in saying they have no accountablity. Theoretically like every other branch there are checks on the court. The supreme court is regulated by congress which can even go so far as to make exceptions to it's jurisdiction by simply writing a law to that effect - a simple majority is all they need. As far as I know this almost unlimited ability of congress to not only overturn but remove the supreme court as an appelate court on particular issues has never been excercised and it would certainly cause a major constitional crisis if it was ever tried.
In the Federalist papers Madison pointed out that another (rather more blunt and extraconstitional) check on the courts power was that it has no way without the executive of enforcing it's opinion. Madison was essentially advocating Andrew Jackson's approach to the court: "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."
These two options I suppose hold the court accountable but the excesses of the court would have to be MASSIVE before either the executive or legislative branches would take to such extreme measures.
Damn Opensecrets is a cool site...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
No one's saying we should dress Mr. Lucas up as shitbeard and put a patch over his eye and cut off an appendage. Although...
Like I said, just making a "special edition" doesn't garner a whole new copyright, because the copyright applies from the date of first publication, regardless of how many "director's cut" or "special editions" that you do.
I believe you're mistaken here. From the Copyright FAQ at the US Copyright Office (see loc.gov):
47 * How much do I have to change in my own work to make a new claim of copyright?
You may make a new claim in your work if the changes are substantial and creative -- something more than just editorial changes or minor changes. This would qualify as a new derivative work. For instance, simply making spelling corrections throughout a work does not warrant a new registration -- adding an additional chapter would. See Circular 14 for further information.
[End Quote]
So a director's cut that includes new material would certainly count for a new copyright. Project Gutenberg won't use any book published after 1923, for the most part, for fear that a new copyright may have been gained or that the company will try and claim that a new copyright was gained.
the very fact that Jazz came from that music shows thatthe dirt farmers did not create it as a marketable product. they did not have the time to go and write it down so it can be copyrighted, then go to the big city to get it set up to be recorded...they also did not have the time to ture to get their music known (which is what was done befor the record was invented.
it still remains that they did not create the Jazz scene and all the popular songs that went with it because they did nto have the time to invest.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
I can't think of any 32767 page document you would want to print out in its entirety. The only other reason to use PDF is to discourage copying or modification. I think the Federal Register chose the wrong format.
You want profit? Then create it! Create it, pay for it or slag off!
That may be true for movies, but eventually, it'll become impossible to create new music. U.S. courts have defined copyright infringement on a musical work as the use of at least four consecutive notes that are substantially similar to the melody of a copyrighted work. Given that there are only 27,000 possible runs of four notes under the "substantially similar" standard (transpose melodies to start on middle C, fold rests into previous note, fold notes outside an 11-note range inward an octave, quantize durations to short/medium/long), I'm afraid that the day will come when composers will no longer be able to write new music that doesn't infringe a copyright.
Will I retire or break 10K?
In Grants day (and for some time thereafter) there was no "life of the author" clause in copyright law. His wife inhereted the manuscript, and granted the publisher right to reproduce it -- a "copyright".
PS: I try to boycott MPAA members' DVD, but when they come out with something like that I end up not only supporting an MPAA member, but one of the worst behaved members. I'm not a perfect person.
The fix for that is simply to pay for the DVD, and then donate an equal amount to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Because more of the retail price of a DVD goes to the distribution chain than to the studio, you're supporting EFF much more than you're supporting MPAA studios.
Will I retire or break 10K?
With few exceptions, the extras come from the studio vaults, and are eligable for new copyright
Anything from the studio vaults is subject to the creation+120 limit. Under present U.S. law, the copyright term in most cases is life+70 for freelance works first published on or after 1976, and publication+95 or creation+120 (whichever is shorter) for all other works.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Sounds like DeCSS has a very legitimate and legal use-- unencrypting matured public domain works.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I'm an author. I'm against copyright. I'm in favour of authors' rights for actual humans, for the reasons set out in the US Constitution - and because it seems to me that having individual authors taking responsibility would do something positive for the quality of publishing (etc). Publishers are welcome to *license* these rights, but they stay with the author. Problem of unobtainable works pretty much solved.
Fantasy? In fact, this is the essence of the law in Europe (except UK & IE), Japan... most of the world. One effect, for example: French TV news says who was responsible for each report in a subtitle, because they have to. Authors not only have the right to license their work, but the right to be credited and the right to object if it's manipulated (in a way that damages their reputation). Those are the moral rights that just barely exist in US law.
Since this is /. I'll relate the issue to code.
Sorry, authors weren't paying attention when
copyright on computer code was legislated. Imagine
it had been done on the same basis as books and
movies in France. Every time you saw a BSOD, it'd
come with the names of the people responsible.
