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."
In reality, Lessig could publish all of his notes from the case and let the opposition interview him for a week to get all the juicy tidbits and it wouldn't matter a hill of beans -- it's like asking a coach about his superbowl strategy the day after the game is played.
All said, I think that Lessig played a pretty good game here and gave "us" (as in "we the people") pretty much our best possible shot here. People who think he "lost" the Supreme Court arguement just because the justices gave him a hard time are obviously not framiliar with the Court in general.
That said, I'm not sure that the Court will side with Lessig simply because, IMO, Congress isn't really in violation of the Constitution. Really, this is a fight that needs to be taken to the Congress, which just won't happen until the American people (again, "we the people") take some interest in the machinations of their government.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
So the framers specifically state their intent in giving Congress this power. A trillion years may be a limited time, but it cannot be reasonably seen as a promotion of the "Progress of Science and useful Arts".
The idea here is that even the stuff before that first comma is important. Lessig et al. argue that, by extending copyright over too long a time, you're actually doing more harm (aka, arresting spin-offs and adaptations) than good (convincing creators to create by making it financially attractive).
So it's not black and white. You absolutely cannot cimply ignore any of the words or phrases in the Constitution.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I'm sorry, I hate perpetual copyrights as much as you do, but I completely disagree that they are the problem. Imagine a world without copyrights. A movie is created, and instantly people with professional equipment are in there getting cam copies of the movie. They sell it in legitimate stores. More copies are made. 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. 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.
See the dilemna here? While you may argue that the RIAA and MPAA are evil (as they are), and that a lot of CDs these days are made according to a formula and forced down are throats (as many are), 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. If some company spends $8 million creating a piece of software then how are they going to recoup their profits if OfficeMax is selling $1 copies in the store in three days?
This is my argument for why limited copyrights are needed. But, it would be very nice if they only existed for perhaps 20 or 30 years.
No, that's not my point. With copyright terms allowed, things like Photoshop, 3D Studio Max, Blade Runner, The Matrix, and Dr. Strangelove get produced. GPL software is good in addition but this will get produced either way. You can argue that there is GPL software that does the same things as many other goods, but without copyright virtually all movies created in the last century would not have been created, or at least not as well. They wouldn't have the money to support the budgets they have, to buy their expensive SteadyCams to shoot them with and the film (which is very expensive), and their video editing studios. The educational videos wouldn't be made without public money since companies wouldn't make a profit on them.
My argument is that without copyrights, goods that cost money won't get produced to begin with. How can you free a DVD that doesn't exist? Without copyrights you'd force material to be free and thus keep lots from being created. With copyrights, creators have a financial incentive to create, and so their work will be created. How would you like if all the movies we had to watch were GPLed videos? All TV stations would be financed by public donations, and with public goods there is no way of excluding freeloaders.
Until I started following this issue I had never considered the 'length of copyright' laws, but did always wonder who had the 'rights' to classical music and Shakespeare, etc.
I have lived my entire life in a period where termination of a copyright is a non-existent thing. This situation is 'normal' to us because we have never experienced life without it. We never think to check up on if a copyright has expired so that we can make a derivative work... we just assume that we can't use it because it hasn't expired. The very idea of making a derivative work has simply become unthinkable... in a very literal sense.
We all know that tomorrow's ideas build on yesterday's. Since the wording of the constitution is apparently open to interpretation in this case, I hope the court considers the potential benefits to the populous of freeing these works. I hope the court does not find the idea 'unthinkable' just because it is the familiar status quo.
Actually, it is you whom we ought to thank, firstly for all the work you are doing with the library and also for pressing the case and having the tenacity to take it all the way to the Supremes.
:-)]) to music in a modern setting, bringing the great works to a whole new audience. If you win, and I sincerely hope you do, then it benefits not just you, not me, but everybody.
Regardless of the outcome, you have raised this issue in the media and finally people are starting to become aware of the awesome power of the copyright holders and the great potential of the public domain that may be lost if it weren't for you.
I do have a vested interest: I put a lot of poetry (Dickinson, Poe, St. Vincent Millay [if you win
Thanks.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
The problem with Disney's views is that they're shortsighted- even for Disney. As people have routinely pointed out, Disney has been very aggressive about using public domain as a source for its works- i.e. Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc. That means that they could probably profit more than anyone else if the public domain was expanded. Yes, they'd lose the rights to Steamboat Willy, but how much money are they actually making from that? OTOH, Winnie the Pooh would be out of copyright pretty soon, so they wouldn't have to pay royalties to A.A. Milne's heirs for the use of Pooh. How many great movies could be made based on the works of Faulkner, Hemmingway, and the like that are currently being kept under copyright by the term extensions? How great would it be to be able to use Gershwin's music as a background score without having to pay his heirs for it? Why can't Disney see the advantages to them of being able to take advantage of the new works that would be going into the public domain?
You are right. We, the ignorant public, just don't get it. Someone worked very hard to write the music, book, whatever. You did nothing. And yet you believe that you are entitled to the benefits of that work without paying anything for those benefits. Nope, we just don't get it.
