Slashdot Mirror
Disney Wins, Eldred (and everyone else) Loses
hondo77 writes "In a 7-2 decision, The Supreme Court gave Disney what they wanted. Story just broke, no details yet." They're talking about the Eldred case, recently argued before the Supreme Court and mentioned on Slashdot many times. The upshot is that no works produced in the United States after the 1920's will ever go out of copyright. Opinions: Majority opinion, Stevens' dissent, Breyer's dissent.
Please say you meant "Double" or "Triple" the current length of time.
Haha.. Catch those typos... *shifts eyes around..*
The Supreme Court is usually the one to stop extremely ignorant legistlation.
What happened?!?!?!
http://use.perl.org
Was anyone actually expecting this to turn out differently?
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
The upshot is that no works produced in the United States after the 1920's will ever go out of copyright.
...'stealing' from those bastards is not a crime.
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
Well, OK, so Mickey Mouse (tm) wins and the american consumers lose. Big time.
But if enough people break the copyright, will the other courts of the land (not to mention the law enforcement agencies) really apply the law? That seems doubtful. Any thoughts on that?
Score another win for Corporate America.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Goverment of the Corp, by the Corp, for the Corp?
...just go ahead and rename the country the "United Corporations of America" and get it over with.
This is awful for fair use, obviously. We've got to somehow get Congressmen elected who can see the folly of the current path, and who are immune to the ideal-destroying effects of large campaign donations. Doesn't look like we'll be reading Faulkner on line anytime soon...
Entertainment is probably the only thing making money for exports for the US anymore. The US is rapidly becoming a country that produces little more than marketing and car chase movies. Letting those copyrights go free would destabilise corporate America. And we can't have that, now can we?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
"Congress passed the copyright law after heavy lobbying from companies with lucrative copyrights. "
The millions that these companies *could* have lost was the question here, and this article seems to imply that their lobbying easily got what they wanted.
The artists, probably dead or going to die, will not see the continuous profits. It reminds me of intellectual property agreements... things no longer belong to individuals, but companies. Would any of these original artists really mind if someone started using their base ideas more after all this time? They'd probably be happy to see their idea continued.
--------
Free your mind.
The ruling said that the 20-year copyright extension ("Sonny Bono act"?) was not unconstitutional. RTFA.
I was... Now I'm just going to have to declare war against the current regime...but I lack resources...Hmm... Anyone need a soldier, anyone that is NOT associated with Bin Laden...Just because he is fighting the current regime, does not mean he is my friend.
The upshot of this is that no work produced in the United States since the 1920s will ever pass out of Copyright ... in the United States. Many of these movies, books and songs are already in the public domain in other nations, even those who are party to the Berne Convention (which mandates a minimum term of 50 years for most works).
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
Has anyone ever explored a sort of "salvage use" copyright? In other words, I don't have a huge problem with Disney wanting to control a copyright on Mickey, because they're still actively using him in their business.
But what about something like the Katzenjammer Kids (for a comic from about the same time as the first mickey shorts) that aren't being actively used by anyone. No real reason for something like that to not be in the public domain.
In other words, don't extend copyright for everything, but give extensions for things that are still being actively used (and no, I don't have the time to work out a legal definition of "actively used").
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem
The average voter couldn't give a shit about copyrighted works created 120 years ago or whatever, and even if they did understand the issues involved they couldn't be pissed to write their representative or whatever.
I can see why Leasing is so pessimistic...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
This is not just a loss but a tragedy.
The purpose of copyright is not being served here. There are human interests at stake and not merely the humans who own shares of stock in a corporation. Can the judges who made these decisions be written to about this the way senators and congressmen are? If so, how about some identification of these people? Also, if this can be appealed or reversed, how is it done and who do we talk to?
20 years, 50 years, 100 years, eternity... copyright is not supposed to work that way. I am beginning to think I should collect "royalties" on all the work I have ever done. One time I made a burger when I was a teenager. I earned my paycheck and was paid. But the people I worked for stayed in business because I was making that burger and they continue to reap the benefits of the labor I performed so long ago. I think I need to be paid royalties not for intellectual property, but for their success which was built upon my labor.
Of course there are holes in my argument but I tend to think the same holes exist in theirs. The fact of the matter remains that there was an understood agreement that copyright would expire after a certain time after creation. They are in breech of that contract now and the public should sue.
...Mr. Bono was working to protect us from "I got you, babe" and instead we're all paying for "pooh" for the next 80 years
What happend to conflict of interest?
/ ne ws/archive/2003/01/09/financial1022EST0075.DTL&typ e=books
"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas will receive more than $1 million for his memoirs from publisher HarperCollins.
Multiple publishers vied for the rights to Thomas' autobiography, which he started writing in 2001, but Thomas liked the package offered by the New York-based HarperCollins, including the editor assigned to work with him, people in the publishing industry with knowledge of the deal said Thursday.
The amount of the deal was not revealed, except that it was in seven figures. "
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=
Why the Supreme Court think they need to look out for the big people is beyond me.
I can't wait for the AT&TExxonGMTimeWarnerAOL merger to go through. 2004 maybe.
Who needs competition anyway.
[a huge victory for Disney and other companies]
Could have been better phrased: "A huge loss for the people of the United States, their Constitution, and Public Domain."
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld longstanding copyrights designed to protect the profits of songs, books and cartoon characters, a huge victory for Disney and other companies.
Like some evil brigade of Natzi Communist Al Queda Iraqis were trying to bring the American Capitalist System(TM) down. Thank god the justices stopped this attack on our country! Down with the public domain!
Bastards.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Can someone please explain why we need free access to Mickey Mouse, etc.? In my mind, Mickey Mouse is an asset owned by Disney, so why should it expire? Imagine the damage people could do to Disney if Mickey was used inappropriately by competitors. Not trolling, I just don't get why we need free access to this stuff.
I want to read the minority opinion on this and see who the two dissenting justices were. My guess -- not Republican appointees.
"Limited times" seems to this non-lawyer to suggest, oh, I don't know, LIMITS. Silly non-lawyer thinking, I guess.
Disney has now succeeded in preventing anyone from doing to Mickey Mouse what Disney did to Quasimodo. Way to go dickheads.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
Walt Disney was spinning in his cryogene chamber!
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
Excuse me, but when the money was invested in these movies in the 1920's, 1930's, etc., it was done with full knowledge that eventually the copyright would expire and revenue from these works would dwindle. The same thing holds true for Mickey Mouse and every other work made. Just because it still has value even today does not change that fact. The whole thing is ridiculous.
I can understand how extending the copyright on new works could be considered constitutional -- this is a case where that great document was far too vague, unfortunately -- but retroactively extending them surely is unconstitutional. When you acquire that copyright and publish your work, it is like entering into an irrevocable contract with society that you will release this to the public domain in X years (at least, that is how I see it). There should be no whining about past works that will fall out of protection. Create more works under the new, longer protection if you want, but don't extend all existing works.
The precious few of us in the US with a brain have made our arguments. What can I say that hasn't been said before. I have just three words to describe how depressed I am about the erosion of individual rights for corporate entities to make profits and continue changing America into a corporation state:
fuck this country
Alas, but it seems that Mickey is destined to remain in chains.
Some wrongs can not be resolved by the courts. I think the most poignant quote during the hearing of the case was from Sandra Day O'Connor.
Time to educate the public--and change Congress's mind. Hard, but not impossible.
P.S. Washington Post has an AP article up and some links to background on the case.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
Or is the rest of the world looking better and better each day in comparison to the USA? You know, 2 years ago I would have never even imagined living anywhere else. But after all the issues that have popped up since 9/11, the steady erosion of civil liberties, the destruction of fair use, the bullying of giant corporations, it's getting harder and harder to love the USA.
Last weekend my fiancee and I were randomly surfing the web after an evening of playing 'Hunter' on our GC (the couple that kills zombies together stays together, we say!), and we ran across the John's Switch to Canada parody of the Apple Switch ads. 2 years ago, it would have been good for a laugh and nothing more. But last weekend, after having ourselves a good laugh, we both found ourselves going "Hmmm... Canada...". I think this is the first time I've ever seriously considered living somewhere, anywhere else than the USA.. and it was even more surprising to me to see my girlfriend, who is not nearly as politcally active/concerned as I've become lately, giving the whole idea of leaving the country some serious consideration as well.
My slightly OT point here is, the more rights that are taken away from us, the less freedom we are given, the more control that is handed over to corporation after corporation.. the harder it gets to love this country. This is just another nail in the coffin. The USA has long stopped being the 'Land of the Free'.
"Two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the first one." - Albert Einstein
It's not the place of the Judicial branch to usurp Congress's right to make idiotic laws.
And, ladies and gentlemen, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an idiot. 120 years is not a 'limited time' by any stretch of the imagination, especially considering that our country has only been around for ~250ish. The Supreme Court is supposed to be insulated from all that money crap, but this decision merely proves that they're just as corrupt as Captiol Hill. What a shame.
Write your congressmen, sure, but that's obviously not likely to work since I think there's relatively few people who really care. Is sharing on p2p networks a better way to procede? By basically showing the government can no longer protect restrictive copyrights, would this be a "civil disobedience" mechanism to defeat such mechanisms? Just curious what people think about actually continuing to fight this, rather than reading complaints.
Basically Disney, et al are shooting themselves in the foot. Long term copyrights == higher prices. Normal people realize that the copyrights length is riduculos, and will copy stuff according to there own moral codes. For example, I am willing to copy stuff that is 40 or more years old without a second though, anything under 20 is a no-no, and in between is dependant on the ease of availability, coupled with my personal interest.
Right now, individuals are not a big deal, but when the RIAA, MPAA, etc make it so that the individuals are effected, by enforcing the laws that give jail time and/or fines to the infringers, then they will change. Why? Because everyone engages in copyright infringement, and some enterprising politition will run on that platform. At that point, Congress will listen.
Well, one can hope.
Right now the government doesn't have enough power to stop people from illegally violating copyrights. People trade copyrighted material all the time. Is this decision going to somehow empower the American government with some way of stopping illegal network traffic. And had the vote gone the other way, do you think people would all of a sudden have started distributing more things? I think they would have just had a clearer conscience about the files they were already sharing.
Obviously, the government has missed the boat in this age of information dissimination. The nice part is, they were only passengers, and not part of the crew. The internet community will continue to do as it pleases because there really is no way to stop it, and I think they're going to be hard pressed to find a way to. They can make all the laws they want and throw a few people in jail, but I doubt they want to throw most of the American youth in jail for trading music, or back episodes of the Mickey Mouse Club.
So, what does this ruling really mean for the common American who just doesn't care?
for maximum effect, the preceding post should be read monotone and at a steady cadence
Nonsense! Everyone knows the 'real' Sonny Bono Memorial Copyright Extension Act would be more like forever minus a day.
If a non-american company -PIRATES- mickey mouse into their own release. What will happen? Since American law isn't (yet) applicable in the (most of it anyway) rest of the world is it? And since we'll all be using the Internet, where everything is available to everyone, instaid of TV/VCR in the near future I cannot see how one nations copyright laws will have an effect at all. For now? Perhaps. In 10 years? No way! We'll all be watching streeming broadcasts from some island nobodys ever heard of then.
I could be wrong. I'm always wrong...
This is how it is. And this is what make the system work (in the US). It's not going to change. This applies to everything in the gov't right now.
If we explain tax cuts in some very basic terms, it might go something like
this:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for lunch. The bill for all ten comes to $100. But, instead of dividing it up equally, they decide the bill should be paid based on who can afford. So, its decided that the first four men -- the poorest -- will pay nothing; the fifth will pay $1, the sixth $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18,and the tenth man -- the richest - will pay $59.
The ten men eat lunch in the same restaurant every day and seem happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner throws them a curve (in tax language a tax cut). "Since you are such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily lunch by $20."
So now dinner for the ten only costs $80.00. The group still wanted to pay the bill based on who is the wealthiest... the way we pay our taxes. The first four men were unaffected, they still would eat for free. But the "problem" came when the other six -- the paying customers - tried to figure out how to divvy up the $20 "tax windfall" so that everyone would get his "fair share".
At first, the six men tried dividing up the $20, which came to $3.33 saved by each. But, when they subtracted that from everybody's share, the fifth and the sixth man ended up being PAID to eat their meal!!! That didn't seem right, so they asked the restaurant owner for an alternate plan and he suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill roughly in proportion to what they had been paying. He suggested that the fifth man along with the first four, would now pay nothing. The sixth would pay about $2, the seventh about $5, the eighth $9, the ninth $12. This would leave the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of the $59 he had been paying.
Each of the six was better off than before [the first four were already eating for free]. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He then pointed to the tenth man, "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man who now was getting a free meal, "I too only saved a dollar... it's unfair that the wealthy man got seven times more than I did."
That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why should he get $7 back when I only get $2 back. The wealthy get all the breaks!" Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men proceeded to surround the tenth man and began to beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. However, when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered... a little late... that the tenth wealthy man was very important to THEIR well-being. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill!
And that is how the tax system works... the people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table again.
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
...the decision applied solely to Disney products, I could quite happily live without a single copy of their saccharine tosh.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Congress passed the copyright law after heavy lobbying from companies with lucrative copyrights.
That sums up American politics pretty well.
While a few random Slashdotters are complaining about their Steamboat Willy collections, and how they'd like to copy them for everyone in the world, they're missing the point.
Disney can no longer pillage the future - they're stuck pillaging the past for story ideas.
Thank the Gods that we'll never see Disney's Dune, or Disney's The Hobbit.
Spider robinson has a short story based around this. When you can perpetually copyright an idea, not just a particular sequencing of words or notes, you run into trouble. FOr instance, patenting the song happy birthday, versus patenting the IDEA of singing a song for someones birthday, which is sort of what we are doing now. When that copyright is preserved in perpetuity, then no one can ever use that idea again. THe same is true of individual songs and artwork. Eventually, you will run out of non copyrighted sequences of notes and words, and then people are unable to produce art anymore, and the culture dies, stagnating. I think this is what we are facing. We are strangling our own culture and art in laws that stifle creation, and therefore, we are going to fall behind other cultures that dont have such a thing. That is what the U.S. is founded on, seeing something, coming up with a better way of doing it, improving it, and doing it again. This process of stifiling forever copyrigting is killing off innovation, and its only going to get worse. If we keep doing this, we will be destroyed from within. If the US controlls all other countries copyrights, then the entire world is going to stagnante and die.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
MODS: This is not flamebait. This just happend less than 7 days ago. Follow the damn link and see.
/ ne ws/archive/2003/01/09/financial1022EST0075.DTL&typ e=books
What happend to conflict of interest?
"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas will receive more than $1 million for his memoirs from publisher HarperCollins.
Multiple publishers vied for the rights to Thomas' autobiography, which he started writing in 2001, but Thomas liked the package offered by the New York-based HarperCollins, including the editor assigned to work with him, people in the publishing industry with knowledge of the deal said Thursday.
The amount of the deal was not revealed, except that it was in seven figures. "
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=
So, I think the answer is: lobby congress to reverse the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. I have no problem with that. I'm writing my congress critters, right now.
:w
I'm tired of hearing whiners (whah whah, someone created something and they won't let me use it, whah) who are decidely one sided without a hint of actually talking about the issue but instead just want to mount their podiums.
I would like the hear the opinions of those out there who create copyrighted content, and prefereably those who generate some revenue from this content. I say generate revenue because it's not to difficult to see how someone who creates works but them puts them pd might have a negative opinion. Instead, does anyone who actually makes a living (or some part of one) from creating copyrighted content think that this is a GOOD thing?
PayPal will be fine.
Raves will never be the same again.
But then, if people don't get busted for all the acid and stuff, probably nobody's going to crack down on them for copyright infringement.
ination used to be a popular vent in the old days.
