Slashdot Mirror
Eldred Attracts Heavyweight Supporters
dipfan writes: "Opening briefs have now been filed with the Supreme Court for the Eldred v Ashcroft copyright case, arguing that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act is unconstitutional. The anti-extension case has attracted some big name supporters, including Intel, and Nobel prize winning economist Milton Freidman, who argue it is "highly unlikely that the economic benefits from copyright extension" outweigh the additional costs, and that copyright extension reduces consumer welfare. (Previous coverage of the case on /. here and here)"
Seriously though, It's good to see that people with influence are finally realizing that copyright extensions are bad.
"Congress shall have the power... To promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
So a limited time will now far exceed several generations. I can totaly see how this will benefit all the people of the good 'ol USA.
Economic recovery, here we come!
If this doesn't prevail before the Supremes, then all hope may be lost.
The copyright extension can't reasonably be argued to server any Constitutionally argued purpose. After all, to be extended, the works in question had to be produced.
Absent a time machine, how do you encourage the creation of something that's already been created?
The only thing you can do is negate the other side of the deal: transfer of your work into the public domain.
This is not even an issue of being for or against intellectual property. Congress used its Constitutinally provided powers to grant intellectual property to authors, but demanded consideration in return. That consideration was placement of works into the public domain after the author or subsequent copyright holder had been granted an adequate opportunity to exploit the work.
We have delivered on our end of the bargain. The copyright holders must deliver on theirs.
Also, the FSF filed a "friend of the court" brief, though if, like me, you are not a lawyer, you might rather just read the press release.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
This sort of high-profile case is just crying out for a shown of public support. Do you think a couple of free software heavyweights could agree on a middle-of-the-road viewpoint on Copyright law (by which I mean somewhere other than abolish it) in a form that "open IP" supporters everywhere (or just in the US ;) ) could "sign" in an online show of support.
The recent /. article on Copyright would probably been a good place to look for ideas ;)
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
Eben Moglen's brief for the FSF has a great quote:
``Actually, Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever.''
--Rep. Mary Bono
144 Cong. Rec. H9951 (daily ed. Oct. 7, 1998)
I have debated this hot topic on the Napster Forum at great length, with people ranging from typical ranters to a small record label owner.
The biggest issue I have is with the duration of copyright. Originally set to last 14 to 28 years from date of creation, it now stands as 95 years from the death of the copyright owner. The latest lengthening (the Sonny Bono Act) might have to do with strong lobbying from Disney, as Mickey Mouse would have lost its copyright in 2004. And to extend it again, 20 years at a time only takes a mere act of Congress.
On one hand, I'd like to see creators get just rewards for their work. But I disagree with a near-eternal guarantee, that might stifle creation in the future because current creative minds can rest on their laurels. In other words, they can stop working and continue to enjoy a revenue stream, while I need to keep working to get my next paycheck.
I am the evil aardvark!
Hahaah...I had that record when I was like 3 years old.
You rule.
Not: Eldred v. The United States of America
...
but
Eldred v. Ashcroft
Funny, I never heard cases like:
Cuba v. Reno
Is it me but ever since mp3's it's like the entire world is an expert on copyright infringment. I remember teh days on slashdot when all teh articles were about supercooling my 300a. interesting paradigm shift.
I read the opening brief last night and I'm overwhelmed by the quality of the work. The plaintiffs have, over the course of the trial and appeals, clarified and distilled the essence of their case. Their arguments are very persuasive, and the writing is superb.
This is probably the most important copyright case of our generation. The government has characterized retroactive copyright extension as a "national tradition", and if this case fails, the result will be that Congress will be given the go-ahead to continue the "tradition", and the result will be perpetual copyright. The entire idea of a public domain of ideas will be destroyed.
Eldred is our last, best chance to prevent perpetual copyright. It's a tremendous effort, the best contemporary legal writing that I've EVER seen. I urge all Slashdot readers to read through the opening brief. It should be required reading for anyone interested in the issues behind copyright extension.
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.
In the event of victory, would the law be totally repealed, or just the law applying to already produced works ?
If the latter, then I think we have a long way to go to get it back to a sensible level of say, 20 years from publication, which needs to be a worldwide campaign, or at least one which will get the EU and US to change simultaneously
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
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.
Or see Reno v. ACLU. This was originally ACLU v. Reno, but when the ACLU won in a lower court, the Justice Department appealed. The name's where therefore swtiched.
