Slashdot Mirror
The Mouse That Ate the Public Domain
An anonymous submitter writes: "Antitrust lawyer Chris Sprigman has written a thoughtful column In Findlaw's Writ on the issues behind the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act and the legal challenge (Eldred v. Ashcroft) to that law. I only spotted one mistake. Sprigman states that Disney's 1967 movie The Jungle Book came out a year after Kipling's copyright expired, but I can't see how, under the terms of the 1909 copyright law, an 1894 book could have had its U.S. copyright expire much later than 1950. Except for that one glitch, (if that's what it is) it's a fine column. There's no explicit mention of computer software except in the mention of the title of a 1970 article by Stephen Breyer, but everything he says about the usefulness of the public domain in literature applies with a vengeance to source code. And his is discussion of the U.S. Constitution's framers reminds us (though Sprigman doesn't develop this point extensively, and might not himself put it in as blunt terms as I'm about to) that there's even a deeper reason than utility to cherish the public domain: it is our right."
How much more can you want?
Jack Valenti is on the record saying he wants his full consitutional due. Since congress is only allowed to grant copyright for a 'limited-time,' Jack wants it to be "Infinity minus a day."
(I know, I know... I can do the math. But that just makes it funnier, no?)
After all, would you want to see an un authorized Mickey Mouse pr0n flick? (never mind ....)
the thought is enough to make Disney spin in his refridgerator.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
"Read about the updates" and implement 5 years of work?
In such a world its no problem because you can just read about closed products updates in 5 years and reimplement them, too.