The court struck down Eldred, surprising no one (I hope). I believe they would have had a principled argument not to do so, but I'm not a Supreme Court justice. :) I can certainly understand their argument. While the copyright laws may be egregious, the constitutional grounds for challenging them are ultimately, to be most polite, tenuous.
The court did not rule on the "correctness" of the latest copyright extension. Basically they concluded that they lacked the power to change it.
This has always been a fight in the legislature. To be honest, an 11th hour reversal by the Supremes would have been a hollow victory. The legislature can turn out this bought-and-paid-for garbage 10x faster than the courts can correct it, if they can even correct it at all. We need, as we have always needed, legislative reform.
The important thing to keep in mind is that our representatives are flagrantly taking bribes from big entertainement companies to pass legislation that is outrageously favorable to them at the expense of the economy, the rest of society, etc. This court case has been bringing national attention to that issue, and it did again today. So in that respect, we can say it's good news regardless of the outcome.
Every time corruption is exposed in the media, we get a little closer.
We're on the road to Tycho.
Read supremes' opinions from lead attorney Lawrence Lessig here:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/
As Lessig argued, this is not truly limited. That's the exact problem. If it were limited, things would fall out of copyright. Have you noticed much of anything falling out of copyright?
Endless (retroactive) copyright extensions mean that the term of a copyright is not limited. Really, if something does not fall out of copyright within the typical lifetime it's not limited. The framers most likely implied, by use of the word "limited", for copyrights to expire in a time notably less than the average lifespan. Currently, you shouldn't expect to see anything created in your life to fall into the public domain.
The thing is, the public has been indoctrinated to believe that copyrights should be something like the author's life + 75 years, or other unreasonable shit. Just ask an average "consumer" and they will probably be surprised by the idea of a copyright running out after 20 years.
The worst thing is that the profits from the vast majority of copyrighted works decays (something like) exponentially over time. So, most of this shit is locked up just because they want to hold on to the few "gems" that really earn over time (Mickey Mouse, Elvis, etc).
As a compromise I would say that we should institute a ~20 year copyright. Then allow 2-5 year extensions, that cost a buttload of cash to apply for. This means only the profitable stuff won't lapse into the public domain, and Disnet (et al.) can keep the things they want.
Of course, the best solution (ie. not a compromise) is to get some torches & pitchforks then lynch Eisner, Rosen, Valenti, etc. (let's lynch that fat whore Oprah while we're at it).
It looks like the public domain may have become essentially fixed and will no longer grow. Get used to it.
What a fucking shame...
Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
While I'm very disheartened to hear this decision, what it really means is not pepetual copyright. What it means is that if we consumers want copyrights to expire in a reasonable amount of time, we have to convince OUR legistlators to set them to reasonable amounts of time. Like any other right, it's ours to defend or lose.
I realize that the picture for changing copyrights back to a reasonable term is not pretty. I understand that getting a majority of Americans to do this isn't likely.
Maybe it's time to create a Semi-Free Authoring Copyright License. One that definitely expires in a reasonable time and with the death of the author. The Open Software Movement has done a lot to create new and useful software, simply by releasing their rights. Maybe authors can choose to do the same, to the enrichment of us all.
I hear it's warm there, and not like Indiana where I'm stuck... Besides (Come and get me suckers) < A more in-depth talk about standing up for ethical behavior was supposed to go here but...I can't work it out.
yahoo doesn't tell which justices voted for against? Does anyone know?
http://www.windmeadow.com/
So will they pay back what they stole?
At least in the music industry there were people making a lot of money on songs that were in the "public domain". Only changing them a little and then make a lot of money from that. Can't remember the names, but there was some guys that did that and then sold the songs to artists.
Behind the Hits
I think what the Supremes are saying is that the mechanism to solve this problem is for normal citizens to go to Congress and get the extension laws repealed. The people haven't been stripped of their power to lobby congress, they just haven't gotten off their collective butts.
The only thing the Supremes can talk about is "What does 'limited times' really mean". Basically, as long as the law doesn't say one billion years it's OK.
So basically, 90 years or whatever it is currently isn't long enough to trigger a ruling of "Ok, this is effectively infinite copyright".
I would also imagine the Supremes were a little wary of ruling on the whole idea of "infinite extension = infinite copyright" because that deals with Congress's ability to pass a _future_ law. That would be the judicial branch tinkering with the business of the legislative branch's opertaion. That's something the Supremes are probably very wary of.
--
"I'm too old to use Emacs." -- Rod MacDonald
Countries that export illegal material to the U.S. are in the axis of evil and nuked appropriately.
I petition a change in the naming of this country:
United Corporations of America
See Lessig's Blog
The Majority
Justic Stevens
Justice Breyer
Say I live in a town / country where we have a traditional story. Kids do it as a theatre show in school, local radio companies put it on the radio, usual small town stuff. DisneyCorps comes along and realises it's a great story, makes a film out of it. Next year all the local schools are threatened with multimillion law suits if the local 7 year olds try to tell their little traditional story for their mums and dads at the end of year show....
...All Your Culture Belongs To Us...
I guess if multinational food companies can tell local farmers that their multicorp now owns the rights to the crops the locals have been farming for thousands of years, the same could happen about cultural heritage?
The biggest problem is that the Constitution says "for limited times" (US Constitution, Section 8, para.8). Ted Olsen has argued, apparently with a large degree of success, that the age of the universe minus 1 day is still, technically, a limited time.
No, this isn't what the Founding Fathers had in mind. But it's what they wrote. Maybe we should dig them up and shoot them for being so vague here, when they explicitly specify other details, such as the 7th amendment in the Bill of Rights: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."
So, we are specifically guaranteed a jury trial in civil matters with monetary damages exceeding $20 (a trivial amount of money today); but there are no limits on the "limited" duration of patents and copyrights set forth in the Constitution.
Had a particular time been set in those days (say, 25 years) it would have actually been to our benefit. In the late 18th century, communications took days to weeks; distribution of ideas, years. Today, we have instant worldwide communications. In the 21st century, 25 years is effectively a longer time to have materials under copyright control than it would have been 200 years ago, when it took much longer for ideas to spread.
Copyright actually has to do with the right to distribute a work - giving the originator a monopoly for a period of time. Maybe the law should require that they actually exercise that right. For example, if they fail to actively distribute a work during any contiguous 10 year period then the work falls into the public domain.
I know it sounds so 60's, or was it 70's or 80's? I don't know but the point is that it's high time we took this to the streets.
Don't discuss this on the level of some tech-geek thing. People glaze over and go stupid real fast.
This needs to be presented plain and simple. Disney is stealing from the past and locking it up for themselves (Grimm for example).
It's time to actively boycott Mickey Mouse. Does anyone know where I can get a bumper sticker with a Mickey Mouse outline and a bit red circle+slash?
Either he's a coward, a fool, or buying time for producing weapons. If he buckled because he's afraid then he's a coward, if he buckled because he thought it would lead to peace, he's a fool, and the last one doesn't appear to need explanation.
I think a good way around the problem would be to make everything go into the public domain after a while (less time than now) but companies should be able to pay to keep things out of the public domain indefinatly, that way thinsg that the copyright holders don't see any value in, are not going to pay 1 million say for a 10 yr extension.
All this means is that the copyrighted stuff will not be free...technically. In reality, the fact that someone somewhere is still selling something means that it is more likely to be available through other *cough*P2P*cough* channels. If nobody can find it, 'cuz there aren't any copies being sold any more, its availability goes down. If it's available at a store, it's likely up on Gnutella.
"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
By denying us rights to works that should now be in the public domain, our legislators have voted their contributors a substantial largesse from the public treasury.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
The question is now, when will a religon push some insane law that allows them copyright to the bible? Don't say it can't happen. Disney stole Mickey from some other guy. Point is there are a whole lot of compaines that have stole, appropriated, borrwed, licensed, etc something from another. Over time said company just assumes it's theirs. Hey judges and congress people, how about auctioning off the Constitution.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
I've occasionally wondered if the very rapid spread of Japanese characters (as in anime and game characters) through US and European culture has been connected with the loose way Japanese companies tend to enforce character copyrights.
If you want to dress up as Mickey Mouse or paint Mickey Mouse on your garage or write a story about Mickey Mouse skateboarding through Tibet and post it on the internet, you can't -- you'll get a sharp letter about it followed by nuclear legal action. This tends to mean that US characters penetrate only as far as the commercial level, and not to the hobbyist/cultist/otaku level.
By contrast, if you want to paint Sailor Moon on the side of your ice cream truck or make your own Sailor Moon video or, god help you, dress up as Sailor Moon, then that's fine. As a result, Japan is awash with images of all the famous Japanese characters, and the penetration of these characters into individual lives is (tragically) very high.
If the Mouse was similarly accessible, American toons could well have displaced Japanese ones even in Japan.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
How exactly is keeping a copyright on Steamboat Willie (whose inventor has been dead for many years) promoting the "progress of science and the useful arts"? Maybe instead of focusing on the "limited times" portion the supreme court should take a look at the intent of the Constitution. Also, there seems to be a huge discrepancy between the "limited time" for a patent, and the "limited time" for copyright. This means that more than likely we'll be seeing IBM lobby congress to extend patents, and they'll have a good case since the bunch of goons on the bench now are so short-sighted.
So the much touted by Republicans "judicial restraint" actually means, when translated from doublespeak, "judges voting in accordance with the party line." Please, please, please don't vote for jingoes and corporate cronies at the next elections.
Bush Lies Watch
On occasion, social change in the US has been spearheaded by federal courts. Most of the time, it's just not supposed to be that way. If you don't like decisions like this, don't blame the court (which probably took the most appropriate judicial action). Blame the legislators who enacted the law. Wait, you voted for the other guy, along with 45% of the other voters in your district? Does that happen a lot? Ok, blame the fact that your state elects its representatives according to geographic districts, and every 10 years redraws those lines to make most incumbents "safe" in subsequent elections. Laws like this will continue to be passed by a legislature that does not reflect the will of the people until our election mechanisms change. The zillions of posts we'll be seeing here about corporate money in government are making an important gripe, but no "campaign finance reform" law is going to fix this problem. See The Center for Voting and Democracy for more info.
...all the more important. Copyright applies to software too. The things we write will be under our copyright control for our lifetimes and beyond.
As sad as it sounds. I always liked the US because it was the model of how things can be done and achieved in business and life.
But with the turn of the year 2000 and burst of the stock bubble, I am REALLY wondering if the US is going downhill. If you look at the laws that have been passed and the rights that have been taken away in the US you REALLY wonder.
This is not meant to be Anti-American since I am not Anti-American people. Americans are humans just like everybody else. You got idiots and you have nice people, just like anywhere else. But it seems that the establishment within the USA is going a bit wierd....
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
If I get tossed in jail for whacking a mole and am sentenced for 2 years, then Congress passes an extreme No Whacking Law with a minumum sentence of ten years, my 2 years will NOT be extended to 10 years.
Who would think that extending a different contract - copyright - would give them the power to extend the existing contracts ? In no other instance would this be even remotely Legal, let alone constitutional.
I have given up on the US Government quite a while ago.
Because unless we explicitly put works into the public domain (or something like it anyway), we can't rely on them ever coming back out.
Can someone tell me who in the United States even gives a shit about Mickey Mouse? All the kids I'm around could care less about Mickey Mouse. He's a LOSER! They want someone with guns, web-shooters, or a fast car. They don't even know what a steamboat is.. nor do they think Disney is cool. It's old and smells like puke (at least in FL).
I am constantly amazed at how people continue to be surprised when our government acts to promote the interests of big corporations over those of small companies and/or individuals. I am in no way a communist, but Karl Marx called this one over a hundred years ago in the "Communist Manifesto" when he wrote that government exists for one purpose: to serve the interests of the ruling class. In his day, maybe the ruling class was Russian royalty and, globally speaking, foreign imperialists. In our day, the ruling class is clearly large, and especially multinational, corporations such as Disney. As a matter of principle, I side 100% with the plaintiffs, but as a matter of reality, I knew that Lessig et al. never really had a fighting chance. Say I'm a Supreme Court justice and my choices are: (a) overturn the lower courts so that the tiny "Eldritch Press" convert works protected by the copyright extension into HTML, thereby perhaps making a tiny profit (or perhaps going belly up like many internet ventures); or (b) take the safe route by affirming the lower courts and allowing Disney (and other similarly situated corporations) to continue to earn billions of dollars from these protected works. Keep in mind that all of this occurs in the context of continuous, extremely heavy lobbying by Disney and other corporations, with millions of dollars flowing into Washington D.C. on a yearly basis. Imagine the fallout from Congress and the Executive Branch if we take this copyright protection away from colossal Disney in favor of these little pissant companies on principle. It's a no brainer. As tough as it may be to swallow, we have a military-industrial cabal running this country. One which was literally appointed by the Supreme Court rather than being elected by the popular vote. And yet we act surprised when the very Supreme Court justices who placed Bush, who is really nothing more than a lackey for the oil industry - witness the impending war on Iraq, in office rules in favor of the multinational Disney corporation over a bunch of small bullshit companies no one has ever heard of. Get real.
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I understand that copyrights may become effectively exclusive via something called extensions, but I don't really understand what the extension is, or why it is granted. Does there have to be some kind of improvment done to the work for it to qualify for this extension? Can a work receive multiple extensions? Can that go on forever?
What were the original reasons for creating a public domain, and what have been the arguments against that to get this law passed?
Enlighten me!
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
It would be an interesting turn of events for someone to organize a month of no music and movie spending to send a message back to the media industry that they are not in charge, the consumers are.
This is not an upshot. It is purely a right that _only_ affetcts corporate entities, giving them more rights in America than the individual. Any person saying "no, it is to help the families of the author" are mostlikely lying and on a coporate bankrole.
Once works have "had their day" and given enough to a corporation, they should be given to humanity for the good of all. That was the intent of original copyright - to balance the benifits given the author, their the rights to make money and benifitting humanity. This shifts the balance _too_ far from humanity AND the author (if (s)he is an individual towards Corporate America.
Mecworks BLOG
a Supreme court justice owns a copyright...and he just voted on a case about copyrights!
there is a clear conflict of interest here!
Let me see... Now after I write my multi-million selling super blockbuster best-sellers, I can make sure that all my heirs and assigns (and maybe even my own personal immortal corporation) can keep profiting from my works forever...and ever...and ever... My Boswell will never have to work a day in his (or her) life! We're all set!
...especially not the general public.
But wait... Suppose I don't write mega-super-uber blockbuster bestsellers, and my work (like 99% of all authors' work) remains steadily mid-list after I die. Judging by current trends, ever-lengthening copyrights mean only one thing: I languish in obscurity forever...and ever...and ever...and nobody gets rich...
(We are so many, but they are so rich.)
Hmm...immortality for the priveledged few; death and obscurity for the rest. Maybe not such good news after all.
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
It's absolutely impossible to write music without paying off various American guilds for the rights to your own works. Western music is based on twelve-note scale (counting sharps and flats here...). There's already a court case that says a unique sequence of four notes is sufficient to claim that a given work is derivative of another. The entertainment cartels in this country have eternal rights (thanks supremes!) to enough works to have a copyright on EVERY possible sequence of four notes. That means every new song written is legally a derivative work of another. Lyrics aren't quite as bad but the set of all possible lyrics in English is strewn with mines too.
There are limits to how much corruption an economy can effectively function with. We have widespread corruption built into the foundations of both legislation and court law making the current winners in our system forever protected until the system collapses. Expect the 21st century to be interesting....in the Chinese curse sense.
When I was a kid, we had to walk to school in the snow uphill, both ways! And we didn't need no copyright mumbo-jumbo. If somebody wanted to sing a song I wrote, I just punched them in the nose!