This is how the case looks whenever a private party brings suit against the federal government over the constitutionality of a law.
Now I wish I hadn't snipped what Siva said about the Sonny Bono Act from the interview we did! Here it is:
JH: "In your book, you refer to the DMCA as an example of what you call a "thick" copyright law. Can you explain the difference between "thick" copyright law and a "thin" law?"
SV: "...One way to measure the thickness of a copyright law is to look at the duration of protection. If works enter the public domain before an author's life expectancy expires, then it's a thin and democratic system. If the duration of copyright protection is absurdly long and potentially indefinite, then it's way too thick.
"JH: And the DMCA does this?
"SV: Not exactly. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which added 20 years to almost all active copyrights, does this. The Copyright Act of 1976 did this as well, but it took people a while to complain about it. Before THE 1976 ACT, copyright terms were for a fixed amouNt of time: 28 years per term, renewable once. Since the 1976 act, the term has been life of the author plus 50 years, and now 70 years. The Supreme Court will hear a case in the fall about the constitutionality of the Sonny Bono Act. And many of us on the public interest side of copyright debates are hoping that the justices revert to the first principles of American copyright: that copyright is meant to promote creativity and expression, not retard it. Copyright has become corrupted to such a degree that it's now an instrument of censorship, as Dmitri Sklyarov and Edward Felten can tell you."
-- haaz, who will think twice before snipped for brevity's sake.
-- haaz.
Eagle Forum/Phyllis Schlafly
Milton Friedman
Hal Roach Studios
Intel
Wendell Berry
Ursula K. Leguin
Barry Lopez
Peter Matthiessen
David Foster Wallace
National Writers Union
The United States Public Policy Committee for the Association of Computing Machinery
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
The Apache Software Foundation
The Domain Name Rights Coalition
The Center for The Public Domain
Public Knowledge, The Digital Future Coalition
The Public Domain Research Corporation
The Center for Book Culture
The Computer and Communications Industry Association
The Consumer Electronics Association
Many scholars in the legal community have taken to referring to the Sonny Bono Act as the Mickey Rat 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.
Why is anyone bothering to fight against the copyright extension, anyway? If you listen to the copyright holders, you'd know that everying under the sun is just going to be stolen by copyright thieves anyway. Of course then you also have to wonder why they're so worried about extending the term of copyright if they believe that it's impossible to publish anything without having it stolen. Something doesn't add up here...
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Will they?
It's one thing to do SOMETHING in the name of a good cause, and another thing is actually helping this good cause. As I see it, many of the copyrights are, in fact, owned by corporations. So the question is, when did the artist get paid?We all know the stories of famous painters who NEVER sold a SINGLE painting!!! They died in a state of close starvation, yet today their painting sell for millions of dollars-
For the people who can't quite manage to read dense legal briefs, there is another great writer who has tried to get our message across, and succeded rather well. Spider Robinson wrote Melancholy Elephants to get the point across to people who don't care. If you know someone who figures that this just doesn't matter to him, and doesn't want to be bored by discussing it, loan him this short story.
from what I understand, is derivitave works. The works of Motzart, Bethoven, and Shakespear, are all in the public domain. This means that all of their works are "fair game" when developing your own creative works.
If you like the base key changes in a work by Motzart, or Bethoven, you are welcome to use it. Unless someone since then has used that same combination of key changes, and their music is not in the public domain.
We have not seen quite the same situation in written works. Authors regularly steal story concepts from other books, file off the serial numbers, wrap them with new characters and locations, and publish it as a new story.
While I sympathize with musicians who cringe at the thought of finding some other musician taking their song and changing one or two words and re-publishing it. In writing, that would be plagerism.
On the other hand, if the creator of some work does not release the work to the public domain at some time, it will stifle creativity.
I think that Spider Robinson pointed out the problem best, though I do not remember the story or the book I found it in. When musicians can't publish the music they create, because it contains "substantialy similar" parts, we will see a greater loss to society than just about any loss due to war.
Then again, that's just my opinion. I can be wrong.
-Rusty
You never know...
There are several angles from which a decision can be approached:
/. reader will be quite familiar with Thomas Jefferson's thoughts, but Alexander Hamilton's opposing views will also weigh in, here.Then there is also the interesting comparison with patents. AFAIK, patent terms have been 17 years from day 1, and haven't been lengthened. In fact, recent reform put the additional cap of 21 years from date of file, to rein in people who stalled their patents in-office in order to extend protection.
