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."

Comments

Not looking forward to the outcome

[lunenburg]

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. :-/

Re:Not looking forward to the outcome

[Planesdragon]

understanding that unlimited extensions equal an unlimited time.

Nah. the SC just needs to decide what the absolute limit to "reasonable time" is, and state that as their interpretation.

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.

Come again? (are you saying that IP protections are good or that they're bad? Hard to grammatically determine your meaning, even if I can guess it.)

Let's look at the various forms of IP law:

Trademarks: Allready long-term, with required renewal and defense. No real problems there.

Patents: Limited term, no extension, and it makes "trade secrets" a matter of the public record after 20 (or so) years.

Copyright: Good side -> artists and authors don't have to be paranoid about their work being stolen by shady producers. (Bad contracts, yes, but not simple theft.) Bad side -> it lasts so darn long...

Personally, I predict that Disney et all will win, but the SC will render an opinion with language that implies or outright states that the current setup is the extreme maximum that should be permitted to copyright--or at least that it's approaching a constitionally breaching overextension.

I wish we had an extend by paying setup

[starseeker]

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.

Re:Gigantic Loophole of American System of Law

[mr_teem]

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.

Pooh, not Mickey.

[yerricde]

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!