Eldred Transcript, Bookmobile Experience

Patrick writes "The transcript of the oral arguments in Eldred v. Ashcroft is now online." Such exciting lines as: "CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Well, but you want more than that. You want the right to copy verbatim other people's books, don't you?". See previous stories about the oral arguments and Lessig's thoughts on them. chromatic writes "The O'Reilly Network has just published Richard Koman's Lessons from the Internet Bookmobile about his travels with Brewster Kahle to Eldred v. Ashcroft. I particularly like how he describes the universal positive reception."

Comments

This is a great recource...

[packeteer]

This will help me a lot with my paper i have to write for my 11th grade social studies class. But does anyone know where more info like this is? Whats another good site to other than the basic www.eff.org and atandard "anti-DMCA/RIAA/MPAA".

Damn im lucky that crusing around on slashdot is homework.

Locking up official records

[EricEldred]

From http://www.corante.com/copyfight/

Alderson Reporting Co., Inc., the Washington, D.C.-based company that has an exclusive contract to tape-record Supreme Court oral arguments and sell official transcripts, has recently [1997] decided to restrict buyers of the transcripts from posting them on the Web.

Re:Locking up official records

[jpt.d]

How can they legally do that to public records that must be available to everybody {american} who wants them?

Re:Locking up official records

[iabervon]

It is not only a verbatum copy of what was said in court; there is significant effort involved in writing down and puzzling out what was said, figuring out (to the extent that the transcriber did figure out) who said what, and so forth. Remember that multiple people were speaking at the same time and interrupting each other (and on occasion, two justices started to ask questions at the same time).

On the other hand, they only get copyright on the transcript they took, not on other transcripts from other (or, possibly, the same) recording. The situation is similar to making maps, where the mapmaker gets copyright on the map but no rights to other maps of the same location made by other people who survey the location (rather than looking at the map).

Different transcripts of the same argument could be distinguished by the decisions made by the transcribers, which are unlikely to be exactly the same, with respect to punctuation, the overlapping of speach, exactly what was said (e.g., about a third of the way though, the transcript has someone say "you" when "your" must be what was intended; a different transcript would probably have "your" instead), and so forth.

Making a work in the public domain accessible to a larger audience due to a process involving effort and some creativity (or intelligence, which is essentially the same thing) is, in fact, a perfectly good way of getting copyright over your work (although not, of course, the original or similar works by other people), as it does "promote the useful arts and sciences", such as all of us who weren't there discussing the case.

Re:Locking up official records

[zenyu]

Putting public domain words into a new format does not suddenly make them copyrightable, nor mean that you own the copyright to it.

The law doesn't really agree with you. I think the cases were mostly decided on phone book suits. The information is not copyrighted, but any unique formatting that is innovative and creative can be. So you could copy the phone numbers and the names and addresses into your own "Yellow Book" but you couldn't Xerox it with new ads taped over the old ones and give it away because they might have just the right number of tabs and just the right font to make it better than anything you could produce by just copying the uncopyrightable information.

So you can retype those transcripts and sell those but someone prolly signed a contract saying they wouldn't do that for at least X number of months, so they could be in trouble for letting you see a copy without agreeing not to copy it.

Re:Locking up official records

[An Onerous Coward]

I believe you're incorrect. You can't have exclusive rights to the information itself, but you can have rights to your compilation of that information. For example, the phone company has a copyright on the White Pages, even though you could theoretically compile exactly the same information by going door to door and getting peoples' numbers.

IANAL, etc.

Re:Locking up official records

[manyoso]

Bullshit. I don't care if it took a significant amount of work to make a transcript. The transcript is a _copy_! The transcript can not be copyrighted, because it contains no original content. In other words, the transcripters did not add any original work.

If they added commentary, then perhaps this could be copyrighted, but they did not. Merely identifying who said what in a conversation is not an original work and could not be considered such under even the most tortured of arguments.

Funny story about Jack Valenti

[amstrok]

Well, I arrived at 5:15am in line, waited till 9:30 when the first 50 people where let in to see the arguments. I was 54...so I didn't quite make it.

The guards told us to wait...in case there were openings, so the other 25 people waited in line. I had made friends with a few law students over the previous 4 hours...who were all in the same boat with me. About 9:40am, we were looking down the steps to the Supreme Court, and up hurriedly walks this stalky gentleman, with snuggly fitting pin striped suit, grey hair...just a little too long, slicked back. As he approached the front of the line...he sideglances the group of law students that I'm standing in line with but quickly looks away. He walks right up in front of us to the two guards and announces, with authority "I'm Jack Valenti (pause). I'm on Scalias list."

Wow...did we all really here that right? Yes we did. We laughed our tired laughs, joking that we thought Scalia was "on our side"...and silently wishing that we had snuck in behind this Man, famous in our small circle for his accurate prophetic visions.

Re:Funny story about Jack Valenti

[bwt]

Don't forget, however that Lessig was Scalia's clerk. From reading the transcript, Scalia was very hard on Olsen. I think Scalia will be for Eldred, because he clearly "gets it".