First and foremost, there is the one-liner in the Constitution. That one line can be picked apart and the syntax and semantics debated.
Second, one can look for 'obvious' flaws in the existing (extended) law, and see if they (again 'obviously') flout the Constitution.
Essentially, is the focus from the bottom-up or from current-law down. I hear a lot about 'strict constructionism' on the Court, and that would seem to me to favor the first, bottom-up approach.
Beyond that, one can begin reading the thoughts of the framers of the Constitution. Any
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
IANAL, so could someone explain why this case is called Eldred v. Ashcroft? Ashcroft wasn't the attorney general when the act was passed. Is it just common practice to use the name of the attorney general when suing for unconstitutionality?
I just checked what copyright extensions were issued and when. If extensions are overturned all content from before 1946 will fall out of copyright. Every year after that another year will fall out until 2017 (corresponding to 1961) at which point the extended laws come into play. For example 1962 isn't available till 2021.
I read about 60% of the opening brief and I find it VERY convincing when it argues that retroactive extensions of copyright are unconstitutional.
Does anyone know whether the various acts extending copyright have severability clauses in them? If not, does that mean that the extensions might be struck down entirely? That could be a bombshell.
I would like to read some arguments submitted by Ashcroft/US on this matter, however.
MM
--
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
Proposal (by me):
You no longer need to send a copy of works to the Library of Congress in order to receive copyright, but it still needs to be done if you plan on publishing a large quantity, especially if you hope to legally protect the work. This is done, so that once it goes out of copyright, a copy will exist at the LOB so that it can be copied when it reaches public domain, and won't get lost.
I propose that any software in which you expect legal protection of your copywrite, needs to not only be submitted to the LOB, but must include the source code. This source will be sealed away, from public view untill the copyright ends of course. But will be also accessable by a court order (not contestable by the copyright owner), to government agencies wishing to examine the security of any systems that are vital to government interest. These security reports then (excluding any source code, and given reasonable time for the copyright owners to fix the security hole) will be available to the public. The source code will also be accessable by a court order during any court cases involving the copyright holder in which it is deemed nesseary.
I think a very important question to ask here is, "Does anyone care?" I mean, seriously, ask Joe Schmoe on the street if this matters to them and chances are they will say no.
To the STRONG majority of the world's population, Disney and Mickey Mouse go hand in hand. They wouldn't want to see the creators of South Park begin marketing Mickey Mouse cartoons. People draw an association between a work (be it a song, movie, etc.) and the creator of that work. That connection is important on a cultural level, even if people don't realize it. I'm sure if you asked people on the street, a majority of them would say that yes, a company/individual who creates something should retain ownership of it. It's human nature. If I build a deck on my house, I wouldn't want my neighbors thinking they could hold parties on it. It's MY deck. I created it, therefore I should retain ownership of it. Human nature tends to this belief.
Would Disney (and other companies as well) have had much of its early material if it werent for the Brothers Grimm and other public-domain stories? No. But, that's not to say that 100 years from now the Earth will be devoid of any culture unless Disney releases Steamboat Willie into the public domain.
Being NAL as I am, I would like to see some discussion of how limited term copyright is expected to work in a future where copyright is enforced by perpetual technological means.
As more information is published on digital media, DRM is becoming a means of enforcing the copyright on the information. However, I know of no DRM systems which provide for expriation of protection. So, while the legal protection may go away after the granted term, the data is still protected technologically. I wonder, what are the legal implications of this?
Copyright was granted on the grounds that after the granted term, the information was to enter the public domain. If the information is designed by the distributors to never enter the public domain, does it still deserve copyright protection? It seems like this is analogous to patents vs. trade secrets where trade secrets have no legal protection because there is no obligation to disclose the way they work. You have to trade one for the other.
Believe it or not, Ayn Rand advocated a 7 year limit on intellectual copyrights for the exact same reason... it stifles innovation and lets people rest on their laurels for too long.
Objectivist philosophy has its flaws... but sometimes she wasn't totally off her rocker.
I hope that the same people who mocked the doctrine of "original intent", particularly with regards to the Second Amendment, aren't the ones promoting the Supreme Court's striking down copyright extension, an interpretation that relies precisely on the philosophy of ascertaining the intent of the framemakers of the Constitution. The "facts on the ground" are that the elected representatives of the people of the United States, both Congress and the President, have repeatedly within the past few decades agreed to extend copyright without any manifestation of widespread public protest. The opponents of copyright extension need to come up with something a little more substantial than an opinion that copyright extension damages the "public good".