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
and they had me completely convinced that the recent re-release of would really, REALLY be my absolute last chance to own the video/DVD/soundtrack/action figures/magazine EVER! and to think i let that golden opportunity pass thru my fingers! now disney can do such promotions like every other year.....oh, wait.
Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
-Dr. Weird
To be honest, two Justices is more than I thought the Eldred side could get. While I sympathize with their intent, it would have been a remarkable abrogation of Congressional power for the Court to have struck down the SBCTEA. "Ill-advised and stupid" does not, unfortunately, mean "unconstitutional."
"Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I'll spend to find out how to get people more."
Unless Clarence Thomas is dead, and is coming close to being dead for 70 years, I don't see how he has any personal interest in the outcome.
If he is dead, please let the President know so he can appoint a replacement. And if he's been dead for 60-70 years, please let the Supreme Court's janitor know so he can bring in the cleaners to get rid of the "rotting corpse" smell.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday dear Mickey
Happy birthday to you!
Oops. It just slipped out.
The world is not Linux. The world is not free. Why is it automatically assumed by members of this site that everything should be free?
Disney Corp wants to keep control of it's very identifiable mascot, Mickey Mouse. And why shouldn't they? What would Walt Disney think if some 40 years after his death, somebody with a computer and an internet connection was making porn cartoons with the characters he created? And nobody could do anything about it.
How would you feel if, after some established time period (let's say 50 years), ownership of your property passed into the public domain? Programs you wrote, houses and land you own, cars you drive. Somebody could take your house, move themselves in, and there was nothing you could do about it. In fact, the police would come to insure that you could not prevent them from moving in.
If you want to create something, create something original. Don't depend on the work somebody else did decades ago to be your only creative outlet. It's still legal to get inspiration from other works. And until they take that right away from us, use it. There are still original ideas being created every day.
Stop crying about how this is so damaging to the public good. How in the hell does Disney making money off of Mickey Mouse cartoons really matter? Is it so wrong to make money off of things? This is not the Socialist States of America (at least not yet), and I cannot work for free? If you want to program for open source free software projects, then so be it. That's your choice.
Is this post rambling on for no reason? Hell yes! I've been up all night and I'm tired. I just had to vent about the narrowmindedness of people that frequent this site complaining that they can't get something for free. Henry Ford started building cars almost 100 years ago. Does that give me the right to go down to my local Ford dealer and take a free 2003 Excursion off the lot? Then why do you have the right to make Mickey Mouse cartoons?
Flame away, I'll probably be asleep and won't read them anyway :)
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Also at risk of expiration was protection for the version of Mickey Mouse portrayed in Disney's earliest films, such as 1928's "Steamboat Willie."
Congress passed the copyright law after heavy lobbying from companies with lucrative copyrights.
Hey, they just could not make that much money out of these so it would not cost them a lot.
BTW, as they retain the original tapes, they'd be the only ones who could be re-publishing these on DVD, no ?
And if not, I see 3 possibilities for them if this copyright were cancelled
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Large media companies (such as the unstable AOL Time Warner) own or contractually control many hundreds of thousands of copyrights. But has anyone ever actually analyzed the market value of the older copyrights whose protection is prolonged by this decision? As in the rest of life, it's winner-take-all. Sure, there is Mickey, the Gershwins, Irving Berlin, Fitzgerald, and a very few movies from the 1920s and 1930s that are generating revenue. But the vast majority of older works don't bring in any money. I'd venture to say that one less-publicized reason for aggressive protection of ALL copyrights, including those protecting lost and/or abandoned works, is to prop up the book value of media companies. Something for stockholders to look into...
Would I be right in assuming that this basically means that all composers who sign contracts with U.S. companies are now no more than indentured servants who will never be able to own the rights to their own creations unless they become rich enough to buy back the copyright on their work from the record companies? I realize that it was basically this way before, but now it seems the record companies have unlimited control.
Would any artist in their right mind ever sign with a U.S. label again? Why not just find a label in a country with much saner copyright laws, say... Canada? Seriously, if enough artists get pissed and just bypass American media corporations altogether, this could be the beginning of the downfall of the U.S. corporations control of the music industry. This idea could work for other types of artists as well, such as screenwriters.
Then again, musicians could just self-publish their work and retain their copyright fromt he beginning.
Is this idea naive? Yes. Is it unrealistic? Yes. Could it ever work? Probably not, but I'm not quite so jaded as to give up hope.
Here you go, but they're PDFs...I got the links from Larry Lessig's blog
/.ed...
Majority opinion
Justice Steven's dissent
Justice Breyer's dissent
I wonder how Larry's going to like being
When I first read the headline, I thought, "We're doomed!" But really this just brings us back to a fact. The US Constitution is vague on this and the court (by what vote, and were there dissenting opinions? Let's wait for the details before we speculate too far) decided that the power rests with the legislature (again, we'll have to see the opinions to know what the reasoning was), which is pretty reasonable, even if the legislature is not.
The lesson to take from this is that it does indeed matter who represents you in the House and Senate. Write to them. Give them your opinion. Let them know that where they stand on the balance between protecting profit for creators and the cultural commons will affect your vote. Apply pressure to congress. That's what the media companies are doing, and look how it is working for them.
People see government doing things they don't like and they throw up their hands and say, "Stupid government! Who needs 'em? Who cares?" Well, that is the exact attitude that corporate lobbyists want. The antidote is participation. Go to your precinct caucus. Talk about how you would like the law to work. And don't just go alone. Find like-minded people in your precinct and go as a group.
Government hasn't turned its back on the people; people have turned their backs on government.
Think about it. Is liberty worth a few hours a year? Or is it too much trouble? The decision lies not with government, but with you.
well in the us, the constitution gives authors control over their works for a "limited time". the reasoning being that people will make money off of these works for a "limited time" and contribute more art to society. eventually copyrights would expire and the work would go into the public domain. by removing this "limited time" (artists life + 70 year effectivly does this), this removes the incentive for the corporation and socitey doesnt benifit.
think of what life would be like if works would have never gone into the public domain: there would be no free access to the works like shakespeare, poe, bible, bach, beethoven, puccini. as a consequence disney wouldnt have been able to make things like snow white, the jungle book, peter pan, etc. people take these things for granted, but a world where nothing enters the public domain would be a very depressing one.
another issue has nothing to do with mickey. many works are essentially abandoned. they are sitting on bookshelves not being read and will disappear. eldred wants to take many old works, transcribe them into digitial form, and make them available to a new generation of readers. these works are making no money for the copyright holders, and in many cases the copyright holders are unknown. under the current copyright laws, these will never enter the public domain -- all this to protect mickey.
i'm sorry but a corporations desire to earn money does not trump the constitution in my opinion. it's sad the justices dont think in the same manner.
-- john
I'm totally for this to an extent. For copyright I think only companies that have retained that have consistently and continually pumped money into the copyright should be able to retain that copyright.
Disney's mickey mouse is world reknown.. and no one can say someone else created it. Same with the coca cola way of writing the words coca cola. The company is still around and they still continously pump money into those products. Coke still advertises constantly and disney always has new movies coming out
what I don't like is when a copyright extends after the death of the company/person. What I would prefer is this. The copyrights for a company/person will endeavor as long as the company shows continual interest in supporting the copyright.
Copyrights should not be allowed to be sold and should only be allowed to benefit the person/company that created the copyright.
so you kind of have a copyright that doesn't have a set lifespan. If a person/company wishes to maintain their copyright they'll have to demonstrate that they still continually use it. And if they stop using it for say like a period of a year. The copyright is then nulled and public domained.
that's how I feel they should write the laws because I REALLY hate it when a person/company doesn't care about their copyright anymore.. but they hold it there cuz what the hell.. hten when another company not knowingly uses it... the person with the copyright will then proceed to collect money for something he let sit on the side a long time ago... totally hate that.
anyhow my two cents...
The companies paying him more than a million dollars have an interest in copyright. It is there main line of work. That is where conflict of interest comes in.
Now, from a Lessig interview:
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
can never be said too many times:
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit."
from 'Life-Line'
Dissenting opinion (Stevens): http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/ 01-618d.pdf
Dissenting opinion (Breyer): http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/ 01-618d1.pdf
Look at the DMCA fiasco. It has already caused consumers much grief, and it ain't going to go away.
In fact it's probably going to get a lot worse, when similar laws will be put forward in various EU countries :(
I have turned off my cable to protest crappy programming and higher rates. Do you have the BALLS to do the same to protest the corporate takeover of this country?!
I steal music and continue to do so to recover the money that the RIAA membership STOLE from me. Do you do any form of disobediance in your life?
Until you stop going to the 5th regurgitation of "Dude Where's my Car?", and the umpteenth Rocky movie, the crap will continue. Consumers have the power, but are such ignorant sheep, that the popular opinion is controlled by the media propoganda of the day. Do 56% of this country really think Shrubya is doing a good job? I don't believe it for a minute.
Are you tired of having the news portray "Joe Millionaire" as more important than the story of a abused child, or failed dipolmacy by our government?
"Television, the drug of a Nation. Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation." -Disposible Heroes of Hiphoprisy.
A fey months ago I told my wife about Disney and it's attempt to expand the expiration of copyright. And I told her Disney's intention was wrong. Then she asked me "Why should copyright expire? Disney created these cartoons, the cartoons are the property of Disney.". And I couldn't convice her.
So, can you tell me why should copyright exipre? If I write a novel, I want to be paid for it by anybody who reads it until I or my heir deems it appropriate to give it to the public.
Moderators: do not mod me as flamebait. I'd like to get some information how I can convice other people about why unlimited copyright is wrong.
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
I've skimmed over the opinion and while I don't like the result, I agree with the court. The court's argument is basically, that the Copyright Clause of the Constitution allows Congress to extend Copyrights for limited periods. The CTEA extends it for 20 years to existing and future works. 20 years is clearly limited, and the court cites reference to the earlier copyright term extensions as a basis for constitutionality.
"The CTEA's baseline term of life plus 70 years, petitioners concede, qualifies as a "limited Time" as applied to future copyrights." Opinion, pg. 25. (no cite available yet) The court goes on to say that 'limited time' only means a definable time period that is confined within certain bounds. Since adding 20 years to the current term meets this requirement, the court held that "there is no cause to suspect that a purpose to evade the "limited Times" prescription prompted Congress to adopt the CTEA." pg.25
The law is supposed to be a reasonable compromise to maintain co-existence and peace among the various interests of society, not a tool for one part of the society to run over the other. By allowing the extreme extension of copyright law the Court has allowed concepts of copyright and patent to be hijacked. They were originally a means for all art and knowledge to be donated to the public domain in exchange for a limited time of exclusive rights to commerical exploitation. Now with this 'retroactive' extension every X years trick being allowed they have been mutated into 'intellectual property' rights, and an idea will be treated like a piece of land, leaving the public as serfs in the world of Feudal Corporate Property. This is just like Feudalism, btw. Extract a 'fee' for everything and keep the serfs in debt.
When the law is unreasonable, people will simply defy it, out of resentment or sometimes out of simple necessity. This leads to loss of respect for the law and further problems in society. We can expect the file traders and other 'pirates' to flourish now. The public now has no hope of any relaxation of this extremism and will simply defy the law. And of course the corporations will run to the government for help curbing the 'pirates'. The Feudal rulers were really annoyed at those peasants and serfs poaching 'their' game just because they were hungry. Funny that the direst punishments could not stop this behavior. People are just not 'smart' enough to become what the law dictates they should be. They have this funny thing called 'self interest' that leads them to try to lead their own lives instead of serve the self-appointed powers over them. I guess we can expect warfare, open and otherwise, between the public and the corporations for the foreseeable future.
Remember how the psuedo-libertarians wingnuts were arging that they were the defenders of true liberty and that "strict constitutionalists" like Scalia and Thomas would rule against Congress and liberate us from the evil "liberal"s who passed these illiberal laws? You remember how you thought then "Those guys are full of crap"?
Well, they were.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I think there's a possible way to prevent this happening in the future. Ironically, it may be DRM systems that do it.
Of course it's a long shot...
But...what if a law was passed to say that any DRM system must respect copyright expiration? In other words a content protection device must stop protecting its content when the copywrite expires.
In this case, extending the copyright won't matter so much since the DRM will expire regardless of what congress does after its created.
(now that I write this I see a hole. An individual DRM system could probably connect back to a server somewhere that could be updated to say 'don't expire, we got another extension'. hmm...)
Treasure Fucking Planet.
How hypocritical can you get?
The upshot is that no works produced in the United States after the 1920's will ever go out of copyright.
Now, eventually, there will no longer be any copyrightable works produced in the U.S. Works are rarely original; they are almost always derived from existing works. So much for innovation and competition.
Sad day for the U.S. While I'm glad I don't live there, I'm sure it will inevitably affect me, anyway.
And not in a good way.
Whenever the people lose and corporations win because they bought access, the government is wrong. And the people will steal from these pricks more and more and more till eventually copyright means nothing. Law enforcement will be overwhelmed and helpless against pirates.
Then the people will lose even more because copyright will mean nothing. And it is there to protect innovators for a limited time so they can make money off their ideas, not forever. And if the innovator is not protected because copyright means nothing, they will not innovate, or they will hide their ideas. And we will all lose, and lose, and lose.
To be honest, I'm not sure there's much injustice in this decision by the Supreme Court. Our government's role is to protect the People's interest at home and abroad, and I'm fairly certain this decision reinforces this.
By letting Copyrights/Trademarks expire, Americans would probably damage themselves more than they help themselves.
We are in a global economy, folks, and it's becoming evident that the American economy as a whole is moving away from manufacturing efforts and towards IP-producing efforts. If you want to maintain your status of living, then you'd better be doing all you can to ensure that the product of your labor is valued as high as it can be for the purposes of export. Letting valueable American Copyrights complacently slip away is the economic equivalent of Walmart setting fire to its inventory. Whether you believe it or not, Disney extracting profits abroad via the Mickey Mouse logo is a good thing for the US as a whole, not just for Disney shareholders.
In the past, the US legislature has recognized this and sanctioned Export Cartels (several firms that cooperate to act as a monopoly together) for industries that tend to have a high ratio of international sales to domestic sales. The Webb-Pomerene Act of 1918 essentially allowed the executives of Exporting firms to call up each other and fix prices abroad. Although this Supreme Court decision isn't as clear cut in favor of export monopoly profit extraction, I'm positive the influencing factors had similar motives in mind.
I might not convince many of you, but trust me there are rational reasons for the US Government to behave the way they do in protection of US firms, especially with regards to Copyright protection. The legislatures out there aren't interested in protecting people's abilities to pirate copyrighted works, they're interested in protecting JOBS. You have to decide which is more important to you...
And why would anyone want to use eg.Mickey Mouse (TM) for Non-Disney purposes? It would be like using Ronald McDonald (TM) to advertise a body-building program....
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
"...this is exactly what I've been waiting for. Now that my compensation is ensured, I will be certain to publish my next three novels that I've been working out down here. Thanks, America!"
-- F. Scott Fitzgerald, interviewed via ouija board in The New York Times
See? Retroactive copyright extension does work :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I've got to say that (as much as I might like to see a different outcome) the Supremes made the right decision in this matter. Had they made any other decision they would have been essentially legislating from the bench, which is a very bad precident, because it is very difficult to overturn a "law" enacted by the courts.
There really is no reason to be so pessimistic about this, though. There is hope, because it's (relatively) easy to change laws enacted by Congress. Congress just has to write a new law. What we need is for groups like the Electronic Freedom Foundation to start lobbying Congress, and educating the public (the non-technical public--geekdom is already plenty educated on this matter) on the issue. Most people I talk to agree that copyright laws need to be reformed to one extent or another, after I've explained the situation to them. However, it isn't an issue in their lives, and so they don't care that much about it. If the issue gets out in the forefront, then changes will start to happen.
