Slashdot Mirror
Lawrence Lessig's Personal Past and Supreme Court Future
Slyfox writes "Ever wonder how Lawrence Lessig became one of the most notable figures in the fight over free speech and intellectual property on the internet? Wired has an excellent article about Lawrence Lessig's life; it beginings with his start as a right-wing Republican, and continues by following the events of his life through law school, contributing to the Microsoft anti-trust case, and becoming a top cyberlaw expert. The article describes both his successes and failures, and it forshadows Lessig's biggest challenge yet: arguing Eldred v. Ashcroft before the US Supreme Court in October."
Its surprising no-one has put any numbers on the discussion - the Act "extended the duration of all existing and future copyrights for 20 years - just like that".
You'd have to imagine thats a gift of many many billions of dollars to the copyright holders. And while this is not a zero sum situation, someone has also suffered to some extent. That someone is the public domain, shich is us, the non-copyright holders.
I hope they win and overturn this foul legislation.
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful
You missed the whole point of Eldred v. Ashcroft.
Eldred v. Ashcroft is not predicated on the argument that copyright must be limited. The argument goes like this. The copyright clause in the Constitution is trumped by the First Amendment. The First Amendment holds supremacy. The only reason copyright has subsequently been held to be constitutional is that on balance it promotes expression. That is, the Constitution establishes a quid pro quo--it gives copyright holders a temporary monopoly; in exchange, it encourages sharing of art and science. Thus, on balance, copyright promotes expression, and it's constitutional.
The argument Lessig makes is not that the "limited term" clause is violated. It is that the act violates the quid pro quo. It gives to copyright holders without maintaining anything in return. In fact, it takes from the public, which is in direct contradiction to the spirit of the founders. He argues that the extension of copyright does not make anyone more likely to express themselves. In fact, they retroactively extend copyright, which makes no sense in the context of the spirit of the Constitution. The point is to encourage expression, but the Sonny Bono Copyright Act applies to works which have already been expressed. As such, it does absolutely nothing to promote progress (and in fact may hinder it), and therefore it is an unfair limitation of the freedom of expression.
Lessig's argument is a first amendment one; the "limited term" argument really is just peripheral.
Read Bujold. Free (as in
Lawrence Lessig: Don't stand there gawping like you've never seen the Constitution before! Now, today, we're going to be fighting for our free speech ! That is, unless any of you got anything better to do. Well?! Anyone got anything they'd rather be doing than fighting for our free speech ?! Yes?!
Geek1: Well, to be quite honest, Mr. Lessig, I'd... rather be at home with the wife and kids.
Lawrence Lessig: Would you, now?!
Geek1: Yes, Mr. Lessig.
Lawrence Lessig: Right! Off you go! Now, everyone else happy with my 'lil plan... of fighting for our free speech a bit?
Geek2: Mr. Lessig!
Lawrence Lessig: Yes?!
Geek2: I've got a book I'd quite like to read.
Lawrence Lessig: Right! You go read your book, then! Now! Everybody else... quite content to join in... with my little scheme of fighting for our free speech ?!
Geek3: Mr. Lessig?
Lawrence Lessig: Yes?! What is it?!
Geek3: Well, I'm, uh, learning Perl.
Lawrence Lessig: Learning Perl?!
Geek3: Yes, Mr. Lessig.
Lawrence Lessig: And I suppose you want to go and practice, eh? Fighting for our free speech not good enough for you, eh?!
Geek3: Well...
Lawrence Lessig: Right! Off you go! Bloody geeks! I don't know what it's coming to. Right! Lawrence Lessig, fighting for our free speech !
There is no way the Supreme Court will award this one to the plaintiff (Eldred). The Constitution implies a sort of limit on copyright, but unfortunately it is totally ambiguous.
Did you read the article? That isn't the basis for this case.
From the article:
"But how would he frame it? The obvious way was to say that with its most recent extension, Congress had finally gone beyond any reasonable interpretation of what the framers could have meant by "limited." That approach hadn't worked in the past, so Lessig constructed a different argument. In Article 1, Section 8, the founding fathers not only instructed Congress what to do regarding copyright -- secure "for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" -- but also stated why they should do it ("to promote the progress of science and useful arts"). Of course, Lessig's complaint includes the idea that Congress' continual extensions make a mockery of the word "limited" (one professor called it perpetual ownership "on the installment plan"). But the main thrust of Lessig's argument rests on the fact that, as with previous extensions, the Copyright Term Extension Act not only grants new copyright holders a longer term of exclusivity, it grandfathers in previous works. A retroactive extension of copyright clearly violates the Constitution."
(Emphasis mine.)
If the argument were as doomed as you say, then I think it's unlikely the Supremes would have even agreed to hear the case in the first place. I agree that it still doesn't seem too likely to win, but I think it's a tad more plausible than you suggest. As it says, your approach has failed in the past, but that's why they're not using your approach.
From the article: Some days he clocked 11 hours.
11 hours? Pussy.