I suspect that of the groups and people submitting amicus briefs about the only ones with "clean hands" are Phyllis Schlafly and the Eagle Forum and Milton Friedman. Love them or hate them, people such as Phyllis Schlafly and Milton Friedman at least have consistency in their viewpoints, a true worldview and not opinions that bend with each passing intellectual fad.
Phyllis Schlafly and Milton Friedman can argue with clear conscience that they have always been in the fight to limit the role of the federal government over the lives of the people, regardless of the issues. In contrast all of the NIMBY environmentalists and gun control advocates are merely carpetbaggers, passengers of convenience who the moment the issue is gone will revert to readvocating increased expansion of governmental authority and regulation. In essence the left-wing supporters of the movement to strike down the opinion of the elected representatives of the people are merely seeking to steal property for their own purposes, because they have no intellectual foundation for their critique of the current system.
If the Constitution is merely a piece of paper to be reinterpreted as each generation sees fit, why shouldn't eternal copyright extension be a legitimate interpretation of this generation? If it is just as legitimate to question the applicability of the Second Amendment to today's society, why isn't it legitimate to question whether an 18th century understanding of copyright is not applicable to today's reality of mass media corporations continuously producing new works in new formats that the people have no problem paying for without visible public protest? See what happens once you decide to jettison the entire opinion of the past for the sake of expediency, it might just come back to bite you.
Spoken like someone who has never worked with COBOL, or on an AS/400 system.
Ok, so everyone here has donated a few bucks to the cause, right?
Here's a chance to be a part of one of the most important cases of our time, people. Open your wallet.
Eldred Legal Defense Fund
c/o Carinne Johnson
Stanford Law School
Crown Quadrangle
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
Donate via PayPal to free.mickey@foobox.com
From the list of signatories to the brief :
George A. Akerlof
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, 2001
Kenneth J. Arrow
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, 1972
James M. Buchanan
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, 1986
Ronald H. Coase
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, 1991
Milton Friedman
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, 1976
Impressing!!!
However to use the example of Mickey Mouse, Disney as a corporate individual still very much cares about it's characters and is likely to for quite a long time.
Rather than have works be lost in the extremely long copyright term we have now, why can't we just let copyright holders who DO care about their works renew the copyright until they no longer care about them? This would take care of the work of dead authors and companies that have gone out of business, while allowing Long standing companies protect their "classics."
Just a thought that seems to make too much sense to me.
Cheers,
Jonathan
I can add some quantification by running the numbers. A publisher is investing when they buy a copyright, and expects a return on their investment, usually expressed as a percentage per annum to compare with other investments like bonds or stocks.
Consider a publisher who wants a 10% return rate, and is willing to pay 100 for a 20 year copyright on a given work. Then 25yrs is only 106, 40yrs 115, 100yrs and forever 117. But tastes change, and work may become irrelevant by events, so sales 20 years hence are very uncertain. The usual way of coping with the risk is to increase the rate of return. So try 30%, with 100 still for 20 years then even 100 years is only worth 100.5!
Note that these analyses assume flat sales through the period, like for established continual sellers. For heavily front-loaded sales like most modern works, the premia fall by a large factor (5-10 times). And more for risky (high rates of return required) authors.
___
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
Is it just me or do others see a big difference in the quality of the aguments being put forth, pro and con. Salon has an interview with Morton David Goldberg, who is a top copyright lawyer and partner with Cowan Liebowitz and Latman in New York. He feels the Supreme Court shouldn't have even heard the case. His arguments don't seem very insightful or well thought out to me. At one point he makes the statement: "And the court, in another case from the 19th century -- there was a claim that a circus poster was not original, because originality is a requirement of the Constitution..." but actually originality is not explicitly required by the Constitution, but is inferred by the verbage "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...". He also throws around a big scare about "creat[ing] a dangerous precedent by shifting power away from Congress and toward the judiciary". Baloney.
On the pro Eldred side, the opening brief filed by Lawrence Lessig, et al seems to make alot more sense. It basically says that the authors of the Constitution used specific language in the copyright clause to limit the length of time that a monopoly would be given to authors of creative works. By regularly extending that time, Congress is, in effect, circumventing the "limited time" in a piecemeal fashion and, in effect, creating unlimited copyright terms. They also do a good job of showing how the reversion of a copyrighted work to the public domain helps to further scientific and artistic progress and bring up interesting First Amendment issues surrounding it. Good read.