Try not to be too cynical about the whole matter. All that leads to is defeatism. For the most part, the members of Congress aren't out-and-out bought. Most of them vote their consciences, most of the time. What they are, though, is uneducated on the matter, and the only education they get is from the music, movie, and publishing industries. We need to start educating them (without coming off as a bunch of hackers who want everything for free).
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
THis is an EXAMPLE. What im saying is, more and more patents are being granted for a general idea, rather than a specific wording. Think of patenting the concept one click shopping, vs patenting their particular program to enable it. Using my example, you wouldnt be able to "get off their lazy ass and write a new fucking 'happy birthday' song and use that instead" because the CONCEPT of singing someone A happy birthday is patented, even if you write your own song.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
In effect The court has held that it is within Congress' power to determine the length of Copyright, even for existing works. So copyright isn't something that can be grandfathered unless Congress says so.
This is great! That means that these copyright extensions can be repealed without consideration of existing works. So, when we get around to making copyright reasonable again, say 20 or 30 years, then the legal challenge from publishers won't be able to argue anything about fairness.
Bryer:
Stevens: Full text can be found on Lawrence Lessig his Blog.Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. (And I don't care if this post costs me karma. This is just awful).
I think we've been taking the wrong approach. We should encourage this sort of thing. Until normal everyday Joe/Jane Sixpacks start getting sued/fined en masse for daring to watch a DVD on a non-MPAA approved machine, things are not going to get better. The laws have to start hurting the average person before the sheeple start raising a stink. When the congresspeople feel pressure from the people they allegedly represent, they will make symbolic gestures towards restoring fair use and other rights that they normally consider to be superfluous. Not that I think it will ultimately ever get better. We are now the Corporate States of America and we better get used to it. Our elected "representatives" are owned and operated by industry to the detriment of every single taxpayer. Welcome to Nu-Perfect America.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
In (the 1998 Sonny Bono legislation), as in all previous copyright term extensions, COngress placed existing and future copyrights in parity. In prescribing that alignment, we hold, Congress acted within its authority and did not transgress constitutional limitations.
In other words, the majority opinion holds that any given extension, if its purpose is to synchronize all current copyrights (whatever the length of time may ultimately be), is completely legal.
From same:
The court held that the CTEA does not violate the 'limited times' restriction of the Copyright Clause because the CTEA's terms, though longer than the 1976 Act's terms, are still limited, not perpetual, and therefore fit within Congress's discretion.
I.e., if the Sonny Bono II act were passed making copyrights 10000 years retroactively:
1. It is still a limited time, thus, legal.
2. It harmonizes all current copyright, thus, legal.
10000 years is a pretty long limited time. Watch how long it takes to get that law passed. The door is now wide open.
Beyond 50 years, it will cost $X (10k) to keep the copyright on a work, per year, paid to the public (i.e. tax). If not paid, the work becomes public domain.
Many works that are now copyrighted just by default should quickly become public domain. The few that still make a lot of money would stay copyrighted.
The only thing that may be able stop the slide is advancing technology that eventually acts as some sort of deus ex machina.
Sig:
Navy nuke sub lifestyle?
Weren't movies like Snow White, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast etc etc. taken almost directly from public domain?
Disney would not have made nearly as much money if it were not for the fact that all these stories (originally written by one or two people with copyright) later became public domain.
The point of it is that after a certain amount of time, sucessful stories, music, art etc. become part of a shared culture and they belong to everyone. You can't un-remember things while you can certainly give physical objects away.
I am really disappointed with this decision, but not because Disney gets to keep Mickey locked up.
In the past, copyroghts had to be renewed in order to get the full term. The American people would have really benefitted from the requirement to renew copyrights.
The main advantage this would give us is that people or corporations that really want to protect their IP can protect it, but the stuff that is no longer widely marketable would end up being freed.
In my opinion, this would have given us the best of both worlds: companies or people who can make money off their property are allowed to, while the rest of us would be allowed to mine the rich layers of no longer commercially viable material.
As one poster pointed out already, what happens to the Katzenjammer Kids?
I have always been fascinated by early films and cartoons, for example, and I hate to think that we might lose many of these films because our government will not allow the the type of low-budget or even volunteer effort that would be needed to make this happen!
I think that the preservationists of "Old Time Radio" are a great example of how this would work. Radio plays were not protected by copyright until the 1960s. Because of this, there is a ton of public domain material available from the "Golden Age of Radio" that provides a lot of insight into US culture at that time. Broadcasts from the years of WWII are particularly interesting because the entertainment itself was often part of the war effort. If these works were still protected under copyright, it is likely that no one would be able to profit from them reasonably, and therefore the public probably wouldn't have access.
I'm not worried about Mickey, because Disney will take care of him, at least as long as they can keep squeezing dimes out of him. But there is a lot of stuff out there that should be protected (from decay, that is), and the copyright holders may not care enough (or be financially able) to save them! I think that's the real problem, and we might have been able to fix it if the Supreme Court had ruled differently.
Who were the 2 dissenting opinions? Some one ought to write and thank them. Also, I'm curious to know why they dissented.
As depressing as this ruling is, it's nice to know that at least there are two people on the Supreme Court who think that Eldred should have won.
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
Very well said. Very well said.
I think you can add The White House, and pretty much every other aspect of governement to this list.
I've been arguing for years that the government has failed to represent the public interest, or the interests of the people who are supposed give it power.
We must realize that this government doesn't work for us, but actively against us, and throw them all out.
It's only illegal as long as we keep letting the same sort of bastards get elected. If you don't like it vote for someone else. If there is nobody worth voting for run yourself. If you still can't get enough votes to make a difference then go find some shitty third world country trying to modernize and make a deal with them and move in several thousand geeks all at once. If that can't be done then do like I am and work on making a floating city in international waters. (Yes, I'm part of a group actually working on that.) There is always something you can do about it.
:)
As for me I'm currently ripping every bit of media I can lay hands on. It isn't legal to distribute the material now but at least I can keep a copy in case I get a chance to pass such things on. I thought of building a robot that could write (once) and read data off massive stone on metal plates in such a form that it'll take a freaking long time to destroy the data (unlike hdd's, cd's, etc). Besides amussing myself it'd be an interesting way to time capsule data.. and what a conversation piece. "Oh yeh I replaced my backyard with 40 acres of warehoused data engraved on alumnium plates in binary."
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
If congress believes that original creative works should be protected forever, why not take that to its logical extreme and apply the same standard to patents.
...um, er, I mean reap a reasonable return...
Someone should press the case that patented ideas deserve no less protection under the law.
Is an old drawing of Mickey Mouse (tm) (c) any more valuable than the patent on (for instance) transistors? Shouldn't the inventor of the variable speed windshield wiper receive royalties for the next 100 years? Pharmaceutical/medical breakthroughs should allow the inventor to ream the public ad infinitum!
Exposing the absurdity of a position is often the best offense; but be careful what you ask for...
- M
This is what I am thinking. I guess the law only applies to 800 pound gorillas that have multiple senators, representatives and judges at their disposal.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
Obviously Disney got what they wanted, and in the short term, this will be good for them.
Their best works have come from the Public Domain, and as other have said, the net effect of this decision is to terminate the Public Domain in the 1920's. Their ability to produce future works is hampered in two directions. First, their in-house stuff just hasn't been that good, and I suspect that's a product of the same corporate culture that just got this decision. You take the bad with the good. Second, they've been getting a string of lawsuits by artists who feel they've been screwed. Disney bought what appeared to be "limited" rights from the artists, and then as technology raised the limits, gave them no further compensation. Now they're buying "unlimited" rights, and I expect artists and agents to be much more shrewd.
Centuries from now, when the archaeologists dig us up, we'll be in the "century of artistic impoverishment." They'll see all of these shiny disks around, some perhaps in perfect condition, many not, but enough to get complete bit samples. They'll even be able to read the bits - but not the content. OK, to properly investigate electronic media from the 21st century will require cracker-ologists. But history will still look at the oxymoron of deliberately making PUBLISHED works INACCESSABLE.
Another step down the declining road for the USA, perhaps the West. Wonder how long it will take us to be overtaken. Wonder how bad it will hit my later years, or my kids.
Wonder if it can be reversed.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
What, are Corporations not allowed any rights, because public opinion says they're evil?
Executive #1: Sir, Congress and the President just passed a law stripping every right corporations had. We no longer own any properties, patents, and copyrights that we used to own.
Executive #2: Well, so how do we make a profit now?
Executive #1: We can't sir, we charged money for our products. Now they're free.
Executive #2: Well, lets close down the corporation then. Inform the employees that they no longer have a job.
10,000 employees: What? We're getting laid off? Stupid system....
In this Disney case, the judicial branch said a particular law applies in Disney's favor. Its not because the Supreme Court is biased towards corporations. To claim that one Supreme Court decision means the entire US government panders to big business is ignorant and ridiculous.
"Congress passed the copyright law after heavy lobbying from companies with lucrative copyrights."
At least they didn't try to pretty this fact up at all.
You can also now pull the story off your favorite AP source.
The part I was most interested in was the dissenting opinion. here is the limited info on the dissent included in the AP styory And here is the opening of Stevens' actual dissentMy concern is that we are really undergoing an experiment at the hands of Congress and the Corporate copyright holders. For two centuries the US prospered with a reasonable period of copyright. Now the question is will this essentially unlimited copyright that the SCOTUS has determined can be continually extended, will corporations and the country continue to propser. Were it not for the success of new mediums such as film, radio, video, and the Internet the US would not be a major force in the world economy I would think the Japanese who certainly exceed our capapbilities in the technological realm would be ahead of us.
But now companies will no longer be able to get a jump start in launching new media as they won't have unrestricted access to what has come bnefore on other media which they can modify. Disney made several attempts at re-creating themselves into a Internet centric company and failed miserably. Time-Warner gave up on trying to transform themselves and were bought out by an Internet company. That leaves NBC which has signed over its Internet present to MS, and CBS that has yet to show the same kind of success it had first in Radio and then in TV.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
So they want permanent copyright? Fine let them have it, the catch is (and there always is one) is the day they stop producing the work for sale they lose the copyright.
I think that all "out of print" material should automatically drop into the public domain. By no longer producing such works, the "content provider" has just admitted that it is no longer profitable. By allowing these things to rot away in a vault somewhere robs all of us and future people of the right to benifit from the work.
Now that they've gotten the supreme court to uphold it, let's kill them with it. Go over every piece of work Disney has produced, track down the works it was derived from, contact whoever could concievably be holding the rights to that work, and encourage them to sue Disney.
Winnie the Pooh comes to mind, Aren't they being sued over that? Any other movies they've made that come from books written this century?
Hell, lets make a cottage industry out of it. Go through every movie made and see if they own the rights to the book, then contact the writer and help him sue.
Get rediculous about it. Sue for using words that were coined by people in the last nine decades, Sue for having photo's of famous art in a movie without paying the artist. Sue for using the backdrop of a building without paying the architect. Sue for hairstyles that have been copyrighted. Hit them again and again with ramifications of this STUPID law they made. Let them suffer for it.
If we make enough of a mess out of the law, they will eventually junk it.
The slashdot crowd prides itself on using the rules against their creators. That's what hacking was originally about. looks like the board has been set, and the rules defined. Let's play.
If you want to participate in government instead of bitching about how corporations run everything, contact your Congressman or your Senator.
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
Maybe, but under the current conditions the entertainment cartels will benefit from your scheme more than anyone else. It amounts to unilateral disarmament. I don't think expiration is the right idea. I think it's falling under a GPL style license after a period of exclusive control is a better idea. The condition that would be attached at that point is that derivative works fall under the same license eg. a period of exclusive control followed by MANDATORY release under the same terms once the (rigidly defined) period of exclusive control ends.
Come to think of it, this sound more like BSD+GPL terms. One can market and sell the derivate work anyway he wants during the reasonable period of exclusive ownership but MUST release it once it ends. If it's still making money that's just too bad. Pity it won't work for music though. See my other post in this discussion.
If congress has the right to increase copyright lengths on existing works whenever they feel like it then does this mean the reverse is also true?
If someday we get a consumer friendly congress (one not purchased at least in part with illicit copyright funds) couldn't they shorten the copyright length to something appropriate since the supreme court has now ruled that congress can do whatever they feel like in this arena?
I realize how unlikely this is. Consumer groups don't have the funds to pay for something like this, in part because consumers are still having to fund the campaign of the anti-consumer copyright holders.
Coding Blog
The sky did not fall, and tomorrow will be another day.
Disney will run out of money eventually. Someone in the corporation will get greedy, or lazy, or a power-struggle in the company will happen and they will fall from power. Will we ever see it, probably not.
As long as someone is willing to question these practices and challenge them, no matter the outcome, we have not lost the war.
Majority Decision
Stevens Dissent
Breyer Dissent
Each is about 30 pages long.
I have read through the majority and am partly through Breyer. The majority seems to indicate that the law is not unconstitutional, but that it may not be the best idea Congress has had. So far, Breyer seems to echo my exact sentiments, that this is indicitive of a perpetual extension and that it impedes rather than promotes the useful arts and sciences.
I checked our family history, and my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather invented the english alphabet. That means you all owe me a royalty for every word you've ever typed, written or read.
Oh, and his wife invented the alphabet song, so either stop your kids from singing our song, or start wringing cheques.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Several comments have said something to the effect of "it's not the Supremes, it is congress that is the problem".
As a Britain I get sick of being told by Americans that their system is so superior to ours because of the fabled "checks and balances" and all those "rights" the constitution reputidly give you.
Well from over here, the constitution doesn't seem to be working too well. Your rights are being eroded at a phenominal rate, and the checks and balances seem to have all but dissapeared.
The purpose of an indipendant judiciary, and specifically the Supremes, is to act as a check on the power of the other arms of government. In this context their job is to interpret the constitution; not just the letter, but the spirit. Here, they have failed in that duty. They have basically said that Congress can do what it likes.
Our system may not be perfect, but in some way this is a good thing. We know that there is no constitution to fall back on so we (well, the politically interested/active) tend to be more aware of what is going on. There has been a great deal of talk recently about the Houses of Parliament being more active in calling the executive to account, because it has been getting its own way too much recently. There have been developements to make scrutiny in the Commons and Lords stronger and more pro-active and indipendent. In fact, if we go to war on Iraq without a UN say-so, and the general will of the populace, expect the present ruling party to implode and take out Tony Blair in the process.
None of this stopped RIPA of course, but I am still hopefull that will be challenged eventually.
In some way, living with an imperfect system makes you more wary, rather than the false sense of security and superiority that a written constitution can give you. They are always open to interpretation, and can often be circumvented with ease.
Commence flame.
Paul
Paul Leader
A Noose.
As some of the resource pool of uncopyrighted
material dwindles, they will have to become creative.
You give a man enough rope, he'll hang himself.
The law will change when they suddenly find themselves down
the road heavily restricted and they will plead for
change. Apparently they are too self-engrossed in the
here and now to even think about the implications long-term.
The dollar-sign has them blinded. It will catch up.
Frankly, my kids hate their cartoons and we don't
buy Disney and their ilk. We don't go
to their over-priced theme parks.
Who cares about this global crap? Movie entertainment.... horrible.. why not support your local script-writers, actors and directors by visiting the theatre?
Why not join a troupe, even?
I miss my rubber keyboard.(Homepage)
I let the system have its chance. It failed.
This is gonna save me a lot of money. I don't even have to pretend to respect copyright anymore.
It's no longer my problem. It's not acceptable. I won't prop it up.
