Eldred vs. Ashcroft

Sylver Dragon writes "Business week has a story about Eldred v. Ashcroft. Seems that Eldred wants to put some of Robert Frost's works on the web, but, sadly, those were copyrighted. What makes this more interesting, is that the works would have become public domain, had congress not extended the length of copyright after an artists death. So now, the Supreme court must decide if congress overstepped the bounds of the constutional provisions for copyright laws, when they made the last extension. With any luck, the Supreme Court will choose the "road less traveled."" The plaintiffs have a webpage with much information.

Comments

BookMobile

[Anonymous Coward]

Brewster Kahle from the Internet Archive has a 'side project' called the BookMobile which leaves San Francisco on Monday to travel across the US to Washington DC.

His arrival in DC is scheduled to coincide with the Supreme Court hearings. More details at :

http://webdev.archive.org/texts/bookmobile.php

Re:Ashcroft Strikes Again

[Your_Mom]

*lart*
The only reason AShcroft is named is because he is the current attorney general in the US. He has had nothing to do with TCEA.

We need a "(-1, Didn't read the story)"

From the webpage...

[GreyWolf3000]

Legal Documents

In this section, we have collected the legal documents involved in the case. The case began in a federal district court. We appealed the decision of the district court to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That court's decision is now before the Supreme Court. Click on a link below to read the briefs and decisions at each state.

District Court (Jan 1999-Oct 1999)
Court Of Appeals (May 2000-July 2001)
Supreme Court (Oct 2001-present)

How You Can Help

Contribute to the Eldred Legal Defense Fund

While the lawyers in Eldred v. Ashcroft are donating their time, litigation before the United States Supreme Court is still expensive. Your donation, however large or small, can support our fight to preserve the public domain.
If you would like to contribute, please send a check to:

Eldred Legal Defense Fund
c/o Carinne Johnson
Stanford Law School
Crown Quadrangle
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610

Attach a logo to your web page

If you'd like to help spread awareness, take one of these sample buttons, save it to your site, and use the sample code provided to link back to this site.

The logos are on this page.

Excellent Wired article

[Murphy(c)]

There is and excellent Wired article, that touches the subject.
It gives you the idea of why they had to go with a "low profile" like Eldred and not some one like Michael Hartthe of the Gutenberg project.

Really an interresting read.
Murphy(c)

Related

[GigsVT]

This is probably the best collection of public domain poetry. Enjoy.

Re:Whats wrong with this law?

[dreamword]

Agreed that this should go away through Congress. However, the constitutional case against it isn't as weak as you suggest.

As Lessig, Sullivan, et al.'s brief notes, the argument is not that Congress doesn't have the right to regulate copyright, but that the clause imposes limits:

• "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" -- The key word here is "progress." While it can be said that handing a pile of cash to Disney and RIAA/MPAA members will lead them to produce more content (since they have a pile of money), the petitioners say this isn't good enough. They say that promoting progress can't be done just by handing piles of money to, say, Gershwin's estate, at the public's expense, since Gershwin's estate can't do anything for progress, since Gershwin's dead.
  
• "For limited times" -- True, 90 years is a limited time. However, there has to be a limit to Congress's power to extend otherwise the time wouldn't be limited. And if there is a limit, we've reached or exceeded it. The retroactive portion of the CTEA really pushes the outside of any reasonable definition of "limited".
  

There's no doubt that copyright fosters invention and discovery. We're not talking about abolishing copyright itself. We're just saying that handing out a longer copyright for a piece of progress that's already completed can't possibly foster invention or discovery, especially when most of these windfalls are going to corporations representing the works of dead guys.

