Slashdot Mirror
Eldred v. Ashcroft Oral Arguments
PMuse and others wrote in about the oral arguments held today in the Eldred v. Ashcroft case challenging the most recent 20-year retroactive extension of copyright terms. Google News will cover the mainstream news stories about it; transcripts of the arguments will eventually be posted; but as I write this the only first-hand reports appear to be LawMeme and the Associated Press. Reader McSpew adds a link to a piece by Steven Levy explaining the importance of Eldred v. Ashcroft and what's really at stake. Update: 10/09 19:12 GMT by T : khkramer links to his own summary of the arguments, writing "I have press credentials
at the court, so I was able to take notes
during the argument, and in the summary I tried to cover
all of the major issues that the Justices
asked about."
As much as I don't want it to happen, I'm 99% convinced that the Supreme Court will side with Disney, et al. I just don't see them actually taking a reasonable view of the Constitution and understanding that unlimited extensions equal an unlimited time.
:-/
And when they decide in Disney's favor, that will be a big flashing green light for Congress to sell out all other IP-related protections for the citizens without a second thought.
Say goodbye to the Public Domain. It was fun while it lasted.
After all, if there's no incentive for people to create things, nothing good will be created.
On the other hand, if there's no raw materials for people to create things, nothing good will be created. You can already start to see this happening in fields such as songwriting, where some songwriters are having trouble getting around the theoretical limit on the number of distinct melodies in the Western musical scale, which is fewer than 50,000.
Will I retire or break 10K?
No, not for lobbyists. That's what we've got now. I mean the following:
Undoubtedly, Disney would stand to lose $$$$$$$ if Mickey Mouse were released from copyright, and it is in their interests to do whatever it takes to preserve it. I can in fact sympathize with that. It is a huge corporate symbol for them, and losing it would hurt bad.
But in order to keep Mickey Mouse, they utterly trash the copyright system, totally destroying the idea of public domain. Some would argue that this is intended, but I'm not quite that cynical. (Yet.)
Why can't we have a sliding scale, where if a corporation wants to hold onto copyright longer than the default, they pay some nontrivial amount of money every few years past the default time in order to renew. That way symbols like Mickey Mouse, which are still viable moneymakers for corporations, can be maintained as long as they are profitable. And anything which isn't lapses into the public domain. Why should that bother them? A few tens of thousands wouldn't even make Disney blink.
Really, I don't think we are out to grab Mickey Mouse away from Disney. What happened to finding a middle ground? I thought that's what American politics was all about.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
It's not a loophole but there is a cyclic nature to the way that legislation is enacted, challenged, and refined. (And re-challenged, etc., etc.) This is a good thing.
Federal legislation is often broad-brushed and implemented with big clumsy fists. Sometimes it's not enough. Sometimes it is enough. Sometimes it's a little too much but it's tolerated. And sometimes, it really stops something that "outta be allowed". So we have Eldred v. Ashcroft saying that the copyright law extensions are now really too long to be sensible.
Given the relatively few cases the Supreme Court takes up, I think it's a really good sign that this one was. The corporations now have to hold their breath--you can't lobby the Supreme Court.
And, although there are plenty of experts that can speculate, it's hard to say whether they will uphold the existing legislation or declare it unconstitutional (and for what reasons). Whatever the outcome, there's a newly painted guidepost in U.S. intellectual property law to work with.
--- "It annoyed me, so I fixed it." -- Tom's First Principle of Engineering
Disney would stand to lose $$$$$$$ if Mickey Mouse were released from copyright
The Bono Act wasn't designed to preserve the monopoly on Mickey Mouse as much as it was designed to preserve the monopoly on nu-skool Winnie-the-Pooh (a relatively recent Disney creation) and old-skool Winnie the Pooh (to which Disney bought the rights from the Milne family). Disney makes much more annually from sales of Pooh merchandise than from sales of Mickey merchandise.
Why can't we have a sliding scale, where if a corporation wants to hold onto copyright longer than the default, they pay some nontrivial amount of money every few years past the default time in order to renew.
Others have proposed similar plans on both Slashdot and Kuro5hin. An interesting plan would make the renewal fees increase exponentially for every subsequent re-extension.
FREE THE BEAR!
Will I retire or break 10K?
The argument is pretty straightforward. The court has ruled that where the Constitution grants a limited Congressional power, there must be a demonstrable limit to Congress's authority. The Supreme Court has made this ruling in the past.
In this case, there is no demonstrable limit. The government is arguing that it may extend copyright as many times as it wishes-- an unlimited number of times, if necessary. That interpretation clearly clashes with the straightforward requirement of "limited times". Thus there is no guaranteed limit on the power, and thus the law is not Constitutional. The notion of "reasonable" times doesn't really enter into it.
The recourse for that, of course, is elections. Olson pointed out that the Framers had the power to put a specific length of time in the Constitution, and Jefferson actually encouraged it, but they eventually chose not to; they chose to give that power to Congress.
You're going to have to fight that one out with the Framers. Clearly they did not feel that the political process provided a strong enough check on government power, so they wrote a strong constitution and created a Judicial branch to oversee it.
If you agree with my interpretation of "limited", the court has all the legal and moral authority it needs to rule against the law. If you don't, then you'll probably feel that it's a political issue. The court is in the process of making this determination, so let's not jump the gun.
From khkramer's summary, "Breyer joked that if Lessig's argument about 1998 applied equally to 1976, then he'd better find another argument. Everyonelaughed. (Everyone always laughed whenever a Justice made a joke.)"
I don't. Quite the opposite. If the justices are going to rule against the law because it would invalidate other laws, that's wrong. It shouldn't matter how many laws are effected when deciding if some particular legislation is or is not unconstitutional. Choosing to stay as-is because it would be difficult to fix the law is a horrible way to judge your current legal framework.
jello.
aka aron.