- Crusadio
A: because that's not what copyright in the US is supposed to do. the constitution clearly says "for a limited time". perpetual renewal is pretty much the opposite of "limited". copyright, like patent, is a temporary monopoly in exchange for eventual release into the public domain.
RT*A, the brief makes this point ten or twenty times.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
The problem with your deck analogy is that it is faulty to compare physical property with ownership rights to intellectual material. If your neighbor builds another deck just like yours, he has his own deck, and it's clear that the deck is his. If I wrote a cartoon just like Steamboat Willie, it would be called a derivative work and I wouldn't be considered to own it - even if I actually managed to get the idea all on my own. Your neighbor, similarly, wouldn't necessarily be considered to own the idea of the deck (you'd proably say he was a copycat and not believe him if he said he got the idea all on his own) but he would still own the deck. That's why such analogies don't work.
One of the conditions for sum to be finite is for the sequence to converge to zero. But the sequence is not. Its not even constant, by all means it seems that its divergent and this means the resulting sum will be inifinite.
This hints on intention, past record and dangerous trend in the congress that extrapolates into an infinite copyright if it won't be checked at some point.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Why is anyone bothering to fight against the copyright extension, anyway? If you listen to the copyright holders, you'd know that everying under the sun is just going to be stolen by copyright thieves anyway. Of course then you also have to wonder why they're so worried about extending the term of copyright if they believe that it's impossible to publish anything without having it stolen. Something doesn't add up here...
Your point is...
I work for Intel and its stuff like this that makes me proud to be an an employee. I know I know they have done some boneheaded stuff in the past and the general Slashdot crowd hates them. But you have to wonder how come they are the only technology company on the list of supporters of Eldred. You do not see Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Sun, Dell or AMD on that list. Why?
You forgot the most likely angle to be used, the lazy-ass "don't rock the boat" judge angle.
The constitution allows congress to make laws. Publishers paid congress to make a law. If you don't like it you can go to congress and buy a new law. Can't afford a new law? Well that's hardly within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch. It's not like we're responsible for your rights or anything.
I hope that the same people who mocked the doctrine of "original intent", particularly with regards to the Second Amendment, aren't the ones promoting the Supreme Court's striking down copyright extension, an interpretation that relies precisely on the philosophy of ascertaining the intent of the framemakers of the Constitution.
Simply because an original intent arguement is the one Lessig is using in this case, hardly makes it the only one. Since the current Supreme Court is dominated by strict constructionalists, it's just the best argument to use on that group of people.
The opponents of copyright extension need to come up with something a little more substantial than an opinion that copyright extension damages the "public good".
For this court, probably. But I can certainly make a logically coherent argument the copyright extension does damage the public good, and protecting that is important. Even miniarchists agree with this to a point, whether they realize it or not, they just think that as little government as possible *does* maximize the public good.
Love them or hate them, people such as Phyllis Schlafly and Milton Friedman at least have consistency in their viewpoints, a true worldview and not opinions that bend with each passing intellectual fad.
Yes, they have. And so have people like Eben Moglin and Jessica Litman.
Phyllis Schlafly and Milton Friedman can argue with clear conscience that they have always been in the fight to limit the role of the federal government over the lives of the people, regardless of the issues.
They sure have. But this is where you really go off the deep end of libertarianism/objectivism blindness. Here's a tip, not everyone bases their political philosophy on that government regulation is either all good or all bad.
You criticize the left saying that they are inconsistent for supporting government regulation in one place, but not others. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the left doesn't view government regulation as inherently good or bad, but capable of being used for both? I concider myself liberal, and my take on government regulation is that it is a necessary evil. Does that confuse your oversimplified political spectrum?
In contrast all of the NIMBY environmentalists and gun control advocates are merely carpetbaggers, passengers of convenience who the moment the issue is gone will revert to readvocating increased expansion of governmental authority and regulation.
This is so flawed I don't know where to start. I can easily formulate a logically consistent position containing any combination of pro/anti environmental regulations, gun control and copyright extenstions. The world isn't so black and white, and people can hold many different views on important issues. To say that one can't be an environmentalist and against copyright extentions at the same time shows that your understanding of any political philosophy other than your own is virtually nonexistant.