Wow

[.milfox]

It's intresting how the justices ask each side hostile questions, probing the validity of the argument.

I'm not into law. :P I often think there's a lot of twisting involved. But you can almost see the lines of argument and the points and counterpoints in this script.

All I can say is 'bravo' to Lessig :P The judges seemed receptive during their questioning of the government, as the least.

*crosses fingers*

Well, hurrah for our side. Here goes nothing!

Re:Copyright past author's death?

[Anonymous Coward]

...I don't understand the belief that copyright should be extended past the creater's death.

So all I have to do is secretly order a hit on an author, and all his/her books become public domain? Hmmm....

Re:Copyright past author's death?

[rknop]

I don't understand the belief that copyright should be extended past the creater's death.

This will sound extremist, but let's remember just how amoral some corporations are in their pursuit of profits. "It doesn't happen here," but our corporations do participate in flagrant human rights violations overseas.

Disclaimers aside, I think it reasonable that copyright extend either a fixed amount of time independent of the creator's death, or a fixed amount of time past his death, so that freeing a copyright would never be a motive for murder. Yes, it really does sound alarmist, but there you have it.

I personally would love to see us go back to a 28 year copyright (or, perhaps, a 14 year copyright, the first one automatic without registration, but then renewable for one or two more 14-year terms for a nominal registration fee). That would still allow creators ample time to get recompence for their work, but would also clearly be "limited". (Right now, even if Eldred v. Ashcroft wins, copyright terms are not "limited" on the timescale relevant to most of us, i.e. an adult human's life span.)

-Rob

Re:Copyright past author's death?

[sstamps]

Well, I look at it this way...

You get a copyright over a work of your intellect. Under a previous (and, to me, quite reasonable) version of copyright, you have 14 years to capitalize on it. If you die within that term, then your legal heirs/beneficiaries have the remainder of that term to capitalize on it. Otherwise, the rest of society will be able to capitalize on it or otherwise benefit from it after the term expires.

After we are gone, isn't that the best we could ever hope for in the first place? I mean, isn't that what having a "legacy" is all about?

Re:Copyright past author's death?

[Jeremi]

So all I have to do is secretly order a hit on an author, and all his/her books become public domain? Hmmm....

Good point. Things like this seem to show that copyrights should be granted for a fixed period of years, and not depend on that author's lifespan.

Re:Copyright past author's death?

[Anonymous Coward]

But if a window washer dies, the windows stop getting washed. If an author dies, his work doesn't vanish with him. Slightly different situation.

I'd prefer to see something along the lines of "Life of author, or 30 years, whichever is longer." That way, if a writer writes a bestselling book and then immediately dies of a heart attack, the widow and kids get [b]something[/b].

Life + 70 is bullshit

[dh003i]

Life + 70 is bullshit. For one thing, the vast vast majority of the profits from a work are reaped in the first few years it is on the market. Very very very few pieces of copyrighted material (be they music, books, movies, etc) will be making significant profit in 10 years.

Another problem is the undetermined time of when a copyright expires. "Life" could mean 1 year, 10 years, 50 years, or 100 years, depending on how old the creator is when (s)he copyrighted his/her work, and on how healthy (s)he is. Copyrights should be a fixed time period. If they expire before the author dies or after (s)he dies, too bad.

These increases in copyright length have not increased productivity and creativity. No artist decides whether or not to create something depending on if (s)he will still own the copyright in 10, 20, 30, 50, or 100 years from now. 10 years would be plenty of time for creators to make significant profit on their creations... Almost all software is a complete non-factor 5 years after creation (how many still buy Windows 95? or Windows 98?...what about Descent 2 ('98)?). Almost all movies are a complete non-factor in terms of profit 20 years after their creation...Jaws, one of the best thrillers of all time, isn't a significant profit factor anymore...it wasn't a factor in 1990 either. Most music is a complete non-factor (again, in terms of profit) 10 years after its creation. How many people still buy stuff by Morris Day And The Time? What about Paula Abdul?

10 years is plenty of time for any work to make a profit; if something's going to make a profit, 99.9% of that profit is going to be made in the first 10 years. The only people who have something to worry about are people like Disney who have an interest in maintaining ownership over some stupid fucking cartoon character. For the few lazy companies or authors that are still resting on the fruits of one creation 10 years ago, I say to damn bad.

My scheme provides plenty of incentive to both young authors and old one's alike. Old author's will still get 10 years of protection; if they die, then the remainder of that term is set out to their family in their will.

If anything, my scheme provides MORE incentive for authors to create. An author can't just rest on his or her previous accomplishments, as they will only make him or her money for 10 years. Thus, my system provides incentive for authors to create new works more continuously.

The other benefit of my system is that works transfer to the public domain relatively quickly. This allows new authors to make use of the works of old authors, adding additional innovations to them, without having to worry about copyright problems. This allows for more circular innovation; that is, innovation which builds atop of previous innovation.

