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)"

Comments

Good quote

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:Good quote

[AndroidCat]

Actually, Scientology wanted Sonny [Bono] to want the term of copyright protection to last forever. Otherwise Hubbard's stuff would eventually leak out into public domain. (Some already has due to slip-ups.)

Although there were rumours that Sonny wanted out shortly before he went eXtreme tree-skiing.

I hope copyright extensions get repealed

[Black Aardvark House]

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.

Siva Vaidhyanathan on the Sonny Bono Act

[haaz]

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.

Re:before DMCA what was there

[bnenning]

True, and it makes perfect sense. The DMCA and its buddies are direct assaults on the concept of general purpose computing. If things continue on their present course, it will eventually be illegal for you to open the case of "your" computer, or use it in any other way that Disney or Microsoft disapproves of.

DMCA and technologicly enforced copyright

[MSG]

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.

Re:DMCA and technologicly enforced copyright

[rhadamanthus]

That doesn't make any sense. I don't think you are addressing the same issue at all. Yes, under current law, copyright attaches itself to anything you create, be it an anti-gravity belt or a doodle on a post-it note. However, all copyrights expire after a certain (although unreasonable) length of time. The question is, if you use DRM technology, and couple it with the DMCA, how does a work ever *really* end up in the public domain? When you copyright a work, you agree to be the sole person to benefit from it for the stated length of time, after which the copyright no longer exists (provided it isn't extended or passed along etc.). This is an apparent contradiction. How can a work be both in the public domain, yet still wrapped in DRM technology the DMCA makes illegal to remove?

--------rhad

Not only Milton Friedman but 5(!) Nobel prizes

[sl956]

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!!!

Re:The fundamental issue

[michael_cain]

At least in law, corporations are "persons" and enjoy many of the same Constitutional rights as "natural persons" like you or me. For example, a piece of land owned by a corporation may not be siezed without the same due process required if the land were owned by a single individual. Corporate "speech," such as an advertising brochure or an anonymous editorial in a newpaper, is provided the same protections as are guaranteed to you or me.

I believe that the case law establishing that corporations are "persons" goes back to the 1860s when certain railroads were allowed to receive land grants which Congress had promised to "persons" satisfying certain requirements about using the property.

I do agree with your general sentiment that it is easy for these very rich, very long-lived "persons" to abuse laws intended for mere humans.