If you're a content producer, you'd better start lobbying backwards, because I'm going to do everything I can to get your works into the hands of those who want them, and I'm going to continue to do so until the fact of the law reflects the spirit of the Constitution.
Of course, even if you ARE a content producer, I will note that however many copyrights you hold, there's an near-infinite number you -don't- hold, and I'm gonna try just as hard to get -you- everything I'm getting everyone else.
The lines are drawn. Let's get to work.
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
Ostensibly.
It's statements like these that convince me that corporations fully intend to use this new precedent to extend copyright indefinitely.
Its time to do more than "go retro"
I understand that companies need to protect themselves, but this kind of shit is unacceptible! Companies, not "the average Joe", control the USA now. This is why I quit voting! I know that people DIE for the right to vote, but when the government is so obviously coorupted, how could ANYONE support such a system?
This is why coorporations (and possibly individuals) should be barred from "donating" to elected officials (or candidates for public offices). This is the kind of shit that happens when companies can "buy the law". They paid off a hand full of people that can make the law so that they can have the laws they want. This is a fantastic example of such an event!
What needs to be done to prevent this kind of shiesty shit from happening is simple:
This would allow our country to return to what it should be
I know my idea isn't perfect, but I think it would work better than the current system.
P.S. This is not flamebait or a troll
This is more than my normal 2 cents
Thoughts and comments PLEASE!
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
I very much wonder how many of you reading this or posting above and below actually research the issues, take a stand, and vote accordingly. And please,none of this, "there's no one worth voting for!" crap. Write someone in. Start petitions. Hold signs. March. But do something!
B
"We must still have chaos within in order to be able to give birth to a dancing star." --Friedrich Nietzsche
The 1998 CTEA was in effect an amendment to the life-plus-50 year metric for copyright term. This revision was intended to mirror the European Union's own copyright revisions in 1993 in which the term was extended to life-plus-70 years in part because of an increase in life expectancy, as stated in 5 of the E.U. Directive on Copyright : It's not all that unreasonable, and Eldred will have access to the material he wants in a few more years.
I'm a 2000 man.
Before even reading the linked articles, the first thought in my head was actually a chunk of song lyrics..dont remember the artist...
Cuz its the end of the world as we know it, its the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine...
In actuality, I dont feel fine, this makes me queasy... a win for a mass media company like Disney on such a grand scale is sickening...
o/t, but is it me, or is slashdot being slashdotted??
I'm a little tea pot.
..this conversation takes place.
Check out the oral argument pdf, page 8, at the bottom.
It reads:
[Justice Breyer]
"...if we agree with you, does that mean, in principal, [we] have to hold the 1976 extension unconstitutional? I mean, in 1976, Congress extended the term from 28 years, renewable once, to life of the author plus 50 years. Now they're extending [copyright to] life of the author plus 70 years. If the latter is unconstituional in your theory, how could the former not be? And if the former is, the chaos that would ensue would be horrendous."
[Eldred Lawyer]
"Justice Breyer, under our theory as we've advanced it, you're right."
Right there he lost the argument, in my opinion. If you say one is unconstitutional, all of them are. The congress screwed up passing it (and Clinton for signing it), but once you've taken that toothpaste out of the tube, it's too late to backup. The lawyer goes on and tries to renig his statement, but the case was lost.
I don't know why everyone is freaking out here, it's another twenty years from what I can tell. Life will go on.
Hasn't anyone (maybe on the supreme court) noticed the key wording in the constitution that affects this case more than mere extension of existing copyrights?
The fact that congress is granted the power to establish copyrights and patents for a limited time for the *author or inventor* of a work!
I see Walt Disney is really enjoying the payments he is receiving that I'm sure Disney Corp. is mailing to his tombstone.
Seriously, the whole intent and purpose of copyright is to promote authorship and creation, which has been established. How, exactly, does protecting corporate profits beyond the author or creator's death promote anything but fattening corporate accounts, and isn't it actually unconstitutional since the only *granted power* in the constitution applies to the creator? How following laws were worded is irrelevant to a discussion about constitutionality. The intent of the constitution itself is not established by mistakes or misinterpretations made over centuries.
-- If it ain't broke - overclock it more.
They've been given 20 more years, but after that they will still expire.
Provided Congress doesn't pass another extension before then. The copyrights on works first published in 1923-1975 have already been extended twice (1976 Act and 1998 Bono Act).
Will I retire or break 10K?
Three words for you: "Seperate But Equal."
History will regard the Eldred decision as the court's first serious blunder in the twenty-first century. You heard it here first.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Courtesy of Lessig:
Majority opinion by Ginsburg
Dissent by Stevens
Dissent by Breyer
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
As naive as Jsutice Ginsburg's opinion is, it's not surprising. This is one of those cases where the Court decided to put on its legal blinders and focus on the language of the law rather than open its eyes and look at the reality of the situation.
The court's analysis goes something like this:
The Constitution provides for limited copyright and patent terms.
A term that prescribes a specific number of years (like life + 70) is a limited term.
Congress has repeatedly extended both copyright and patent terms in the past.
An extended term that is still discreetly defined is still a limited term.
Congress can extend terms all it wants, so long as there remains, at least on paper, a definite cutoff point.
The flaw isn't with the Court's logic, but with the Constitution itself. The framers never contemplated that the patent and copyright system would ever get used the way it has been. Legally, the court's decision is perfectly accurate.
As a matter of policy, it means that copyright terms last as long as large corporations can pay for them to be extended.
TO BE USED TO INNUNDATE SLASHDOT EDITORS WITH REQUESTS FOR POSTING TO ASK SLASHDOT
Why can't we accomplish anything? The Slashdot community is fair sized and to me seems more intelligent than most. So why is the biggest and best thing we can accomplish shutting down any misbegotten website that has the misfortune to put up something interesting without having industrial-strength bandwidth?
What would your top issues be if you could REALLY organize this and other online communities? A candidate for president? Maybe a mutual fund - we could work out several dozen tech stocks that we think deserve support and agree to put in money, grit our teeth, and keep it there for the longer haul - say three years? What else? How would YOU organize the support? What would the system be for input, dissent, advice, decisionmaking? Would we ever be able to agreee on a sufficiently common groung? If we really put our better than average minds to it, could we actually DO something?
Okay, so get posting. For my part, I will post this myself, and if it actually gets up there I will participate in the discussion, and participate in anything that comes of it. Go on, why not? Waste another five minutes, it's just work. Stop talking and give anarchy by collective agreement a try...
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
I'm outraged! The only way the current state of affairs will ever change will be with massive public... say... when's the next LOTR movie coming out?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I don't know what's more depressing: this decision, or the fact that the small amount of activity from the small percentage of people who care about this in the first place won't amount to anything.
Now, apply the same principles at the national level. The USA is hardly the only country in the world, and there are plenty of other nations with much more favorable tax laws. People can - and do - switch countries to get away from especially onerous tax burdens. Like it or not, the wealthy guy can leave the table.
Next argument: shouldn't the richest person pay 80%? Most people would say yes, since that means they get a free lunch (most people aren't rich). But what about the guy who actually has the money? What does HE think HE should do with HIS money? Remember, it's not your money, it's not society's money. Like it or not, that money belongs to the rich guy. It's his. This is one of the fundamental differences between a capitalistic society and a communist society, and the USA happens to fall on the capitalist end of that spectrum.
Now, what if the rich guy DID have to pay $80? Great, the poor people get to freeload, and the rich guy pays for everyone. Not all rich guys are going to put up with this, so they're gonna leave. Suddenly you have to make up $80 of difference when he leaves, not just $50. So, by making the rich guy pay $80 you've made him more likely to leave and at the same time you've INCREASED YOUR DEPENDENCY ON HIM. Is it just me, or does that sounds unwise?
Onto point #3: that IS trickle-down economics. Trickle-down says giving the rich more dispoable income (by taking less in taxes) will prompt them to spend that disposable income, which directly benefits people who don't have as much money (more spending = more jobs, higher salaries, etc). If the rich guy only pays $40 instead of $52, he has $12 he can spend on other things. Trickle-down economics says those $12 will be spent in a way that directly provides income for everyone else, so each person will get 12/9 = $1.33. For the poorest people - who don't pay for lunch - that's net income!
What would a Slashdot posting be without typos?
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
The Court decided that the 1790 Copyright Act extended existing copyrights. Lessig always said that this was the biggest hurdle. The Supreme Court gives special prominance to the acts of the first Congress because the people who served in it were the same ones who wrote the Constitution so, therefore, they knew what it meant better than anyone else.
Lessig tried to make the case that the 1790 Act replaced an existing State Copyright scheme with a Federal one, but that argument was not accepted by the majority.
<sigh>
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
What's not realized by most people is that not only will works end up remaining under copyright for a very long time (perhaps forever), but that many newer works will end up being LOST forever - published only on DRM protected media, not reprinted as popularity wains, and unreadable as the technology becomes obsolete.
Now let's get to work making copyright irrelevant.
Peace and love, y'all
(Sorry, I couldn't find a link to Matt Groening's "Life in Hell" "sabatoge manual"
Don't forget project mayhem!
Say you write some software now to broadcast or distribute movies as soon as they expire. Then you start this program , forget about it, and leave it running for 20 years. The program is written according to the law. Say that in the future, Disney bought more congress people and judges, and the law is again changed. Are you breaking the law in the future, even though the program followed the letter of the law when written and started?
Why? Because the bulk of the Disney library is targetted at children. And every 7-10 years, there is an entirely new batch of children who are now the new target market for old Disney productions.
Have you followed the "re-release" of classics like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and Fantasia over the last few years? They're coming on DVD now, but they had similar rereleases on VHS about 10 years ago. A new generation of children comes along, the same set of Disney films gets marketed to those children.
This makes the constitutional clause particularly interesting. "To promote the progress of... useful Arts..." doesn't apply. These Arts aren't progressing. They are being recycled.
Disney's business plan is, admittedly, brilliant. But it's also entirely dependent on the continued extension of copyrights into those new generations.
I find myself wondering about the concept of requiring that a copyright be assignable to an individual, rather than a corporation. The individual can still contractually grant proceeds from the work to the corporation, but the original terms of copyrights -- tied to the lifetime of the author -- would apply.
Wouldn't it be interesting if Disney had to assign a copyright to the Director or Producer of a film, and the copyright were tied to that person's lifespan? This would certainly put a new spin on their relationship with employees!
...akin to the Great Library Fire of Alexandria. Millions and millions of precious works are going to be destroyed because a few greedy people don't want to let go of their 75 year old money makers.
As the dissenting Justices perceptively noted, the Constitution places a "quid pro quo" method of rewarding creativity -- we will give you the right to make loads of money off your work, for a while. Then you have to give it back to everyone.
That fair tradeoff has been destroyed as of today. What's to stop the Congress from enacting Sonny Bono's "eternity minus a day" clause into the copyright act? By the court's ruling, that's perfectly legal. Infinity minus one is a finite number.
Now we will see the death of innovation, because copyright houses will be the next big business -- buying copyrights to old material, and suing people who create works that are close enough to count as infringement, not to mention that terrible idea of building upon the earlier work.
Meanwhile, many old films and recordings will fall into dust because nobody has the courage to rescue them for fear of lawsuits.
R.I.P. Free Culture
1774 - 2003
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
...it will be extended another 20 years.
Ad infinitum.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
"Ill-advised and stupid" does not, unfortunately, mean "unconstitutional."
I think that sums it all up. But here are some good point the justicies bring up. In her majority opinion Ginsburg says,
In her argument, which I only read lightly, the majority seems to agree that the legislation is constitutional for various reasons. It says nothing about the actual implications of the said lesgislation. It should be noted, and this is something I did not know, that the 1976 copyright , which act extended copyright lifetimes to 50 years after the death of the author/creator, was part of an international treaty that the US signed. More over copyrights have been extended in the nation's past to from 14 years to 28 years to (whatever) again and again, all through legislation.
In the dessent, both Stevens and Breyer note that the legislation harms the general public. From Stevens',
And from Breyer's:
It seems to be that the argument within the court was whether or not one should abide by the constitution regardless of what the actual legislation does or whether or not one should use broader public good to judge a case. I would have to agree with the former. Justices should not be legislating. The purpose of the court should be to evaluate whether or not legislation passed by Congress is constitutionally valid.
Ever hear of Cinderella? Sleeping Beauty?
The quotation you used was taken out of context. Stories like the aforementioned two were written long before Walt Disney was a struggling Hollywood cartoonist. His point was that Disney "interpreted" stories written long ago and made millions, but if someone 80 years from now were to write a movie derived from a Disney original, then they would be sued. There is irony inherent in that idea, as you can see.
You are right about Mickey Mouse being an original idea, but HE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT MICKEY MOUSE.
Case study:
Did you see Treasure Planet? Yeah, me neither, I heard it was horrible. But either way, Treasure Island was a book written by Robert Louis Stevenson in 1883. 114 years from now, if my great-great grandchild wanted to write The Lion King in space (the only discernable difference between Treasure Island and Treasure Planet), Disney would NEVER give them the right to make it, and would sue the pants off them if they tried.
--- What
Neuter the power of the state so that it can only carry out its primary mandate: to protect the safety of the public and protect the public liberty. I'm a Liberal, I see no ethical qualms with eliminating the right to collective lobbying on pain of imprisonment for a class 6 felony. It should be assumed that those that represent economic interests whether they be capital or labor are in it to bend the state to one side rather than keep it on the straight and narrow. Lobbying is a perversion of the first amendment.
/., not most of the US!
Our forefathers did not envision such a concept and we must take that it into account. The "right to petition the government for redress of grievances" means that an individual or group have a God-given right to let their opinions be known to the state, but no where does that give them the right to provide for week long vacations for a Senator and his family, buy his wife a $25,000 ring as a "gift" for hearing what they have to say or other similar bullshit. That's called bribery and our founders were fanatically against corruption and abuse in government. I cannot imagine them supporting the idea that lobbying is a legal activity in its current form.
Campaign finance legislation isn't the solution because you cannot stop under the table bribes in any meaningful way. I can see only a few things that would help, but unfortunately, most of America seems to think big government is still cool, even though it's the reason we have this corruption in the first place. Who in their fucking minds thinks that a corporation would bother lobbying if the US Supreme Court would actually undo the "everything is commerce" ruling on the commerce clause and thus limiting the regulatory power of the federal government to a very narrow set of areas? A lot of people, because they want a bigger and bigger maze of legislation for corporations and people to move through. The system only benefits lawyers, not you, not me, not most of
Let the states prosecute corrupt congresscritters and let **any** state bring criminal chargers against a corrupt president and his entire administration. Don't rely on a centralized law enforcement system, let the states play an active role in purging these assholes. Go one further, make accepting a quid-pro-quo a capital offense for an elected official. If they get greeted by a state or federal cop after they win the election who tells them, "Remember, it took $17M to elect you, but if you use your power to betray the confidence of the public, it will take us only $.17 to remove you."
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
The intellectual commons are always going to get enclosed because the public are peasants & the corporations the new nobility.
However I reckon the best defence is attack. Argue & push for the Copyright limit to be increased to say 2500 years.
Make sure governments put through laws such that if an heir can't be found (e.g. Shakespear's heirs) then the relevant state gets the cash (e.g. UK for Shakespear & Iraq for Alladin)
This would ensure that disney etc who've built their empires on other people's "Intellectual Property" (Cinderella, Alladin, Mulan, Alice in Wonderland etc.etc.) become "IP thieves" & thus suddenly they would change their argument towards limiting terms as otherwise they've got to pay out to show their own films etc.
Also it would bring many other interested parties into the frame such as would the Catholic Church be able to force the destruction of all "un-authorized" (i.e. not in Latin) copies of the New Testament? Suddenly you've got the Bible belt on your side in favour of copyright terms......