In essence the left-wing supporters of the movement to strike down the opinion of the elected representatives of the people are merely seeking to steal property for their own purposes, because they have no intellectual foundation for their critique of the current system.
At this point, you've gone full-bore off the deep end, and continued to show you've never read a freaking thing about modern liberalism. If you had, you'd understand that free speech is very important to the left, and its primary argument against strong copyright laws lies in a pro-free speech basis. Try learning something about why people think a certain way before tarring them unfairly. I've read quite a bit about libertarianism, so I know not to strawman it like this.
See what happens once you decide to jettison the entire opinion of the past for the sake of expediency, it might just come back to bite you.
Sometimes the opinion of the past is good (short copyright terms), sometimes it's bad (slavery). Once again you show a blindness to the fact that life can't be so easily catagorized.
To close, I disagree passionatly with the right-libertarian style philosophies on many issues, (The US health care system being one) but I'm happy to have them as allies on issues we can both agree on (free speech, copyright limits). Instead of criticizing a group of people who *agree* with your position, but just have have a different basis for the reasons why, why not accept them as allies. Just because you agree with an evil statist liberal like me on copyright, doesn't mean you have to be swung to my belief on socializing health care. :-)
Yes, this is good reading about this very issue. Go read it right now.
...I do not know the figure for the maximum possible number of melodies-- too many variables-- but I am sure it is quite high. I am certain that it is not infinity..... Do you know what it is like to be a composer these days, Senator?' "
" '[Endless copyright would be the] worst psychic trauma the race has yet suffered.... There are eighty-eight notes.
Spider Robinson's story
He was a great man - intelligent, well read and an awesome speaker who we honor with a day every year in remembrance of his struggle for equal rights and the barriers to equality that must still be overcome. Its too bad that these works cannot be freely listened to and studied in order to educate and inform the people. I was thinking about collecting mp3s of his speeches and making them available to others at work on MLK day, but i guess its illegal to spread his good news.
MLK Jr. strived for racial, social and economic equality for minorities, the poor, and the uneducated. Im sure he wanted to protect his works from being co-opted for profit, and I doubt that he would rejoice that his family is now one of the rich oppressors who demand money for his works and restrict information that could help people take the power back through non-violent protest and community action.
Here at the king center through the goodness of their hearts they have made available an excerpt from one speech.
This page at Stanford University does have some more streaming excerpts though they are clearly trying to sell the full works.
I think its time to fire up audiognome and practice some civil disobedience.
We have the best government that money can buy.
As per subject. Hate to be pedantic, But It's So. (I notice that you get it right about half the time... please, try to be consistant -- it makes your writing look much better). Additionally -- as said by others, you already don't need to send a copy to the LoC.
I wish the case was made that these exclusive rights were extended specifically to authors.
Certainly works for hire can complicate the issue, but these are nonetheless authored by human beings, even if many human beings. Thus, anything that is beyond the human lifespan seems to be ruled out pretty clearly. Interesting that the original period 28+28=56 is most of a normal adult lifespan, and not more.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
You had it almost right. :-)
A while back, there was an excellent article on Lord Macaulay's speech to the British Parliament. Macaulay lays out both a solid case for copyright and against unreasonable extensions to copyrights.
The speech was made over 160 years ago.
Admittedly one descendant of the famous Hapsburg dynasty is in the European parliament, but that is because more people voted for him than for the other person (unlike the situation the US).
Now that Bush 2nd is telling Castro he should reform his voting system, I am sure castro won't mind - he'll just borrow the US version (e.g. disqualify blocks of people who might vote the wrong way) and not have any problem getting elected!
Parents should give their kids an education and the chance of good health; a trust fund should only be needed if they are unable to support themselves (e.g. are young or disabled).
Some kids have carried on their parent's work though - such as Chris(?) Tolkien and Chris(?) Browne (Hagar the Horrible). I don't know exactly how I should feel about that (but better them for a limited time than that some publisher should own the rights for eternity).
P.S. I have a recording of Thomas Edison from 1918. I wonder how EMI would feel if I made a record from that :-)
Sorry.
"Melancholy Elephants." Available online at baen here.
The constitution is about the individual, and not the corporation. Corporations can't vote, individuals can. Corporations are not protected by the "Bill of Rights." Indviduals are. It would be nice if political people remembered these facts. Copyright policy was supposed to be about protecting the revenue stream of works for the individuals that created them.