As one additional note, hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule retroactive copyright extensions unconstitutional, thus preventing this perpetual copyright extension. Hopefully, they will also rule excessively long (i.e., life + yy) copyright terms unconstitutional, as they are effectively indefinate and not limited.

Aside from duration, the other thing which needs changing in our copyright system is the scope of copyrights. The scope of copyrights has been blown way out of due proportion (refer to discussion by Lessig in The Future of Ideas). Now-a-days, if you make a movie and have a Nike symbol in the background in a scene, you have to clear that with Nike. What bullshit. There are other areas where the scope of copyrights is blatantly unjustified, and should be radically scaled back.

Of course, the real problem is the bribery and soft-money under-handed deals going on between the RIAA/MPAA and the Congress/Senate. The RIAA and MPAA basically pay to have the laws they want.

Re:Life + 70 is bullshit

[gad_zuki!]

10 years is plenty of time for any work to make a profit; if something's going to make a profit, 99.9% of that profit is going to be made in the first 10 years. The only people who have something to worry about are people like Disney who have an interest in maintaining ownership over some stupid fucking cartoon character.

I disagree, there are so many cases on authors sitting on their works for years, if not decades, before they can get a publisher to print them its not even funny.

In the 80s Kurt Vonneget's work quickly moved from the fringe and into academia. Many of his novels and short stories were decades old, if copyright lasted only 10 years he probably would not have seen a dime of his 2nd wave (or first depending on your POV) of popularity. That's seems pretty wrong to me.

Any proposal that doesn't address the right to own work within your lifetime or at least for most of your lifetime is simply too extreme on the 'public interest' end as the current system is too extreme on the 'business interest' end. Just because Hollywood can make 99% of its money in ten years doesnt mean that those without Hollywood's incredible promotional resources can.

Re:Copyright past author's death?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think we should have messed with this whole "Author's death" line in the first place. It is very arbirary.

Let's say I am 25 years old and I write a book. I could live to 95. Then my copyright goes for 140 years. 70 till my death and then 70 more. But if I get hit by a car the day after my work is published then, poof, my term is cut to 70 years.

IANAL, but I think there might be some sort of equal protection argument here.

I agree that copyright terms are too long, but I also think the fact that they can be shortened by a car crash or an illness is ridiculous.

Also, this just occurred to me. Anyone for a paranoid consipracy theory? What if I was trying to decided between two publishers? I finally choose one, and the other gets pissed and offs me to shorten the copyright that the other publisher gets. Unlikely, I know, but hey, it could happen.

Article in MIT Tech Review

[Anonymous Coward]

For what it's worth, I just received my November edition of MIT's Technology Review in the mail a couple of days ago and there is a short opinion piece detailing the Eldred v. Ashcroft Supreme Court case. The article, by Seth Shulman, is very much against the extension of copyrights. To quote, "Congress stole the public's access ti its own cultural heritage by extending copyright protection to benefit a few big media companies. Fortunately, the public has the Constitution on its side." I hope he's right.

You want the right to copy verbatim

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, but you want more than that. You want the right to copy verbatim other people's books, don't you?

The court, in this statement, is summarily dismissing the concept of public domain. To Chief Justice Reinquist, as well as Justices, Kennedy, Scalia, O'Conner ,and Ginsberg at least, the concept of public domain is solely a "donation" by the existing copyright corporations, if not merely an artifact of a more primitive legal system. The concept that a corporation does not, or should not, own a copyright indefinitely is alien to them. (How you can "own" a right is beyond my legal comprehension.) They go on to conclude that retroactive copyright to existing works might be considered bad taste, but certainly within the rights of congress, by divine (or secular humanitarian) right (probably a purchased right), similarly as with electromagnetic spectrum, life, liberty, and property, to grant or withhold to groups or individuals.

In short, all rights are granted by the state, and it's hereditary atheocracy, to whose citizens they owe no responsibilities. The state finds against Edred 9-0.

Re:A good time limit?

[smack.addict]

Inherent to the Constitution is the idea that what is a good time limit in 1776 is not necessarily a good time limit in 1900 or 2002. That is why the Constitution prescribes a limit but does not set one. And this was wise on the part of the framers of the Constitution.

Congress needs the ability to change those limits based on changing economic climates in order to protect the balance between public interest and the promotion of science and the arts. Unfortunately, as Lessig argues, this power has been abused to create an effective perpetual copyright term under the guise of a limit.

Lessig argues that any extensions should apply only to new works because any discretion congress has in setting limits applies to the promotion of new works. Extending copyrights on existing works does no such thing. The government attempted to counter with the very weak argument that people who create works expect to be included in any such extensions. I would bet lots of money that not one single work has been created under that line of thought. NO ONE holds back on the creation of a work out of fear they will not be included in the next extension of copyrights. And NO ONE creates works today because they know they will be included in the next extension.

Berne Convention

[yerricde]

For instance, I think 25 years with no extensions for a copyright is reasonable.

Reasonable, but also against the terms of the Berne Convention. Breaking the Berne treaty could get U.S. copyrights de-recognized all over the world.

Not that I agree with the details of the Berne Convention or anything...