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."

5 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Wake up by Tri0de · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I respectfully disagree.

    IMHO the problem is not the laws keeping up, but the principles underlying those laws being screwed with. For example, what if we had just stuck with the original 14 years for copyright. Screw the Europeans and their life + 70 years.

    I am not saying that laws never need be changed or added, but I AM saying that the Founding Fathers got it MORE right than any other group of people in power, ever; that the underlying concepts that the USA was founded on are quite in harmony with the Internet and the information age. I can easily imagine the words 'Information Wants To Be Free'on the lips of Patrick Henry. The problem is not the laws being changed too slowly, but too fast, and with courts, congress and the states ADDING new laws where none are needed.

    --
    "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
  2. Re:Copyright Extention Act by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The companies will surely argue in friend of the court briefs that giving them additional copyright time will cause them to keep old works in distribution, which is a public benefit


    I'd love to see the opposing lawyer shoot that argument down by pointing out that with computers and the Internet, anyone can "keep a work in distribution", and that copyrights are typically the main thing keeping works out of distribution -- not the other way around.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  3. Re:Copyright Extention Act by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The companies will surely argue in friend of the court briefs that giving them additional copyright time will cause them to keep old works in distribution, which is a public benefit.

    That's what systems like Gnutella are for. There is zero justification for that assertion.

    The argument these companies would make is just a thinly veiled attempt to steal from the people. The Constitution clearly states that IP reverts to the people after limited times. Subverting the government to get around the Constitution is nothing more than 'piracy' on a monumental scale.

  4. Campaign finance reform by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article's closing sentence is: Perhaps if campaign finance reform succeeds in helping good arguments compete against ready cash, copyright will right itself.

    The fight against DCMA, copyright extension, UCITA (or whatever it was - the law being peddled to states to give click-through licenses teeth etc.) are all worthwhile, but they are attacking the symptoms. The influence of money over politics is the cause.

    (Disclaimer: I'm not a US citizen or resident, so arguably this really isn't my business.)

    Anybody want to get some easy karma by posting links to campaign finance reform organizations?

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  5. The "Entertainment" Industry... by Robber+Baron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    entertainment
    Pronunciation: "en-t&r-'tAn-m&nt
    Function: noun
    Date: 15th century
    1 : the act of entertaining
    2 a archaic : MAINTENANCE, PROVISION b obsolete : EMPLOYMENT
    3 : something diverting or engaging: as a : a public performance b : a usually light comic or adventure novel

    Somebody needs to remind the ENTERTAINMENT industry just what exactly their place is in the grand scheme of things! They've bent and twisted copyright laws and now they want to cripple every digital device under the sun, and for what? To protect Mickey Mouse cartoons and a few lousy movies??? NO! It's ENTERTAINMENT! It isn't something that actually matters that much! Yeesh, You'd think that it was a "national security" issue...like protecting nuclear secrets or something!

    No Disney, you can't cripple all the computers. People use them to do things that are more important than a stupid cartoon mouse...like helping to treat the sick!

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!