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.)"

Comments

I sincerely hope...

[perrin5]

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.

It's an argument, not a poll

[Planesdragon]

Courts should be, and are, swayed by logical opinions and arguments. That's why our legal system is a combative one.

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 /made avaliable despite no copyright.

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.

The Future of all Printing

[greenhide]

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*

The Supremes aren't the only target

[yerricde]

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.

I don't need to eat after I'm dead & solution?

[Interrobang]

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?