So argue in favour of a vastly longer term not a shorter one. Bring Cicero & Plato back into copyright
after have read most of the opinions, it is clear that the majority of justices just aren't comfortable calling congress out on this terrible law. they essentially say "the term of copyrights is something for congress to best decide", without realizing that congress is increasingly guided by the purse-strings of big corporations.
then again, lessis says it best in his blog - if the courts won't have the balls to overturn this law, WE have to make a ruckus and have congress repeal it. if that is ever possible, who know?
smd4985
to ask another question?
This case has made an implied definition of 'limited time'; namely, being that 'limited' means 'until worthless' because nobody that currently has any copyrights now will let them go otherwise. So much for the public interest. Basically we can have it if we are no longer interested. (Whoopee.) Seems sort of self defeating doesn't it?
All of us are upset because this whole mess devalues the public domain. Others call this stealing and I would tend to agree with them.
Maybe this has little to do with things, but this bothers me a little:
Earlier, the cost of reproduction was higher and the means of expression were more limited. So, the cost of expression was high enough to make moving something into the public domain worthwhile because it more quickly reached a point where extracting further value from it did not justify the expense.
Today that is not as true. We can move information at a very low cost and we have a far greater means for expression as well.
Does that not extend the practical lifetime of current works? And would we not find a better definition of 'limited times' in the examination of those differences?
One further thought along these lines: The balance essentially is that we need to allow those who create the chance to profit from that work while also allowing that work to be built upon by others for new works.
Today, a creative work can last practically forever for the reasons I mentioned above.
Should we not seek a legal framework for limited times that is based on something other than just time?
Blogging because I can...
This was in the United States Supreme Court - the final point of appeal.
This was the final point of appeal in the judicial branch. The actual final appeal is to the United States Congress. If we can present to the Congress a round of overwhelming evidence that the Bono Act is unjust, Congress may reconsider. This begins with civil disobedience.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Why is it automatically assumed by members of this site that everything should be free?
...after some established time period (let's say 50 years), ownership of your property passed into the public domain? Programs you wrote, houses and land you own, cars you drive.
We do not think everything should be free, most of us just assume that after a reasonable amount of time most public knowledge, as well as intellectual copyrights and ideas should become public domain and freely available.
Once again we don't talk about physical assets, we're talking intellectual rights. We're not demanding that DisneyLand/World/etc all now be in the Public Domain, we're thinking that 75 year old copyrights should be.
--DarkFrog
If the dead rise again, we're going to have some serious population control issues.
Where the hell did that come from?
Corporations committing crimes? No... Surely it was all a bad dream... :)
We have to get beyond governments, toward the scale of a planetwide democracy. The American revolutionaries invented a new kind of democracy when they created the United States. It's time the Internet community did the same thing on a global scale.
We can start with copyright. If we could come up with an alternative system for creating and enforcing copyright that was under the auspices of the Internet-using community rather than individual governments, and if that system could not be gamed by big-moneyed interests, it would be a step in the right direction. Oh sure, governments could still do their little copyright thing. But if content creators suspected they would be better off using "pan-Terran copyright" for example, they wouldn't even bother to use the government-mandated copyright schemes.
That's the rub, of course. How do you engineer a copyright system that rewards content creators in at least as beneficial a manner as the original US copyright law did before it was hijacked by the fat cats? How do you ensure that the fat cats can't hijack it again? Even if you solve these problems, lots of other details would have to be worked out. Like who gets to set the policy, how does the policy get changed, how does the policy get enforced, how do violations of the policy get decided and punished, etc.
Oh sure, we have copyleft now. But I don't think it's a complete answer. Not many people other than RMS use it for their books, so it's probably not quite good enough to convince authors it's better for them than classic copyright.
This kind of thing has been done before, of course, at least with respect to a corporate hegemony. Bill Gates was well on his way to being crowned corporate king of the world until some Finnish kid came out of the woodwork and catalyzed a whole bunch of stuff that RMS started. Microsoft today is certainly not irrelevant, but they're a lot less relevant than Bill had hoped they'd be by now. At least people now have a viable alternative, and many of them are choosing it.
Now we just have to do the same thing with respect to governments, and we can start with copyrights. I propose RMS to play the role of RMS and Lessig to play the role of the Finnish kid. Eisner can put in a cameo as Bill.
You know the immigration thing does bother me. I am university educated (Canadian) and so is my wife (both are engineers). But yet we cannot immigrate to the US. The best we can hope is an H1B, which, well you know is not great. We once tried to immigrate to the US. My wife got a job, but not me. They said that I would be restricted, etc, etc. And my wife only got a potential H1B or TN1.
Result? We moved to Europe. Ok it is easier since I am a German and there is no immigration issues, in the EU. But we live in Switzerland. Switzerland is not an immigration country, permits are hard to get and yet we can live here. It does look like my wife and I will be staying here until we retire.
It is wierd how life goes because we wanted to live in the US and ended up in Switzerland. But often I wonder what if....
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
First off, Disney is a bad example to trot out. They've made a bundle of money from trolling the public domain. Look at all of their movies and you can see that they borrowed quite freely from the Brothers Grimm and other fine sources.
Now, Disney will never lose control of Mickey Mouse for corporate use. Why? Because they trademarked him. What Disney would lose is the ability to keep other people from making derivative works and the very old cartoons that would have passed out of copyright.
This means we can't make Steamboat Willy II - The Death of Steam because we can't use the image of Mickey at the time. Meanwhile Disney went out and "borrowed" Alladin and is making a bundle from him. Additionally, they copyrighted their version of Alladin so you could end up having to prove that you're using the public domain one and not Disney's in your comic/book/movie.
Your final example is horrifically flawed. The better idea is to look at the internal combustion engine. The idea was that the US government would give you a limited monopoly on the manufacture and sale of this invention in exchange for telling everyone how it is made. This meant that at the end of your patent I could very easily create a clone of the engine without having to know the basic engineering and breakthroughs that were required in its original creation.
100 years from now, Disney's replacement won't be able to legally mine Disney's creations to give us the next amazing new generation of movies for our children's children's children to enjoy. They'll be all the poorer for it.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
introduce the Sonny Bono Memorial Let's Extend It Even Further Bill, pushing the date back another 30 years.
Such an act would have the potential to break this precedent. The Supreme Court's decision relies on its observation of no apparent pattern of behavior to simulate a perpetual copyright. If Congress does pass another extension, a court may find it to complete such a pattern of behavior. Thus, the precedent set by the Supreme Court may not apply, and we'll get another chance to appeal.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Intellectual property is a comodity that can be bought and sold just as easily as computer monitors and tea bags.
So how would we dump intellectual property into the Boston Bay?
I *hate* the idea of burning books and so forth, because of the destruction that it causes when you are in fact burning the last of them. Furthermore, it usually indicates a protest of the ideas present in the books (such as burning a copy of the Bible would show that I hate christianity, which, while true, I would never burn the Bible).
However, perhaps we can still stage a protest along the lines of teh Boston Tea Party? First we *steal* a bunch of copyrightted works. Then we *destroy* them somehow in a public protest. Then we hide, because George'll be after us as terrorists. This would be even better if we had the original creator of the works on our side (think: all the bands who've gone out of print and don't own the music they created).
Like what I said? You might like my music
You are preaching to the apathetic I'd-rather-play-video-games-than-vote crowd here.
The Yahoo story seemed to grant the assumption that old, popular works like "Casablanca" and "The Wizard of Oz" need continued copyright protection. Now, I would normally argue even this point, but let's accept it. After all, these works are still valuable to their current owners.
The question is, how valuable?
For every work of art from the 20's and 30's that is still a major money maker, there are probably a thousand works which have already exhausted their value to the copyright holder. There's not sufficient interest to make it worthwhile to market it. But these works could still be valuable sources for new ideas and inspirations, historical research, and what not.
Is it worth locking up these thousands of works, making republication illegal even as the originals are ravaged by time, just to protect the few works which still provide a revenue stream?
Hell no. But if we have to strike a compromise in order to enrich the public domain and save the vast majority of our cultural heritage, then I propose this:
Repeal the CTEA. In its place, set up a system where the original copyright term applies to every work, but that term can be extended for any given work.
Since I believe in the importance of the public domain, extending the copyright on a work shouldn't be a trivial proposition. Copyright holders should be charged a fee that mirrors its value to the public; say, 1-2% of all profits attributable to the work in question over its lifetime. My reasoning is, if a copyright holder doesn't expect to make even that much from the work over the next twenty years, then revoking the copyright doesn't significantly hurt the copyright holder.
If an all-or-nothing approach ends up getting us nothing, then we have to find some sort of middle ground. This strikes me as a reasonable way to protect the interests of the public. Copyright holders can still hold onto those works they deem valuable, while denying them the ability to sit on works they have no interest in actively maintaining.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
It seems to me that the biggest problem behind copyright extension is that it is handled in a one-size fits all system that means that if one piece of work falls into the public domain after a certain amount of time, all pieces of work fall into the public domain after a certain amount of time. It is a non-negotiable proposition, unless you happen to be Disney and can pay off the appropriate people to increase its duration.
;-)
Obviously, this is detrimental to the amount of material entering the public domain, especially when you consider quite how much material that encompasses.
Yet, the grasp of copyright is only being increased to protect certain, individual pieces of material from ever entering the public domain.
Which is really short-sighted, as I'm sure most people would agree.
If you applied a system such that all pieces of work fall into the public domain after say, 50 years, but the copyright owner is granted the ability to extend the copyright license based on a scheme of graduated taxation (or some other significant fee, for example) for a period of time on an individual property then, in my opinion, a better system emerges.
In the case of "The Mouse", Disney Corporation would pay a fee that guarantees protection beyond the standard copyright terms, but other, less high-profile (and uneconomic) works get released into the wild. As time goes on, it may become uneconomical to continue to extend the license, and so that property would enter the public domain.
I realise that in an ideal world, copyrights would expire and that would be that. But this isn't the world we live in. Any taxation raised in doing this could be fed back into restoring/preserving original work that has expired. As well as buying bombs and votes and suchlike, but I digress.
It's a compromise and a kludge, but it might just work?
Read my online journal: http://chris.carline.org
The side effect of this ruling is that it will reduce the diversity of works over the long term. Most books and music that are published never get a lot of circulation and aren't valuable enough to be worth publishing over the long term. These works slowly degrade over time and become unavailable in the future. Will you be able to play the CD you buy today in 90+ years? No. So unless somebody makes an extroridnary effort to archive this material in the hope that EVENTUALLY it will become legal to copy it, much of it will cease to exist.
The result of this is that in the future, we will find that the historical media we have available to us will be only those things that have ongoing popularity enough to warrant their continual republication. Think about this, in 90 years, you'll still be able to buy the Beatles greatest hits, but you won't be able to buy MC Hammer's greatest hits. You might think, "well who'd want to buy that anyhow", but it's a part of our culture that will forever be lost. Nobody will be able to go back and say, "what the hell were they thinking?" because for all intents and purposes it will have never existed.
Now, granted, forgetting that MC Hammer ever existed might not be the greatest tragedy to face our culture. But think about how many books are being written about 9/11 and the coming Gulf War II (the Wrath of Bush). How many of those will be preserved for history? Historians will go back and only get a limited perspective on events and judge them differently because of that limitation. This is the process that allows the victor to write the history.
Maybe what we need to do with copyright is alter how it works slightly. Instead of it being a fixed term for all works, what about varying the term based on how recently it was actively published. So, if you publish a book and don't run new printings for 20 years, the book goes into the public domain. This way, over time the most popular and high grossing copyrighted material would be preserved for it's money making ability. The lower popularity material would be preserved through the free ability to copy amongst those with an interest in it.
The risk here isn't that we'll never get to make free copies of Mickey, but rather that a vast collection of works will simply cease to exist from publishing neglect. This extension of copyright insures that a greater volume of work will disintegrate from neglect before it can be perserved in the free copying environment of the public domain.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
A Supreme Court (that I wouldn't trust to fill out tax forms) rules for Disney.
So, we try again.
And again.
And again.
Until we win.
People for keeping copyright sane can change tactics, get more funding, find new arguments, wait for justices to change, etc. They can adapt.
Disney can't change the fact that it's basically trying to extent copyright indefinitely. They can't adapt.
So, time to gear up for the next fight.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
I whole-heartedly agree with your thoughts and opinions and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
KTHXBYE
I think It's just about time for civil disobediance. Treat all works published more than fourteen years ago as if they were in the public domain. Do so openly and publically.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I am a I'd-rather-play-video-games-than-vote kind of person but pulling out my tools and building stuff is more fun than either games or voting. That's why I'm designing a distributed (in modules) dynamiclly linked (they hook/unhook together easily) floation structure (a boat) complete with solar panels, wind generators, and intergrated wireless network that's made to hook together into sheets of city miles wide all floating out in the middle of no where totally oblivious to the poor land based people (and sturdy enough to take things like torpedos or huricanes). A normal person would bitch, maybe vote, and just bitch some more but we as geeks have a higher calling.. we must do the insane.. build stuff to fix every problem.. and save the world before we run out of quarters. :)
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Well this solves that old problem of how do you copy your encrypted DVD once the copyright for the content expires.
</sarcasm>
Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
> as long as you do it 20 years at a time."
I don't believe the limiter of 20 is anywhere in the ruling. The next extension could be for 40 years, or 50. Hey, maybe it could be logarithmic!
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
It's apparently become a practical method of Paying Off a bribe, OJ did it so did the Clintons.
Watch in quiet amazement as the rest of the Supreme Court justices announce they've received massive dollars for books that will never sell (legitimately).
Think about it.
The GNU Project FAQ says:
"Copyleft is a general method..."
"To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable."
Copyleft, as a general method, must now be interpreted and practiced in a wide field, incorporating not only programming, but all creative disciplines. Copyleft is the opportunity to make the investment in the future plentitude of the Public Domain that the relative parasitism of Copyright threatens.
As of today, when a work is Copyrighted we know its destiny. It will be sucked dry, never allowed to enrich the very public trust that helped bring it forth. Copyright will grow stronger in proportion to the vitality of each work it consumes.
As of today, we know the only work that will thrive, that will enrich the public trust, is a work that explicitly supports the intention of the United States Constitution that Copyright is granted "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
By claiming Copyright, and then licensing your works under a license in accord with this ideal of the Constitution and Copyleft, you will help ensure a wide and deep Public Domain for our future.
Copyleft licenses:
For software: The GNU Public License
For music: The EFF Open Audio License
What REALLY pisses me off about Disney's cartel-esque use of Copyright is when they take something off the market (put it into "the Disney Vault") to increase demand.
Copyright was supposed to spurr innovation. They are abusing their intellectual property rights by controlling access to IP in much the same way DeBeers controls access to Diamonds.
The only innovation I see is in marketing.. evil evil marketing.
S
The next time this comes up, there's some ammo built into the current decision.
Concerning petitioners' assertion that Congress might evade the limitation on its authority by stringing together "an unlimited number of 'limited times,'" the Court of Appeals stated that such legislative misbehavior is "clearly not the situation before us."
It continues on to point out that the extension is merely designed to bring the US laws in synch with the norms in the EU, due to the multinational nature of modern communications, etc.
I'd read this as being solid grounds for fighting something like this the next time it cmes up. Hopefully 20 years from now, someone will catch stuff like that in the current opinion.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Its times like this that its good to know about that one obscure clause in the American constituion: Revolution is legal. It has to be - the nation's founders had to consider there own government to be legal, and not a treasonous userpment of power.