I laughed at my father years ago in my leftist youth when he told me an old quote variously attributed to Churchill, Clemanceau, Shaw, Russell, and Disraeli:
Any man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart.
Any man who is still a socialist at age 40 has no head.
One day, you, too will not get it either.
FreeSpeech.org
...the entire renissance happend without copyrights.
This is true as far as it goes; however, it ignores the other mechanism in existence which guaranteed the livelihood of those renaissance artists whom we remember today: patronage.
Respected artists and philosophers of the renaissance didn't have to work, because some rich noble or institution supported them, or because they were already independently wealthy. I know that this doesn't apply to all artists of that era, but to a significant minority.
This also ignores another issue. Let's suppose that the RIAA, etc. didn't exist. That I produced a work of art accompanied by a license of my own composition in which I requested that you didn't distribute my creation, and deleted it from your HD after 24 hours unless you paid me $5.
Wouldn't I have the right to do that? Does an artist who chooses a digital medium automatically forfeit rights that a sculpture in bronze or clay doesn't?
I we expect the GPL to be honored, then what about the rights of artists who choose to be protected by copyright law? I mean, the RIAA aside, doesn't Metalicca have the right to choose which license they distribute their wares (not warez) under?
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
...it would be very nice if they only existed for perhaps 20 or 30 years.
I think Lessig did a great job, but I'm a little worried that the case will fail for being too conservative by limiting the challenge to the CTEA alone. The constitution can easily be read to be even more restrictive if you understand "...securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right..." to mean that the time is to be limited from the relative perspective of the creator, not an absolute term.
This is in keeping with the original limits which were well within an average lifespan (granted, a work produced less than 14 years before an authors death might seem unlimited but in most practical cases copyright would expire during their lifetime). Today, copyright is extended exclusively (and transferably) to an author for an unlimited time from their perspective (as long as they live), to their children for a nearly unlimited time (most if not their entire life) and, barring further extensions, only their grandchildren are likely to hold copyright for long but limited time. From another perspective, anything produced during my lifetime will never enter the public domain before I die. As far as I'm concerned, to me this is an unlimited term.
Now I highly doubt that the supreme court would role back all of the earlier laws, even if they prove to be unconstitutional, but Lessig's argument can be thought of as providing a welcome compromise that limits the need to meddle with the less recent past. My worry is that they will accept the Lessig argument as the most extreme case and seek a lesser comprimise such as limiting future extensions without repealing CTEA.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
What people are forgetting here is that Congress represents the people of the United States. Representatives and Senators serve at the pleasure of their constituents. If they consistently pass laws which the people of the United States hate, they will lose their jobs.
This is why the Supreme Court is hesitant to overturn such laws, because there is another check on unjust laws, namely the ballot box. It is only when Congress is overstepping its bounds in a matter where the people support them that the Court is really needed to step in. When the majority takes on too much power and infringes on the rights of the minority, the Supreme Court can act to limit these excesses.
But this does not seem to be what is happening in the case of copyright extensions. It's not like there's a powerless minority whose rights are being infringed by policies supported by the majority of the American people. Rather, these copyright extensions are technical matters that most people simply don't care about. They aren't important enough to make or break a Congressman's career.
What needs to happen is that this has to be solved in the political arena. People who think that copyright policy should be changed need to convince others of that fact, to get them interested in the dispute, to attract supporters and political power. Then they can convince Congress to change its policies.
This issue is a simply and fundamentally a matter of politics. The dispute needs to be resolved in the political arena. It may seem easier to convince 9 members of the Supreme Court than the American people. But ultimately it will be more just and more fair to effect change by convincing people, the American people, that these changes are worthwhile.
We have a representative government, but that doesn't mean that everything they do is what you personally would want. What it does mean is that you can try to convince people that your ideas are good, and if you get enough support, the government will go along. That is the proper course for political change in a representative democracy.
I'm sorry, I hate perpetual copyrights as much as you do, but I completely disagree that they are the problem. Imagine a world without copyrights.
You're indulging in extremes where there is plenty of middle ground (as Congress has mapped out in its periodic lengthening of the copyright term). The topic of Eldred vs. Ashcroft is not concerned with abolishing copyright, it's taking the Sonny Bono/Disney Act (CTEA) to task for defining Congress' power over copyright extensions as being effectively unlimited where the Constitution specifically states that Congress' powers are to be, in fact, limited.
You go on an on about evil and bootlegs and then recant your thesis with a statement on your preference for copyright terms. There is no dilemma as you state it here, except in Constitutional terms. Try to stay on topic, this isn't Usenet.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Walt Disney, creator of those early Mickey Mouse works, has no individual rights left. He's dead. You're promoting the "rights" of a huge corporation to use government power to grant themselves a continued monopoly on the use of 75-year-old cartoons. Some "rights."
Authors have no inherent "individual right" to the use of their ideas. Copyright is not a right like the right to free speech and physical property. Copyright is a bargain: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, government grants short, limited monopolies for the commercial uses of certain types of art. To claim that perpetual, posthumous control over your ideas is a natural right is absurd.