Slashdot Mirror
Public-Domain Bookmobile Hits the Road
At Belle Haven Elementary School in Palo Alto, right about... *now*, the
Internet Archive Bookmobile
is starting its ten-day, cross-country trip to the Supreme Court. They're putting the hammer down
(itinerary)
(blog)
to make it to Ohio for the Bookmobile Conference.
Then they'll drive into Washington, D.C. on Oct. 8, the day before the nine Justices hear the
copyright-extension
case
Eldred v. Ashcroft.
The contraption is a Ford Aerostar with decals, satellite dish, wireless LAN, laptops... and a printer and binder to do on-demand printing of any of the thousands of public domain books on the internet. (The webpage says 20,000 but the decals claim 1,000,000... maybe they have 50 fonts :)
Update: 10/01 01:33 GMT by T : Nick Arnett writes "The piece about Belle Haven School's bookmobile put the school in Palo Alto. It's not; it's across the freeway, in a far less wealthy and privileged neighborhood, where access to technology is much less common than in Palo Alto. (I'm on the board of Plugged In, a community technology center in the same area as Belle Haven.)"
That this has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT. The entire point of the Supreme Court is that they are not swayed by public opinion. That's why, once appointed, the justices are in until they retire. Their only decision making process _should_ be the law.
That said, good for these guys. I am a huge fan of public, attention grabbing demonstrations, plus I like book mobiles.
hmmmm?
Brilliant...just brilliant!
Courts should be, and are, swayed by logical opinions and arguments. That's why our legal system is a combative one.
/made avaliable despite no copyright.
An expression of demand for works in the public domain should be considered by the court, ESSPECIALLY if it's shown that they're kept in print
The argument for extended copyrights is basically "can't keep them in print if not copywritten," which means that they're largely unavaliable to casual consumers.
From what I've heard, this will be the future of *all* printing. With the exception of perennial winners like Stephen King, authors will now have their works digitized. Then people interested in reading their books will go to a printing center where an exact copy of that book can be printed.
The benefits, of course, is that the number of copies printed matches exactly the number of copies purchased. The downside is that many people use hands-on browsing to find books they want, which won't be possible when the books are in digital format.
In regards to this specific campaign, I think that it's hopeful that the Supreme court is making a decision here, because I think they tend to be pretty good about decisions in these areas. It's pretty clear from a legal standpoint what the decision should be. The primary purpose of the constitution is to protect our constitutional rights. This law restricts our rights and extends copyright protections to far beyond what their original limitations were. I *don't* think that the bookmobile will have much effect on the Court, but hopefully it will make some of our citizens more aware of just how many new ways corporations are seeking to screw us.
So, here's hoping. *crosses fingers*
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
The entire point of the Supreme Court is that they are not swayed by public opinion.
The Supreme Court isn't the only target of these demonstrations. The U.S. Congress is located in the same town. The entire point of Congress, as implied in the Constitution, is that it is swayed by public opinion.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I hope it brings attention to the issue. This is a really important case, regardless of who wins, because the Supreme Court is going to be setting a huge precedent as to how much power the Congress has in passing copyright laws. Even if they don't strike down the law they're almost certainly going to condemn the Appeals Court for saying that the First Amendment does not apply, and they are going to decide whether or not Congress is allowed to pass Copyright law which does not promote the progress of science and useful arts.
I think we're going to have a split decision, or else we're going to see the law struck down, and I highly doubt public opinion is going to be a factor at all. But people need to be educated on the issues. Even many if not most Slashdotters don't realize that copyright is not a moral right, but is one which granted solely for the purpose of encouraging progress. This Supreme Court ruling should help to show that fact.
Dateline Washington: Bookmobile crew arrested for wardriving.
"We're amazed that they thought they'd get away with it; that dish isn't exactly low-profile", said police spokesman Lt. Clueless.
"The occupants of the vehicle have been arrested and detained for possible terrorist acts. We believe they were attempting to download and print, on the spot, confidential government files."
Sources said the lack of confidential documents was not considered in the decison to make the arrest. "What else could they possibly be doing with that kind of equipment? They were clearly up to no good."
In response, the Homeland Security Department upgraded the national alert status to light pink. A White House spokesman denied rumors that the president's wardrobe selection was crossed with security documents. "He just thought he'd give orange a shot. What's wrong with orange for a tie? Besides, the president has been dressing himself for years, he doesn't need a wardrobe list."
Tom Ridge(winner of the annual "Who exactly is he anyway and how did he get to be where he is?" award, could not be reached for comment as he was busy looking severe, concerned, and important while personally inspecting a donut factory to make sure the nation's donut supply would not be in danger in case of a biological attack.
First of all, I'm a writer. Secondly, I like to eat (my reason for ongoing membership in the Great International Tech Writer Conspiracy). Thirdly, I approve of limited term copyright in certain circumstances. (There are a lot of instances where copyright comes in handy; there are also a lot where copyright is just no damn good, but that's another story.)
However, I don't think that I, my heirs and/or assigns, and/or my legal-entity estate, and/or the corporation which bought up my catalogue before or after my demise (particularly this latter) should be able to profit from my works forever, or even for three quarters of a century after I'm dead. There's no reason for it.
There are a lot of good reasons against it, though. First of all, it isn't exactly fair for other people (and/or corporations) to get fat off my legacy (let them make their own art instead of just collecting royalty cheques on my work in perpetuity). Secondly, a lot of art (books, movies, short stories, etc.) is getting "lost" in ever-extending copyright boondoggles. Many early films are decaying in their canisters, unshown and unrestored, because the copyright holder is long dead, but the work hasn't passed into the public domain. Same with thousands and thousands of what would be "mid-list" books written since 1910. Thirdly, the commonweal (that is, society at large) deserves (and, at least in the US, is Constitutionally assigned) the right to use my artistic work (after a set period) to enrich itself, which I support.
I won't need those hypothetical royalties, anyway. I'll be dead. Next question for the lawyerly types out there: Upon her demise, is it possible for an author to will her works into the public domain?
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
If Windows 3.1 was being enjoyed by any substantial number of people, Microsoft would still support it
Windows 3.1 was never enjoyed by any substantial number of people.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
We're dancing around the real issue, here. It's far bigger than how long Disney gets to keep exclusive rights to Mickey Moust. Unfortunately far worse damage is being done than merely overextending Mickey's copyright.
If retroactive copyright extension is upheld, then the public domain is essentially dead. At the very least, the last public domain music/literature ends up coming from early in the 20th century.
If retroactove copyright is upheld, does anyone believe that some Senator won't be for-hire next time Steamboat Willie is about to expire, and again and again after that.
At the moment, I don't give a %^&* about Mickey Mouse, nor of any of the $%^& Jack Valenti wants to protect "for Eternity minus one day." It's all the other stuff that gets dragged along with it. Essentially the cultural "abandonware" that sometimes becomes important much later. In the name of Mickey Mouse, we've prevented EVERYTHING from lapsing into the public domain.
It stinks, and I'd like to see retroactive extension reversed. Even better, I'd like to see terms more "limited". Even though Jefferson himself did sign extensions, I don't believe he envisioned going beyond "threescore and ten". After all, that's Eternity, to me.
If we can't have reversal or rollback, I'd prefer to require copyrights to need renewal. Abandonware (be it music, print, movie, or software) simply should fall into the public domain.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.