Under authors' rights the GPL (et al) would be
a lot shorter and sweeter, because as you can
see by now it'd be going with the grain. And MS code would be the property of the coders...
Remember, too, that the EU has just codified parts of "fair use" - if a work is protected by encryption or whatever, there must a way round that for libraries and archives, people with disabilities and a fairly long list of other uses.
Clearly I didn't make myself clear, when I quoted this:
I did so because to me that implies "you die, your copyright ends", which is rather unfair to people who just finished a work shortly before they passed away! I'm happy with a fixed period of protection (10, 20, 30 years after creation), or a not absurdly long time after death. I'm not happy with "you die, it's over". How would you like to be an old writer with a great book idea, but your publisher won't pay you for it because you might die before they manage to sell any? Worse yet if you not only want to write the book but need the money for something, eh?
Elevating - The work was elevated into the Public Domain.
It isn't just the opposite of 'falling.' Elevation gives it a twist that the work has somehow become greater. Which it has.
When works are privately owned, often their popularity is controlled (to some degree) by marketing. When a work becomes public domain and still maintains popularity, there can be no greater honor - to the author (or his/her memory), the heirs, friends and fans. It means the work has been truly elevated - into the hearts and souls of the readers.
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
My hobby is genealogy and a (very elderly, probably now deceased) person wrote a book that covered my family line. I can't purchase the book anywhere, and the family won't acknowledge my requests to either republish the book or make it available free on the internet if I scan in the book (providing I can even get my hands on the book). Currently I have to game the system by doing interlibrary loans requesting a few pages be copied (until I can get the entire book copied.) I say the copyright laws are outdated. If a person has proof that the copyright owner will not republish a work for purchase within 10 years after creation the said intellectual property (IP) should be in the public domain. Yes, this person spent much effort in research. But what good is the research if no one has access to it? I want access to the data and am willing to pay for it, but it is currently unavailable. If an IP is not available for purchase within 10 years after creation it is obviously not generating any monetary revenue for the creator. Some might argue that the creator can't afford a republishing cost. Nonsense, you could make it available via the internet for a nominal fee. Have you heard of free web sites? The copyright holder should lose rights to their work if they have not made any attempt to provide purchase availability 10 years after the copyright date.
My argument is that the CREA96 is that the term granted was not shown "to Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" are required by the US Constitution. In fact, it can be fairly shown it hampers said progress since no incentives it gave could possibly have influenced past creativity yet the extention reduces creativity of those who would use the materials once they enter the public domain. Somebody might want to make a competing "Mickey Mouse" comic strip!
IMHO, copyright term should reflect the use of the work, and the likely motive behind creating it. For projects made for commercial exploitation (most mass media), this period should match that used by the company's financial analysts or stockholders. They seldom look beyond 20 years simply because the power of compound interest reduces the value of any future revenues to insignificance. So I would make the copyright period 20 years after first sale. This is generous, because most investors demand 2-5 year pay-back! For unsold works, some of which are potentially private papers, I would make the period longer, say life of the author plus 20-50 years.
Unfortunately, the "takings clause" doesn't apply since that only forbits the uncompensated taking of private property for public use, while CREA96 takes public property for private use
Yes, the "best" discards end up being slightly different angles, slightly warmer or cooler shots, or slightly darker or more exposed, or have just a little too much or little too little motion blur. In many cases the discards could be almost as good as the chosen shot to a different photo editor, and to most of the public at large they are all good shots. Think of it this way, you are shooting a white church steeple in golden light on slide film. You shoot two rolls (72 frames) to reduce the chance of bad film or processing wrecking your work (you only get two chances at shooting in golden light, the 15 to 30 min around sunrise, and the 15 to 30 around sunset so you don't want to let the lab waste it!). Now how many different useful ways are they to shoot the thing? Not 72, I've tried.
You end up with near duplicates because there are only so many ways to do it. They are not true duplicates because you have things like trees used as framing elements that are in slightly different places, so it can be proved which is the published image and which is the "abandoned" image.
How does that improve things? It still has been unavialble to the public, still abandoned. The only thing that changes is who can get it. Your lab can. Your photo assistants can. Your cleaning staff can (and in any of these cases I'm not talking about theft, you can use a slide duplicator). If use a digital camera (or scan your slides) you also have to worry about the old backups (say when you copy over the CD-Rs once a year because you don't want to be stuck with a bad one...three years worth is safe, 10 years worth is a lot of extra bulk!), or if you send the CDs out to be copied because someone else has a dup'er that takes stacks of CDs which is a lot cheaper then paying your assistant $6.75 an hour to swap them by hand...
