Slashdot Mirror
Lessig on the Future of the Public Domain
hank writes "The O'Reilly Network is running an interview with Lawrence Lessig -- author of "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace" and "The Future of Ideas" -- on the future of the public domain, reaction to his calls to arms, and his next venture, Creative Commons, "machinery to build licenses that allow people to mark their content as available in any number of ways to the public domain.""
I really hope that your not refering to me complaining about bribing. I realize that its an in effective system (re: political donations) but it's every person and companies right to donate to a political party, and it turns into a system for bribing, but so be it. Just work with in the system to make it work for us and not them. Because realistically, if people cared enough they have alot more lobby power then the corporations, because corporations don't get votes. I'm not complaining about bribing just saying that we should be the ones out bribing companies like Disney.
High sounding language, but the intent of such escape clauses is to allow Congress to normalize laws to reflect changes in the rest of the world. E.g., if everyone else has standardized on 50-year non-renewable patents, then US inventors are at a sharp disadvantage if they lose patent protection after a 20-year non-renewable term.
But note well that 20 years is well within the expected lifetime of the inventor, and even 50 years is well within the expected lifetime of his immediate family. The recent extension to copyright law is so long (75 years after the death of the author, IIRC, which could translate to well over a century after first publication) that heirs born long after the deaths of the author and his immediately family still own the copyright.
It is hard to identify much difference between this and the Titles Of Nobility explicitly prohibited in the Constitution. The main difference between the Duke of New Jersy and the Duke of Disney is that there can only be a single Duke of New Jersey, whereas the Dukes of Disney may number in the hundreds and have such diluted interest in their 'property' that it is essentially abandoned yet still denied to others.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
get rid of the notion that it's allright to derive value by restricting the copying practices of other
Isn't this just the opposite extreme? Why not just restore the original balance of copyright and try that?
For the best example of this working, take a look at the patent system. 17 years. That's it. Companies make fortunes on patents. So do the companies that don't own them (after 17 years).
A 20 year copyright would dramatically improve the situation. Removing copyright completely would do significant damage to the economy, and make it near-impossible for anyone who's work is copyrighted to make a living.
This fight between old and new society is going on all over the planet - be it copyright or patentability of software.
The current usage of copyrighting software (and even more patenting it) will create a lot of the so called 'illegal' activities. Pretty much like the prohibition created 'illegal' deeds.
Laws should be a help to life, should support the overall situation, should regulate but not rule our lifes. If we continue these old laws, our children grow up as law-breakers, but that's not their fault.
Either the Western Sphere adopt their laws to the modern pace of development or the really interesting software development and distribution in 2020+ will happen in countries without these wrotten old concepts of intellectual property.
I don't think you have enough faith in them.
Keep in mind that they are appointed for life. They will decide based on what makes sense to them (legal arguments, personal philosophy, etc.).
They don't have to kiss up to anyone. That is the whole point of the supreme court.
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
I think the CDBTAAPGEHNASE or whatever the SSSCA is called these days will outlaw any hardware/software that does not implement a copyright management system approved by (read designed by) the RIAA/MPAA.
This means that directly or indirectly they get to decide which alternatives for protection are available, the minimum cost of recording devices (even outright outlaw recording technologies as "fundamentally insecure"), and their availability in the market.
The small documentary studio would not survive a dramatic increase in the cost of recording and reproduction technologies. And even if the startup band is able to afford recording at a licensed and approved studio, their costs of distribution would be higher and their available licenses would be restricted to the options pre-packaged by the studios in the technology.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
I started a thread on this issues about a year ago on gnu.misc.dicsuss. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&th=bc4138180 3b7e0c0&rnum=1
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.