-- Dreamword
(Becoming a common law fan more and more each day)

Promoting progress through copyright extension

[smiff]

According to the government, if they can come up with just one reason that retroactive copyright extension promotes progress, the law is constitutional. They also argue that the constitution does not restrict congress at all. Here are some arguments taken from the defendants legal briefs:

1. By extending copyrights, congress is allowing large copyright holders to continue generating revenue from old works. The copyright holders then invest that revenue in new marginal and high risk works.
2. Historical practice confirms that "Limited Times" does not mean a single, inalterable, limited time. Every single copyright extension has extended the copyright of existing works.
3. The CTEA's application to existing works increases incentives for copyright holders to restore and disseminate their works.
4. The CTEA's impact on international trade promotes progress in the United States.
5. The CTEA is not part of a string of infinite expansions, but rather a means to harmonize copyright with the European Union. "In an era of multinational publishers and instantaneous electronic transmission, harmonization in this regard has obvious practical benefits"
6. If the CTEA is limited in regards to future works, it must necessarily be limited as it applies to existing works as well.
7. Thomas Jefferson signed the 1808 and 1809 patent term extensions into law, and James Madison signed the 1815 patent term extension into law. Thus the nation's founders never meant "limited times" to mean "unalterable limited times".

Re:Promoting progress through copyright extension

[nathanh]

Thomas Jefferson signed the 1808 and 1809 patent term extensions into law, and James Madison signed the 1815 patent term extension into law. Thus the nation's founders never meant "limited times" to mean "unalterable limited times".

Lessig isn't arguing that the "limited times" should be unalterable in the sense that you are presenting. He's arguing that once a work is created the expiry-time for that work should be unalterable. Lessig says that if the creator accepted X years copyright protection before creating the work, then a retroactive copyright extension to X+N years does not (and cannot) encourage the creator to create more work or better work. There is no value to society from retroactive copyright extension.

Excellent briefs

[Saib0t]

If you have a bit of time on your hands, reading the briefs can be an englightening experience.
Both are written in "plain english" that any of the slashdot readers should be able to understand.

I'm not going to discuss them, the article on wired does that, partially...

For those interested, the links are:
Reply Brief for the Petitioners and
Government Response Brief

Re:Protests

[avandesande]

The justices are not supposed to care what your opinion is. There duty is to interperet the law.

Re:Question for slashdot

[Raul654]

They're already one step closer to that than you think. One of the circuit court judges said explicetely that incrimental+retroactive changes in copyright law have made it, essentially, indefinite. The other side of the arguement is that there has always been a quid-pro-quo in copyright: the author benefits from being given a temporary monopoly (this is his incentive to create), while the public benefits from the author's wisdom. But with retroactive expansions, there *is* no quid-pro-quo, therefore it does not promote the "arts and useful sciences", therefore it is unconstitutional.

When suing the Government...

[yerricde]

How exactly did they suggest Ashcroft is behind this?

The U.S. Constitution prohibits people from suing Congress. So if you want a federal law invalidated, you sue the current Attorney General in his or her official capacity as Attorney General to get an injunction against enforcing the law.

Re:Ashcroft Strikes Again

[Proaxiom]

The original name of the suit was "Eldred vs. Reno", but was renamed with the administration change.

It's not like Reno had much to do with it either, though. Congress passed the bill into law. At the time it was dubbed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, as he and later his widow pushed for it. Bono was actually in favour of unlimited copyright terms, but that is prohibited by the US constitution.

Yes, because you have no bananas.

[yerricde]

Quite being lazy and write your own book.

For books, that may be possible, but for musical works, I'm not so sure. The standard for copying under United States copyright law is substantial similarity, and courts have found that matching four notes of another song's hook is more than enough to make one melody substantially similar to another (Handel v. Silver). To match four notes, given that what key they're played in is irrelevant, you have to match the pitch interval from one note to the next, and the time interval from one note to the next. There are fewer than 50,000 possible melodic hooks (read this page for details).

So how is it possible to write a song without stepping on somebody else's copyright?

Re:another perspective

[dragondm]

Erm, actually, It does say what they have to do, and are forbidden from doing the opposite of.

It's a general Constitutional principal. The federal gov't is explicitly forbidden to do anything that the Constitution does not explicity say that it can do.