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

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

[Jeremy Erwin]

Members of the public are not allowed to record the arguments. or even to take notes. Accredited journalists are allowed a bit more leeway, but only Alderson Reporting is allowed to transcribe or record.

Moreover, Alderson gets a short period of exclusivity before the transcripts are posted to the supreme court website. Before this, a copy is deposited in the Supreme Court Library, but readers are not allowed to copy the document. You can purchase transcripts for ~$150 ($2.85/page?), but Alderson demands permission for all excerpting. ("Permission routinely granted for short excerpts.")

I think that the copies extant are probably derived from the appellants copy. I'm not sure whether Alderson plans to sue...

The Audio recording will not be available until late 2003.

Copyright past author's death?

[Vinnie_333]

This is swaying off the specifics of the case a bit, but ... As someone who is a firm lover of art and literarure, as well as a believer in an author/artists ownership of their creation, I don't understand the belief that copyright should be extended past the creater's death. I'm assuming it started as income for the survivors. However, a window washer's widow does not continue to take in income from her late husbands previously washed windows. And children ... should probably learn how to earn their own living. I don't see why being the son of an author that had to work hard their whole life suddenly makes you able to sit on your ass your whole life.

Re:Copyright past author's death?

[Arandir]

However, a window washer's widow does not continue to take in income from her late husbands previously washed windows.

No, but she does inherit the window washing business, including any inventory or tools, receivables, contracts, etc.

Property can be inherited. Intellectual property can be inherited as well. If you consider copyright a type of lease from the public, then why should not the widow inherit the remainder of the lease?

Re:Copyright past author's death?

[t0rnt0pieces]

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

Excellent point, I don't understand how this got started either. if you read what the constitution says, "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;", no where in that passage does it mention the authors' and inventors' heirs. It seems pretty clear to me that any copyright law that sets the duration beyond a "limited time" within the author's lifetime should be unconstitutional. But that's just my interpretation.

Re:Copyright past author's death?

[shatfield]

Here's the problem, though -- most companies (Record Companies, Book Publishers, etc) will require the artist to sign away their copyrights to any works that they create to the company... and companies never die! So basically, a company, like Disney, can own the image of a rat for 50.. er.. 70 years.

When we start getting close to the time that the rat will go into the public domain, Disney will then fill the coffers of whoever happens to have lied their way into Congress, and *bamf* it'll be 90 or even 100 years.

What Lessig is arguing for is to put an end to these perpetual term extensions... for how can something ever go into the public domain if you can just pay Congress to keep extending the terms?

Re:Copyright past author's death?

[naasking]

Why not just make it one limited time, ie. 50 years period. Thus, the inventor and his estate each benefit 50 years of accrued benefit.

Re:Copyright past author's death?

[dpilot]

Because the purpose behind copyright and patents is to get the works into the public domain, eventually. That way others can build on those works, in a continuation of progress.

The limited time monopoly granted by copyrights and patents is an inducement to the author/inventor to not keep the material secret.

The most creative people don't create because someone's dangling money in front of their noses. They create because they MUST, it's built-in drive. The money's there to give them more time to create, and to release those creations.

Show me something created purely for money, something that has none of that inbuilt *drive* behind it, and I'll show you most of modern American TV.

Re:Copyright past author's death?

[Elwood P Dowd]

The correct answer to this question is so straightforward that I don't understand why it keeps getting asked.

I get a benefit right now from the copyright on my works that last longer than my life: I can sell those rights, and buy myself lunch. Income for the survivors is a red herring. In one of the first attempts to extend copyright, many people pointed to the example of Dante's granddaughter. Due to a number of misfortunes, she was destitute. Shouldn't we extend copyright, so that this sort of travesty can never happen again?

Of course, Dante's works, at that time, were covered by a perpetual copyright. This just didn't help his granddaughter because he had sold those rights to a publisher. Copyrights that last longer than Dante's life helped Dante, not his heirs.

The reason that it's so disappointing when people ask this question is that it shows they aren't thinking nearly hard enough about the problem. Because there's still a hole in my argument, but if you haven't gotten that far, you'll never see it: The value of the 70th year of income from my copyright is worth almost nothing today. Sure, someone might pay a million dollars for rights to a Tom Clancy novel 70 years from now. But Tom Clancy could get that million dollars by investing $20,000 in treasury bonds. That's a tiny fraction of the current value of the copyright. That indicates to me that Clancy does not create anything in order to get those royalties.

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.