Basically, if you fail, its treason and its illegal and you die. If you succeed in overthrowing the American government, it is legal - after all, the people need a last resort.
losing
So I've got to go get onto a plane to go to my least favorite city (DC). My inbox is filling with kind emails from friends. Also with a few of a different flavor. It's my nature to identify most closely with those of the different flavor. David Gossett at the law firm of Mayer Brown wrote Declan, "Larry lost Eldred, 7-2." Yes, no matter what is said, that is how I will always view this case. The constitutional question is not even close. To have failed to get the Court to see it is my failing.
It has often been said that movements gain by losing in the Supreme Court. Some feminists say it would have been better to lose Roe, because that would have built a movement in response. I have often wondered whether it would ever be possible to lose a case and yet smell victory in the defeat. I'm not yet convinced it's possible. But if there is any good that might come from my loss, let it be the anger and passion that now gets to swell against the unchecked power that the Supreme Court has said Congress has. When the Free Software Foundation, Intel, Phillis Schlafly, Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase, Kenneth Arrow, Brewster Kahle, and hundreds of creators and innovators all stand on one side saying, "this makes no sense," then it makes no sense. Let that be enough to move people to do something about it. Our courts will not.
I will always be grateful to Eric Eldred, and our other plaintiffs, for putting his faith in this case. I will always regret not being able to meet that faith with the success it deserves.
What the Framers of our constitution did is not enough. We must do more.
posted on [ Jan 16 03 at 1:31 AM ] to [ eldred.cc ] [ 12 comments ]
the opinions
There were three opinions. The majority was written by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Stevens wrote a dissent, as did Justice Breyer.
posted on [ Jan 16 03 at 12:42 AM ] to [ eldred.cc ]
with deep sadness
The Supreme Court has rejected our challenge to the Sonny Bono Law.
posted on [ Jan 16 03 at 12:09 AM ] to [ bad law ]
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Organize yourself with other like-minded individuals, and ONLY vote for candidated who support rolling back the copyright laws, even if you have to become the "copyright reform" party and write-in your own candidate. Everyone votes in every election, and makes it clear that you're voting ENTIRELY on the issue of copyright reform.
I believe there are enough mp3-listening and internet-savvy voters out there to make a difference.
And by making a difference I do not mean electing a copyright reform candidate. All you have to do is put up enough votes to "swing" an election from one party to another, and the parties will both start paying attention. I guarantee that if a copyright-reform candidate gets 10,000 votes in a race that's won by 5,000 votes, both parties will address it in their platform and chances are one of them will . With the right support, this could be a real (as in debated by candidates) issue by the 2004 presidential elections.
Everybody wants to talk like Disney's money is the most powerful political force in the world. Not only does the government support some issues that have more voter support than corporate support, but there are many industries which would benefit from copyright reform at least as much as the few who benefit from copyright extension.
The requested URL
Go into stores and start smashing, slashing, and generally debasing music CDs, DVDs, books, and anything else that stands for corporate fascism-- 'cause that's what this is. Honestly, does it make any sense to have a copyright law that allows corporations-- not individuals-- to ultimately profit the most from creative works? All I can conclude is that the law must be changed-- the Supremes have no concept of what the phrase "limited times" means. Next up: George W. goes before the court (which appointed him President)to challenge the meaning of the phrase "two terms"-- could mean he gets life plus 70 years as Prez... Oh, maybe they could consult Clinton on the meaning of the word "is".
When innovation is stifled due to copyright and patent issues, the world will see the US as "broken" and will route around it. Culture, much of it resembling American culture or even overly protected American culture itself will be produced in other countries without such restrictive laws protecting the old power structures. This is already happening with 50's era rock music that has slipped out of copyright in Europe, yet remains copyrighted in the US. The music industry is scrambling to partner with former pirates to ensure that they don't lose control.
The ability of this offshore culture, destined for the US market, to penetrate the US will be equal to the strength of the US on the world stage and its ability to use world courts and domestic technology to maintain control. If that were to fail, expect US companies to co-opt such cultural forces for true world cultural domination. Of course, in the long run, American culture will be in such decline that no one will wish to borrow it any longer. I suggest learning Mandarin.
Ok, the subject headline that I used is a little inflammatory but I think it accurately expresses the opinion of the Joe Public.
To quote J. Stevens "By failing to protect the public interest in free access to the products of inventive and artistic genius...the Court has stated that Congress' actions under the Copyright/Patent Clause are, for all intents and purposes, judicially unreviewable." (Pg 22, 1st paragraph).
Also, to quote J. Breyer "Indeed, in respect to existing works, the serious public harm and the virtually nonexistent public benefit could not be more clear." (Pg 26, top)
Given that these 2 respected Judges "get it" and that I now know for a fact that I will never be allowed to use any Works or Derived Works in my lifetime, the Supreme Court Justices just provided me with "Carte Blanche" permission to use any Works that I want since I'll be long dead before I may ever reasonably attain permission to use the Works anyways. So, Disney, you just won the battle, but lost the war. I'll never respect your Copyright again.
pi=sigma{n:0-infinity}[(1/16)^n][(4/(8n+1))-(2/(8n +4))-(1/ (8n+5))-(1/(8n+6))]
...items where the copyright is owned by Disney (or by a coporation... or by anyone at all). If you feel that copyright is being abused, don't fill the coffers of the abusers.
The money that paid the Disney lawyers for this case came from the price of your movie tickets (seen anything from Buena Vista lately?), your tapes and DVDs (did you buy Beauty and the Beast for the kids, since it's going "back in the vault" soon?), your theme park admissions (been to Disneyland, Disney World, Universal Studios?), and so on. Disney has the money to buy legislators and file lawsuits because the public wants what they are selling.
I don't particularly like it (I don't knowingly buy Disney products), but I'm not under the illusion that the public shares my views.
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
If you actually read through the finding, you'll discover something interesting.
Seemingly a large part of the reason that this law is being upheld as legal, is that Congress has extended copyright terms before, successfully.
So it would seem, that we're being victimized in this case, because in 1790 nobody successfully fought the terms of the original copyright law, being enacted to cover both existing, and new creations.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Okay, I just finished reading the Majority opinion, and some of the comments on the boards here don't ring true.
First, it's not necessarily FOREVER. The court stressed again and again in the majority opinion that the facts of THIS case indicate that the extension was "rationally" granted by Congress. The major reason they cite for the "rationality" of the extension is that the European Union's copyright extends for life+70, and it's very practical for our nations to agree on the precise limit given the large amount of internationally published stuff.
So, first, all the posters who have been saying "What happens if a copyright expires overseas and I copy a work overseas?" are missing the point that it's life+70 overseas, too. (Not everywhere, mind you, but still).
Secondly, there's no reason why a future extension can't be challenged again. If Congress passes a copyright extension with no pretense the "rationality" argument leaves and the court can re-hear arguments. It's not unheard of. (It's not even unheard of for a future court to overrule a previous court's decision).
So, assuming the EU doesn't perpetually extend its copyrights, the next time this happens might turn out differently.
The plaintiffs in the case Eldred v. Ashcroft are very grateful to all who supported us in this long process. Naturally we are disappointed in the decision.
Especially we would like to thank Larry Lessig, the lead attorney, along with Kathleen Sullivan, Jonathan Zittrain, William Fisher, Charles Fried, Charles Nesson, Geoffrey Stewart, Edward Lee, and the law firm of Jones, Day, Reavis, Pogue, all of whom worked tirelessly to try this case. We also thank those who contributed to the Eldred Defense Fund to make it possible.
What next? It seems that the decision gives a license to Congress to extend copyright term indefinitely, so there will be an effort within the next 20 years to make another extension. We can oppose that politically. We can also oppose efforts by the media giants to embed DRM in electronic devices, and other such legislation.
Also there will be efforts in other countries such as Japan, Taiwan, Europe, and so on, to extend copyright from the present 50 years after author's death, especially for music and movies. We can support efforts to oppose that.
Our case was built on the notion that copyright, as the Framers of the Constitution envisioned it, was a proper foundation for creativity and innovation in the Internet age. Now copyright will be used to lock up works instead. If the only way to access one of these works is to use illegal means, then some will turn to that. Peer-to-peer networks such as Freenet will be the only alternative for many.
The page turns. But the effort was worthwhile. The level of discussion has advanced considerably and citizens are better informed because of this case. Let's hope the next decisions will be better.
That's nice, but there was no chance Thomas was ever going to side with the public interest over corporate interests. Anyway he always votes for strict, literal interpretation of the constitution except when he engages in conservative judicial activism (2000 election, anyone?)
personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
After heavy lobbying Congress passed this extension. I'm glad we have a Democracy where Money buys legislative votes for these kinds of things.
I'm not saying that I don't agree with the ruling or that Congress shouldn't have passed this, I'm arguing that the way the industry went about it is a bit ridiculous, IMHO.
1. Lobby Congress to pass a sane copyright law.
2. Lobby the States to invoke their article V powers, preferably with limitations as to the amendments to be considered.
3. Create a non-profit vault to preserve copyrighted material and keep translating it to current media until it runs out of copyright (or, well, forever). You will have to fund it (a massive undertaking given the amount of material to be collected - in many cases purchased - and the time over which the collection must be maintained). You will also have to be careful, because even if you are not letting anyone who is not actively engaged in archiving the material see the material until it's out of copyright, you might still be criminally liable under DMCA. You will also have to be careful, because some works which fall out of copyright are then taken back under copyright by acts like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension here being discussed (it was a retroactive extension).
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
I am disguisted by the result of this. Somebody should stage a national protest, because I will be there. The fact that congress can make a 100+ life of author time of copyright and call it "limited" is just sick. I am very angry right now with the Supreme Court, who are supposed to watch for stuff like this.
While it is true that Disney invested originally in these copyrighted works with the knowledge that they were to expire at some time, it is often desirable that companies continue to re-invest in it by continuing the marketing, publication, and support. If Disney or any other company believes that it will lose copyright for something in the near term, then it will cease to re-invest, i.e., publication, marketing, and so on of the specific work. It is desirable that they continue to invest in it--even if these sums are not huge. Furthermore, it is not clear that the enterance of the copyrighted work into the public domain will be a good substitute for the function that Disney or other copyright holders perform. When everyone is equally able to publish the work it CAN, in reality, cause less total investment in publishing, promotion, etc. Think about it. Let's say if 100 years from now Mickey Mouse is in the public domain and that's not known to most people. If I invest, say, 20m to get it published, put it on shelves, etc and it starts succeed, then many competitors will rush to enter because they know the market is there. This can create a situation where I (or anyone) must take the initial risk to distribute it but the payoff is too slim because competitors will ultimately crowd me out. True, we have classic works that are in the public domain and still being published today, but most of these are with some value added that is copyrighted, whether that be a unique translation, footnotes, compilation, or what have you and/or these are normally on well known books where the demand is well known so that the risk (e.g., marketing costs) is slim enough to support a number of competitors in the same area. Lastly, the copyright is so narrow that all the ideas, principles, formulas, methods, phrases, and so on can be exploited the moment that the work is published (despite the existence of the copyright). All the copyright does, in essense, is protect against wholesale copy of the whole or substantial parts.
I'm not arguing that all copyrights should be out of the public domain indefinitely but that 20 year extensions like these actually make sense with companies like Disney. All that I might change is that the copyright holders be required to either pay some on-going significant fee to renew the copyright or show that they are continuing to invest in it. Failure to do that would automatically result in it lapsing into the public domain--this would simply be a little cleaner as most copyright holders would see that their copyrights hold little value. Nonetheless, this current situation really is not the end of the world. I defy you and others to name some sort of concrete harm that has or is apt to come as a result of this sort of extension. Let's face it, there are few works that are really in demand, regardless of whether or not they're public domain, in that window of time that the extension grants (Disney and others are a select few and it's largely because of their continued investment)
Maybe if we weren't stuck with a (only) two party system.
Maybe if everything in the world didn't have a goddamned pricetag on it.
There's so much money sloshing around that it perverts everything it touches. And all too little of it in the hands of the average person. Just look how advertising money has destroyed the potential of Television. And US elections. And the NFL. And major league baseball. Hell, any sports shown on TV.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.
If the system actually worked the way we were told in civics class the way that it should work, a nobody with good ideas could get elected. Instead, we have somebody with no ideas and a dream team of advisors backed by big money running the show.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
So, would be all be cool with the idea of Linux, or portions thereof, going public domain someday?
looks like if we want to get this done right, the people will have to adopt the principles of Cory Doctorow's Bitchun Society and oust Disney and the like on our own ;)
let the revolution begin!
No, it is flamebait. It's a cowardly pseudo-accusation without any evidence at all to back it up.
Why is it a conflict of interest for a public official to publish their memoirs? And if you're going to publish your memoirs, you pretty much have to work with a publisher to do it. Shocking! Are you suggesting that all of the publishers who made bids were complicit in the plot, or was HarperCollins just feeling generous?
Writing memoirs is hardly an unusual practice, and given Thomas' controversial past and relatively high profile among Supreme Court justices it's not surprising that his memoirs were attractive enough to publishers to warrant a bidding war.
I was wondering how this applied to e.g. Disney material in Europe -- international copyright law.
I believe there is some agreement over copyright law made between various (collections of) countries. It would occur to me that a decision like the one in this case cannot be made on a per-country basis, based on the aforementioned agreement.
I think it's clear at this point that IANAL etc., but I'm curious about the international results of this decision.
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
Did anyone else notice that on page 2 of the Majority opinion it says
"Petitioners do not challenge the "life-plus-70-years" time span itself. Whether 50 years is enough, or 70 years to much," they acknowledge, "is not a judgment meet for this Court."
so is that Lessigs error, and are they sticking it to him or did they really screw up in the opening pages. i guess i am just suprised the SC doesn't use proof readers.
Let's see: The Little Mermaid was initially released in 1989. H.C. Andersen died in 1875, plus 95 years this makes 1980. If the extend the copyright for another 20 years, then the heirs of Andersen should be able to sue Disney for copyright infringtion, or will the infringtion be time-barred?
Disney and big media pay huge sums of money into the campaign coffers of congress for the "right" to withhold the copyrights on their old works. It's the same tax they are paying for dmca protection.
The problem is: that the tax we pay in the long run is much higher, as content that should be available and in the public domain is no longer even published.
It strikes me that your solution would be a good one (just be sure it isn't applied to patents), but a better one would be a realistically limited copyright. Without expiration, the copyright doesn't promote anything but sales. There is no incentive for the creator to do more creating if they can suck every last cent from a prior work.
I have lived outside the US for almost 12 years now. It amazes me every time I go back, that people will moan about something like this, but not really do anything about it.
1. Did you write your senators and congresspersons? How many of your friends, classmates, coworkers and relatives did?
2. Did anyone you know, or yourself, go out and get petitions signed and sent to appropriate lobby groups, senators, congresspersons?
3. Did you contribute to any anti-copyrite extention lobby groups?
4. Did you, or anyone you know, do any of the above actions with regards to the elimination of SOFT MONEY, which is really the core of the problem with US politics?
Until Soft Money policy is banned in the US, and all CORPORATE ENTITY DONATIONS to politics in general is banned, and people actually get off of their Sunday football couch and cozy lives to do something about something they believe in, nothing will change. Unfortunately, I don't think it ever will, the US will fail as a political system and create a world war destroying our race before the average American actually makes an effort to be heard, make a change, and limit corporate influence in politics.
Real men don't need signitures!!!
The solution is simple. Download "Steamboat Willie" (note the spelling) from p2p right now. It's there as an mpeg, file size 76,501,432. Share it. Install p2p on hosts purely to share this one file.
Public dissent is essential in overthrowing bad laws.
Some URLs:
Note; none of these applications contain spyware. Get sharing people!
I wrote this just a few days ago. Looks like I spoke too soon, but I thought some of you might find it interesting. It's linked from my blog page, also (http://www.krose.org/~krose/blogs/).
