Slashdot Mirror
Lessig's Thoughts On Eldred v. Ashcroft Arguments
yokem_55 writes "Lawrence Lessig has updated his blog giving his thoughts on how the oral arguments for Eldred vs. Ashcroft went before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. He discusses the goals and methods he used in framing his arguments to convince the court to overturn the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, how he felt he did in presenting his arguments, and also provides some analysis on how he thinks the court might rule."
Sonny Bono
Sony Boner
This is a reason to respect the Court, not criticize it (though how they exercise their restraint, or where, can be criticized, as I suggest below). But the general idea that it will restrain itself, despite believing a law is stupid, is a feature, not a bug in our constitutional tradition.
No, because I hold a patent on coding. If you're coding, you should contact my lawyer to discuss licensing fees and terms of payment. He can be reached at 1-800-I0wN-j0u (1-800-409-6508).
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
With the right balance:
"If I had seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."
With too much rights in the favour of the copyright holder:
"If I had not seen farther than others, it is because giants are standing on my shoulders."
With too much rights in favour of the public:
"If I had not seen farther than others, it is because giants are standing right in front of me."
Imagine a world without copyrights. A movie is created, and instantly people with professional equipment are in there getting cam copies of the movie.
... ?
Yay. This brings the power of duplication to those who want to duplicate, which is good.
They sell it in legitimate stores.
This does not follow. They can TRY to sell the duplicate at legitimate stores, but anyone who would really want the duplicate could simply, well, copy it, which is good.
More copies are made.
Which is also good.
A DVD is released, and since it is very easy to make a perfect copy, these are made. There are sold in legitimate stores, as this is perfectly legal.
I'm not sure how I follow that these bogus DVDs would be sold on the market. Why wouldn't I just copy the damned DVD myself, since, well, duplication wouldn't be illegal.
A CD is released, and perfect copies are made and sold for $1 each in stores. Software is made and immediately sold for the cost of the media in stores.
Which is still too expensive, imho. That's what makes the net so much better than a music or software store, because bandwidth is cheaper than media (or something like that), and the media that I am forced to buy and maintain can be erased and reused when I get sick of the information on it.
See the dilemna here?
No.
the fact is that there is much quality content created as books, audio CDs, movies, and software, that takes a large initial investment in order to create.
Then let the people who want to make those large initial investments pay for it. If the only reason that rock band X or movie company Y creates a product is for money, then why don't they just print their own money instead and stop infecting society with their vomituous, base spew. Take out the middle man, so to speak. If you want to make art, paint. If you want to make money, counterfeit.
If some company spends $8 million creating a piece of software then how are they going to recoup their profits
I don't see why I should care what they spent on it. It's their money, let them spend it the way they please. If this is what they wanted to do with it, fine, but if they view it as a problem, then it's THEIR problem, and not mine, yours, or the guy down the street who thinks he's Jesus'. As far as I'm concerned, if they wanted to staple 8 million dollar bills to each butt cheek of 4 million monkeys and call it art, go for it (provided that the monkey don't rebel and take over the world). It's their money to do with as they please, and I for one am not going to stand in their way, and in fact, I will support their right to blow their own money however they like.
So, you say they're worried about how their going to recoup their profits. Well, you know, they damn well should be! Hell, if I blew $8 Million dollars by stapling it to the asses of 4 million monkeys, I'd be worried about it, too. If they're worried about saving their money, then maybe they shouldn't be inconveniencing those poor innocent monkeys.
I should call PETA on them. Well, at least the monkeys will have toilet paper now.
This is my argument for why limited copyrights are needed.
That I can agree with. The copyright law would certainly make better monkey toilet paper than single dollar bills. For starters, it would be printed on full sized paper, so they wouldn't have to worry about accidentally getting shit on their hands. Also, singles don't flush well.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)