Million-Dollar Donation To Fight Abusive Copyrights

WeekendKruzr writes: "There is a story on C|Net detailing how Duke University's law school received an anonymous gift of $1 million for the express purpose of funding '...advocacy and research aimed at curtailing the recent expansion of copyright law.' It's good to know that we have some well-funded idealists on our side, even if they are 'Anonymous Cowards.' ;^) This, combined with the recent rash of even large corporations running afoul of intellectual property law, could precipitate some tangible results in the next couple of years."

Comments

Re:Imagine this

[Anonvmous Coward]

"I am an information consumer. Please explain how the DMCA protects me."

It protects your wallet from getting heavy.

the patent problem is a bigger issue

[MattW]

While abuse of copyright and dwindling fair use law is bad, fundamentally those things which are copyrighted are created by the authors, and they should have the ability to control them. If they control them in an anti-consumer way, consumers can always boycott them. This isn't going to change the world tomorrow or the day after, but what's at stake? Movies, music, TV, books -- mostly entertainment.

The patent problem is horrid. Unlike copyright, where at least people might claim some rights based on creation, patent law is clearly corrupted. People patent things that are not inventions -- they patent "business methods" of dubious originality, they patent software methods which have been in use long before the patent filing ("oh, no documentation that you used it? no prior art, then"), and moreover, patents screw the little guys, because patents cost a metric fuckton of money to get, especially en masse. If I write a book, copyright protects me automatically, and filing a copyright is cheap. If I didn't want to file a copyright, nowadays technology gives me other irrefutable options -- like publishing MD5 checksums in the paper -- that are even cheaper. If patents are truly for novel inventions, then why are developers in the software industry constantly afraid of stepping on patents? If all that many people are coming up with something independantly, doesn't that imply that the patent holder was just the first to file on something obvious that followed from existing technology, instead of the inventor of something novel?

Moreover, with patents, we affect all of technology, from CS to biotech, and we stop innovation. Having to pay $10 more than you should for a Britney Spears CD isn't going to hurt the economy -- but having to pay too much for inferior technology for 25 years that no one can legally improve upon, well, that's going to hurt the economy. Patents on obvious inventions slow innovation, hurt growth, damage industries, restrict R&D -- and this effect cuts across industries.

I'm sorry, but this is a lot more damaging that whether or not you can legally rip and/or trade mp3s.

Re:the patent problem is a bigger issue

[cpt kangarooski]

[F]undamentally those things which are copyrighted are created by the authors, and they should have the ability to control them.

Oh? How are you getting this? Merely coming up with a creative work doesn't seem to impart control, nor inherently need it to be artifically given. You're not arguing from a standpoint of utility, or you wouldn't've made such an absolute statement. You appear to be arguing from a stance of natural rights.

So... what natural rights? Are you, the author, HARMED because I can copy your work. I'm not excluding you from your ability to do things with it. I can't stop you for the same reason you couldn't stop me. And you ignore the notion that multiple authors may create a work. Did Disney create the Little Mermaid movie themselves, or by using previous works. Who then would be owed control if it flowed from the author?

Copyrights do not work like this. You cannot claim rights for as trifling a thing as a creative work MERELY because you created it. (which as we've seen may not mean complete creation anyway)

The way this _actually_ works 'round these parts is that people are granted copyright protection when society, and the government acting on its behalf, find it in _their_ best interests to do so. Whether it is in authors' best interests is irrelevant, save where that is a factor in the public's.

And frankly, I'm disturbed that you take such a dim view of copyright anyway. Copyright is culture. Our folk heroes now are Bugs Bunny and Luke Skywalker. Our common cultural experiences are in books, music, tv shows and movies. It's how we tell one another about ourselves and the world around us.

It is vitally important.

Do we study ancient Greece because of their inventions (precious few of them) or their art, architecture and philosophy? Do tourists worldwide flock to Rome to marvel at the way that the Sistine Chapel was constructed, or what's painted on the ceiling? Art is damned important. The damage that can occur to our culture is far more signifcant than you understand.

Re:This is a good start...

[stratjakt]

Actually, alot of the public does care, once made to understand.

Personally, I'm furious that I can't legally make a copy of Steamboat Willie to show to my kids. It's a piece of culture. It's history. It's not a commodity anymore. I should be able to say "look kids, here's the very first Mickey Mouse cartoon". But I can't do so unless Disney both decides to sell it, and I can afford it.

Just this weekend I explained this to an untechnical friend of mine. As soon as I explained that Steamboat Willie (and countless other pieces of culture) should belong to EVERYONE, not do Disney, he was confused. He truly did not understand the concept of 'Public Domain'.

His response was 'they can profit off Mickey Mouse, so they should keep it'

To which I replied, "Mark Twain's ancestors could profit off of Huckleberry Finn, but it's public domain. Profit isn't an issue. Copyright is a favor we grant creators. We own it. They stole it. This was exactly the same situation the founders of this country set up the law to prevent: a handful of corporations owning and controlling what we see, read and hear."

I actually watched as the hamster turned the wheels in his head. In an instant he was as pissed about the situation as I was.

This is our culture. This is our history. Whether any one person thinks any one piece of film, text, or music is trivial is irrelevant.

Fact is, in 100 years, when some kid needs to write a book report on 20th century culture, he'll be paying royalties.

So, in the end, we just need to increase public awareness, be it one person at a time. Your average Johnny Lunchpail doesn't realise what Public Domain is. They think copyright is forever.

That said, 1 million dollars to pay a bunch of future lobbyists isn't, IMO, the answer. 1 million dollars for a TV or radio campaign would be much better spent.

People are pissed when they understand the problem. We've all been taken advantage of.

Value of research

[nuggz]

I think the purpose is being missed.
This isn't being used to fight of lobby bad laws.

It is to try and find out what is good and bad about the existing laws.
We don't know the cost benefit curve for copyright length, they are going to try and define it.
(yes, that is a simplification)

Many "content creators" want infinite copyrights, to milk out as much as possible.
Many "content consumers" want short copyrights to copy and create derivative works for little or no cost. (that isn't the only reason)

At some point the time is long enough to have benefit for "creators" and short enough for "consumers" that both sides can be "happy". They are trying to find out what that point is.

Re:Socialist crap

[adb]

In what way is limiting the scope of a government-granted monopoly "legislating altruism"?