That doesn't even get to the issue of the photo editors that want to see your "10 best" so they can pick the "one best" (not uncommon, since the final selection really is a matter of taste...and sometimes a matter of what headlines they want to fit in and where they fit on your photo!). They are going to buy and publish one image, but they tend to want exclusive rights on the whole set, plus anything that is "too similar" (you don't see Antoine Verglas selling a picture of Molly Sims in a red bikini on white fur to FHM and the same pose of Molly but in a pink bikini to Maxim do you?).
Speaking of Molly Sims (well, not her, more like the unknown models) it is common for small time models to take prints as part or all of their payment. They have restricted use of them (normally they can only be used in a portfolio which they use to get more work). You normally show them a few good images and let them pick which they like. Those may not be the same shots of the model that the magazine wants to buy, so in ten years the copyright would revert and not only does your model have the images, any other photographer that she tried to model for may have made a copy! Here copyright is not only protecting you, but her!
Oh, on to the nudes...
You can barely trust the places that are out there now with copyright to help you, without it you have a huge problem (Ok "barely" is taring Descrite Color Labs with the same brush that Walmart so richly deserves).
Self-developing would be fine, if we all liked B&W film and had a decent light tight changing bag and another $100 worth of crap. Some of us don't (or lose the film spool when we try to hook it onto the tank's leads). More over most people would far rather have color, and frankly home processing color sucks, is hard, and probably causes cancer. I only know one person that does it and I know a lot of photographers! (this guy is a former chemist, or at least that was a former hobby)
So because we strip copyright from non-published works (well after ten years) you either have low res images (most digitals don't look so hot at 8x10, let alone the 16x20 good film on a tripod with a good lens can do), cheap ameaturish infinite depth of field (until you get to the $1400 to $2500 EOS-D30 or Fuji S1 the CCDs on digi cams are too physically small to do selective focus), or you have to pay a ton of money (for the Canon or Fuji DSLR) which may not take your lenses (if you shoot Leica, Contax, Pentax, Minolta, Oly, rangefinders, medium or large format cameras...). Oh, or you are limited to the relitavly poor res and bad color pallettes of Polaroid or Fuji instant films?
You didn't cover game balance issues in things like Magic.
I didn't cover items that are delibratly produced in limited quantities in order to keep them profitable, like photos from most photographers that only go for $200 to $300 nicely framed in limited editions of 100 or 1000. Make them unlimited and they probably only go for $10-30 over the cost of the frame, and trust me these people just don't sell enough as it is.
Oh, I think they are a great idea, if we can identify all the holes and fix them without making it too complex, and too easy to bypass.
For example if we made abandonment apply only to non-limited run mass market items to get around it new books would be in "limited runs" of 500 million or other numbers above their possible sales run. It is hard to make the rules simple (to reduce unexpected loopholes), fair, and hard to avoid.
I'm with you. I want to be able to buy Kadge Baker's out of print stories (of corse she seems to be a fictonwise author, so I probably will be able to sooner or later, even so there are other authors I like that aren't. I want to buy CDs from bands that are gone. I want legal copies of my beloved childhood video games for MAME. I would love to examine the source for MacOS 1.0 just as closely as I have seen V6 Unix's (with the help of Jim Lions)...
...I just don't want to destroy collectable card games, small time art photographers, small to medium time stock and freelance PJ shooters, and a host of other creative artists that I don't know squat about!
Do you remember which part of the constitution allows that?
"...The second paragraph of Article 3, Section 2.
the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
(emphasis added)
Yeah, but did you see that part where Legolas stabbed that orc with the arrow, and then nocked it and shot someone else with it?
LOL, Of course LOTR would be in the public domain so we would still get to see that. BUT, it wouldn't have the kind of "official" status that being authorised by Tolkiens estate gives it. The Tolkien estate treats old JRR quite well and there is no indication that he would have opposed the movie. I believe his thoughts on a movie of LOTR was that he wanted either artistic control or a boatload of money.
Unfortunately not all authors are so lucky. Take his friend C.S. Lewis - His publisher and estate want a new series of Narnia books purged of the chrisian alegory that was central to Lewis' works The have also attempted to influence (using their copyright protections) documentaries being done about Lewis to downplay his christianity. You can agree or disagree with the mans faith but ignoring it is like doing a documentary on Babe Ruth and downplaying or ignoring that he was a baseball player. It's a particularly outrageous irony since Lewis' works are filled with biting commentary and contempt for exactly the spirit that is motivating HarperCollins. I won't say that Lewis is turning over in his grave since he didn't believe that was his final destination. But unless emotions like exasperaation have been utterly purged in heaven I'm sure he has a few choice and characteristically biting and eloquent words he would like to share with his heirs.
Thanks, never noticed that before. I wonder why it was put in, and even more why it was never used.
i don't always trust the supreme court to decide these types of things, their past record is spotty to say the least
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
I dare you to try to find a copy of the old vector arcade game "Asteroids" in the LOC.
The lack of enforcement makes this nearly pointless.