Current copyright law is about protecting the corporation, and not protecting the individual.
Hopefully, the court will see it this way and fix this situation.
Normally, I'm against economic supports and for sending manual labor overseas, but farming is essential to national defense. Of course, small-time farming isn't... I'm just saying I understand a reasonable amount of leeway.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
I can't really think of too many of Disney's kid films that wouldn't have violated a forever copyright.
I'm not sure if Jungle Book was out of copyright by the late-ish '60's or not. Hunchback of Notre Dame, 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, Peter Pan, The Littlest Mermaid, too many others to remember. Sure, they're done in-house stories, but Disney has made Big Money strip-mining the free commonwealth of shared culture, something they couldn't have done if it was all locked down in perpetual copyrights.
They're hypocrites, and I bet they'd have the gaul to sue anyone else who dared make another Cinderella movie, in spite of various version of the tale going back hundreds of years. (Too bad they left out the red-hot iron shoes for the step-mother and step-sisters.)
This isn't so much the Sonny Bono law, as it is the Mickey Mouse copyright law.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
We're talking about Sony, Phillips, Toshiba, GE, and so forth here.
So sony with one N is against sonny with two N's? I was almost certain that Sony Music (an RIAA label) would support perpetual copyright.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I know of no DRM systems which provide for expriation of protection.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides no protection against circumvention for works that have fallen into the public domain. From 17 USC 1201: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" (emphasis by yerricde). Works "protected under this title" include works under a subsisting copyright.
This means it's lawful to sell DeCSS programs designed to decrypt the pre-1923 content on Charlie Chaplin DVDs. And without copyright term extensions, it would also be lawful to sell DeCSS programs designed to decrypt "Mickey's Early Years" and other pre-1946 content. (Actually, Mickey Mouse cartoons have fallen into the public domain due to a copyright notice flub-up.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
The United Kingdom held out in two World Wars with an inability to supply food from its own farms. "National defence" is a conveninet and nonsensical excuse - much like painting pictures of bankrupt family farmers, when 80% of the US farm subsidy goes to the largest landowners. Try not to buy the hype.
Of course, it may be that every man, woman, and child in the United States thinks they owe farmers $700 each; I certainly wish I could convince the government to shovel money at me based on being a landowner. You may not care the damage it does US relations with allied states. But you ought to.
I didn't buy any hype. I came up with that justification on my own since I don't buy the poor small-time farmer argument. The US probably pays farmers to kill more corn than necessary to feed the entire population... but I don't have numbers to back up that assertion. :-) My point is that while many fundamental industries (textiles, manufacturing, etc.) can and will move largely overseas where manual labor is cheaper, some of those industries are requisite for any serious long-term defense plan.
No, they don't need handholding. Frankly, many of these farmers are terrible businessmen, sold on the old rustic ideal of the independent farmer. There needs to be a lot more consolidation across the industry. Farming collectives are nice, but they don't quite get there in terms of ROI. Farming must ultimately succumb to market forces, just like anything else. However, that doesn't change the fact that we need to keep enough farming local... and today, I don't know how much that is.
Lastly, too much consolidation is a poor defense plan too. If all our food is grown in just Iowa or something, a few nukes could take out the entire supply. There just need to be some checks and balances.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Sony Electronics is certainly not for perpetual copyright.
So effectively what you're saying is that within Sony, Sony Electronics has more pull than Sony Music.
"all tools that enable circumvention of use restrictions are banned, not merely those use restrictions that prohibit infringement"
1. This has not made its way to the Supreme Court, so it doesn't apply in my district, and 2. the ruling contradicts a statute. If a tool is incapable of decrypting "a work protected under this title" (say it checks each disc against a whitelist of public domain discs), then 17 USC 1201 has no effect.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It can be rough going, but I highly recommend reading Lord Macaulay's speech, because in a hundred an sixty years, the issues have practically not changed at all, and he demolished the case for extreme copyright extension so effectively that it didn't rear its ugly head for generations after.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Great post!
The Supreme Court is now part of the corruption of the U.S. government. See Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 by Alan M. Dershowitz and The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President by Vincent Bugliosi, Molly Ivins (Foreword), Gerry Spence
I wrote a (free) book that collects links from the world's most respected news sources to show corruption of the U.S. government by the secret agencies of the U.S. government: What should be the response to violence?