Most of the public doesn't understand exactly what their rights are regarding pre-recorded media, such as DVD movies and music CD's. I suspect a large part of this stems from the fact that most people don't understand why they are given legal protection.
That legal protection stems entirely from a choice made by the Founders to protect creative works from unauthorized use. The constitution says that
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
which led to the development of patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Thus, you, as one of The People, are the source of this protection; and the reason you should support that protection is that it promotes the progress of science and useful arts by encouraging innovation.
As a result, there needs to be some balance in the enforcement of copyright. As copyright was intended primarily to increase the size of the public domain---the potential to make profit is merely an incentive to this end---it must be the case that copyright be enforced in a way that does not injure the public for the benefit of a few.
This balance has, over the past century, been tipped in favor of the content producers and owners and against The People little by little. Among the most recent and egregious examples are the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, which retroactively increased the term of copyrights to the lifetime of the author plus seventy years, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which makes it a felony to bypass technological protections to view content in a way not authorized by the content owner, to provide access to the disabled, or even to access public domain content!
As a result of the slowly changing laws regarding copyright, people have begun to believe that protected works are property in the traditional sense; hence, the appearance of the phrase "intellectual property" to describe copyrighted works. This, I believe, is the most poignant reason why there has been little public outcry against the erosion of the Founders' intended protection of the public interest.
Creative works are not property. A CD (the disc itself), a car, a piece of land, a pair of socks, your toenail clippings---these are property. A band's recording of Smoke on the Water, the musical description of Smoke on the Water---these are creative works and therefore not property. The difference is a very clear and natural one: property consists of tangible things, i.e., those made of matter, which are naturally defensible since the owner would need to be deprived of their use for another to take them, while creative works are those things that have a zero marginal cost of reproduction, i.e., ideas, which are not naturally defensible since someone can take them without in any way reducing the creator's ability to continue using them.
The Founders did not intend for creative works to be "owned" in perpetuity by an individual's family or a corporation; rather, they intended for these works to pass into the public domain after a short period of time (originally 20 years), whereupon they would benefit all of The People. It is arguable (and, in fact, such a case contending so is before the federal courts) that a copyright term of lifetime plus seventy years goes far beyond Congress's constitutional ability to provide protection for creative works for "limited times" in order "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" by their granting a copyright term that denies the public the benefit of these works for a virtually unlimited period for the sole purpose of enriching well-connected corporate interests, while simultaneously effecting no incentive for the heirs of successful individual creators to do any creating themselves.
The aforementioned corporate interests, as embodied in the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), have in turn promoted a mindset that any use not explicitly authorized by the content owners is not only immoral but illegal: this includes ripping CD's you own and encoding them as MP3's to your own hard drive and copying them to your iPod or Rio to listen to while on the subway; viewing DVD's under Linux using an "unauthorized" player; and burning a mix CD for one of your friends. Despite what the RIAA, MPAA, and their ilk might tell you, such activities are clearly "fair use" as defined by the courts, and are protected rights; however, under the DMCA, these acts are likely to be de-facto illegal due to the need for users to bypass technological protections to get at the actual content (although the courts have not yet ruled on these points).
I am not arguing that giving a CD to 250,000 of your "closest friends" on Kazaa is fair use; however, I would argue that the mere act of downloading a couple of songs from the internet (no matter the source) in order to sample them before buying the CD is fair use and therefore protected.
The Congress appears to be split on this issue. While they passed the DMCA in 1998, recent attempts to pass even more restrictive business-model protection acts such as Senator Fritz Hollings' (D-Disney) CBDTPA have been stalled, due in large measure to the opposition of Rick Boucher (D-VA) and the work of groups such as DigitalConsumer and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, all of whom are worthy of your support.
It is time that the balance was tipped back toward The People. Given the nearly unlimited power of our national government and the increasing unlikelihood that the courts and the Congress will begin to again follow the original intent of our constitution, this will take education and effort. You can begin by signalling your support to the groups above and by calling your representatives and telling them that you support fair use instead and oppose government protection of outdated business models. Yet there is no substitute for spreading the word: only when our representatives encounter widespread opposition from the public will the blood money of the content owners pale in comparison to the wrath of the voters.
Andy Grove of Intel best summed up the desires of the media giants when he asked:
Is it the responsibility of the world at large to protect an industry whose business model is facing a strategic challenge? Or is it up to the entertainment industry to adapt to a new technical reality and a new set of consumers who want to take advantage of it?
[ home ]
This result has completely destroyed what little was left of my hope in American ideals. There's no point in pretending that our government has any public interest anymore. People who have enough money to buy what they want are officially aristocrats, and the rest of us are officially peasants. The judges on the Supreme Court were appointed to their lifetime positions by the same people who write laws to serve the same wealthy few. This is fascist America. Get used to it.
To me the saddest part is that it's probably beyond undoing. By the time our rulers become so arrogant that they piss off the general public enough to motivate a revolution, everybody will be so microchipped, geo-tracked and audited that revolution in America will no longer be possible. This niftly little bribery-fueled pseudo-democracy will probably stay in place until the next asteroid impact.
... that a citizen need respect.
In many posts here, there are cries against this decision. There are calls to write your congressman... no, vote for different people for congress... no, march on the capital... no, band together in new political parties... (*sigh*). None of this will happen. We're almost all a bunch of lazy computer geeks who won't leave our computers, and we're too out of shape to march anywhere.
But there is something that we can do on our computers that will have more impact that writing to the bought-and-sold congressthings that infect our country. And that's something most of us are already doing anyway.
Copy. Everything. And distribute it, everywhere. Music. Movies. Books. Art. All of it. You can do it right where you are sitting now, with the machine in front of you. Call it an act of civil disobedience if it makes you feel better. Wear an eyepatch and make "arrr!" noises if you wish. But simply stop respecting the idea of copyright. Ignore it. Don't even pretend that the idea has validity anymore -- because it doesn't.
The original deal our society made was this: you make something, and you have exclusive rights to it for a while, to make money; after a while, society gets to use it too. Well, with this ruling, as a practical matter society won't ever get to use it... so, as a practical matter don't let them make anymore money. The deal is over.
And you see, this is something each of us can actually do. We don't have to try to convince someone else. We don't have to beg the people who supposedly represent us to change their minds against their own self-interest. We simply stop obeying.
"If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy
all respect for the law." This is what has happened. Do not respect this law. Copy everything you can. Buy nothing. Vote with your dollars, your CPU cycles, and your CD-R/DVD-R burners, because your ballots no longer are effective means of change.
If you really want to drive the point home, put a copy of "Steamboat Willie" on your hard drive -- and file share it. It's something that we all can do, without the bother of leaving our seats (which most of us won't do no matter what).
It it very much on topic. The main post was about an evil action undertaken by the Supreme Court and this post is my reaction. Also the two responses to my post shouldn't have been. Anyways, can someone please explain what would make someone think this was off-topic. (Also someone with mod-points please mod up the other two posts and if anyone sees these posts in Meta-moderation, please meta mon those moderations unfair and also, would someone explain why if this post is off-topic why the post I responded to isn't off topic?) Note: the persons or people who moderated these posts off-topic are clearly part of some sort of Axis of evil in support of the current regime, and should be put on a 'Are not allowed to moderate' list immediately.
I mentioned sales tax, though I admit it's easy to overlook it in the list. I didn't think of those taxes you listed because I don't pay most of them:
Some of these are admittedly dumb, but really, do you expect the city to dispose of your sewage for free?
Also, I think a lot of these taxes are easily avoidable. I have to say, I still don't understand why people think buying a house is a good idea.
Actually, if you bother to read the majority opinion, they addressed this issue. Basically they said that when copyright was first granted, it was granted both to existing works and newly created ones. It seems a bit tenuous to me, bu IANAL.
OTOH, the only good thing about the ruling is that Congress could (ha, ha, dream on) shorten term back to 14 years and it would apply retroactively, too.
hellfire. a lawyer just told me that it's right. "meet" doesn't mean "meet." that's what i get for getting ready to pounce. bah.
Today's Opinions. Today, the Supreme Court delivered the opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft. This case concerns the Copyright and Patent Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, 8, cl. 8, which empowers Congress to "[t]o promote the Progress of Science ... by securing [to Authors] for limited Times ... the exclusive Right to their ... Writings." Pursuant to this authority, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) in 1998 which extended the duration of all copyrights, both existing and future, by 20 years. Petitioner claimed that Congress exceeded their authority under the Constitution's Copyright Clause by applying it retroactively to already existing copyrights. Further, petitioner claimed that the Act violates First Amendment free speech protections. Both the district court and the circuit court rejected petitioner's claims.
The 7-2 majority opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg, here, upheld the CTEA against both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment claims. As per the Copyright Clause, Ginsburg wrote that the text, history, and Supreme Court precedent all confirmed that Congress is empowered to prescribe "limited times" for copyright protections and "to secure the same level and duration of protection for all copyright holders, present and future." Accordingly, the Court concluded that the CTEA, which continues "the unbroken congressional practice of treating future and existing copyrights" equally, is a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Copyright Clause.
Turning to the First Amendment claim, Justice Ginsburg wrote that the proximity in time of the enactment of both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment suggests that the Framers viewed copyright's limited monopolies to be consistent with free speech principles. Additionally, the Copyright Clause has "built-in First Amendment accommodations," by protecting "expressions" but not "ideas." Further, the "fair use" defense even allows the public to use copyrighted "expressions" in limited circumstances. Accordingly, Ginsburg wrote that, because Congress has not "altered the traditional contours of copyright protection" with the CTEA, further First Amendment scrutiny was not necessary.
Justice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the CTEA's extension of existing copyrights, as opposed to future copyrights, was invalid. Stevens based this opinion on Supreme Court precedent holding that Congress may not extend the life of a patent beyond its expiration date. In Stevens's view, the same restrictions should apply to copyrights as well. Justice Breyer also wrote a dissenting opinion. He argued that the CTEA 20-year extension does not make the copyright term limited, as is required by the Copyright Clause, but instead "virtually perpetual." Further, Breyer argued that the CTEA's primary effect is not to promote science, but to inhibit it. Conceding that the Copyright Clause grants broad legislative power, Breyer nonetheless concluded that the CTEA falls outside that grant, thereby making it unconstitutional.
Suppose, however, that your works, from today on, are a great success. And you make millions.
Now, in 80-100 years, do you reasonably expect to be alive and able to collect on royalties?
And what do you think about any organizations/corporations formed to protect your work in your lifetime benefitting from the copyrights after your death?
Should someone, other than the author himself/herself be allowed to milk the public on these works ad-infinitum?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
This is the digital Dredd Scott. The loss that changes the game. It makes the whole problem perfectly clear. The government and courts belong to the corporations. The technology belongs to the rest of us. We are now free to formalize the underground content economy. We, the consumers own the means of consumption. And the consumption is what pays. Nothing the RIAA et. al. does can compel anyone to watch, listen or ingest anything. The corps are experts at making the consumption desirable, but they cannot make it compulsory.
Its already resolving into a simple political model. A classic guerilla war. The activists provoke the occupying powers into more and more agressive tactics of retribution. The retribution falls on the unradicalized general population. The general population becomes radicalized. The guerillas become stronger, striking at will and disapearing. Controlling the agenda. The occupiers retreat into their garrisons. At some point, the cost of maintaining the rule outweighs the benifits, and the occupiers go home.
Lets not talk about boycotts or rising up, cause it won't happen. We need to provoke. We need to neutralize the main weapon of the corps, lawsuits. How? Don't be afraid, that's how. Unless Disney can persuade your local law enforcers to drop the war on drugs and the war on terror to start a war on piracy, then they are restricted to the civil courts. Disney cannot choke the court system with millions of civil lawsuits. Even if they could, there is little they can do to ordinary people. And what they can do to ordinary people will radicalize the general population. Eventually, they will piss off so many people, their position becomes untenable. So trade away boys, make copies of dvds for your nieces and nephews. Give your mom a nice Frank Sinatra collection for her birthday. You are not a pirate anymore. You are a freedom fighter.
That if a bill that, out of fairness, extended copyright back far enough to allow the original authors (the ones that we know of, that is) to sue Disney, Disney would probably be able to produce some sort of messed-up accounting that showed that they had never made a profit on these titles. That's how our entertainment industry works these days...
Yet, they have spent a tremendous amount of time and money making sure that they still control the copyright to these titles.
One wonders why it is that Disney winds up in these ironic cases... they fought video tape recorders all the way to the Supreme Court, and, yet, it was the ability to sell their catalog on video that saved the company from bankruptcy (which was where they were in the early 1980s) and the money generated from those video tape sales has allowed the company to get its tentacles into the entertainment industry to the degree they have today (just take a look at how much of the entertainment industry Disney controls - it is pretty staggering!). Now they have managed to get a court ruling that will allow them to perpetually extend copyright on their derivative works while preventing other derivative works based on their derivative works.
I'm disappointed, but not surprised by the ruling - the golden rule (not the one we all learned when we were kids) strikes again.
What happend to conflict of interest?
When there is some, let us know.
Is Judge Thomas on the board of directors for any major corporation pushing this ruling? Not that I know of. Is he the owner of one of said companies? Nope. No conflict of interest.
Oh? He's being paid for a book deal? And that's conflict of interest? Yeah, so? He's also pays taxes, as do all the other Supreme Court Justices, but that doesn't mean there's a conflict of interest when it comes to ruling on tax law.
Your post is flamebait. The monies to be paid to him would occur regardless of this particular ruling - thus 28 USC 455 b4 does not apply - while there is a financial interest, it is unlikely to be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
Unless, of course, you think there's a clause in the contract saying "void if Eldred v. Ashcroft is found in favor of plaintiff". Not paying would be a violation of contract. Against a Supreme Court Justice.
Do I like the ruling? Not particularly. But after reading the briefs (you did read them didn't you? No, I didn't think so), I have to agree with the majority opinion -- this is not a matter of unconstitutionality. It's a matter of policy. And the Supreme Court should not make policy. It's time (past time really) to bitch at Congress.
Shoot the bums, revolution! Or better yet, SPAM them mercilessly , ala Ralsky.
We need libraries now more than ever, especially given that rulings like this won't cease to be more heavily weighted towards the media interests than the public. A public repository of digital and traditional media is a resource we can't let slip away, and in many places libraries just can't get the funding to keep up with new technology and maintain the collections that they currently have.
What this means is that we need to fund and support not only your local public, government, and univeristy libraries, but also representatives willing to put their neck on the line to do the same.
I think we need to make sure that your library has the technology and capability to keep up with the times. Support local and national intiatives to protect what powers of preservation our libraries have left.
Copyright could be extended by a family member indefinitly prior to the sonny bonno act. As it stands now the average copyright will last 140 years based on life expectancy. (© is creation date of work plus 70 years after the death of the creator) So as to the fact that stuff is sitting somewhere rotting away. It could still be sitting somewhere rotting away if they had won if the family chose to continue to renew the copyright. There is art work that is SEVERAL hundred years old that is still under copyright because the families continure to renew it.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (MSNBC) -- The U.S. Supreme Court upheld on Wednesday a 1998 law extending copyright protection by 20 years, delaying when creative works such as Walt Disney Co.'s Mickey Mouse cartoons, F. Scott Fitzgerald's novels and George Gershwin's songs become public property.
The 7-2 ruling was a victory for supporters of the law, including large media companies and song publishers that argued the longer term was needed to protect a vital industry that contributes more than $500 billion to the U.S. economy. It dealt a defeat to an Internet publisher and others who challenged the law for limiting free speech and for harming the creative process by locking up material that they said should be in the public domain for all to use without charge.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said for the court majority that the U.S. Congress in adopting the law acted within its authority and did not exceed constitutional limits. She also said the law does not violate constitutional free-speech protections. The law's opponents argued the copyright law's extension closed off the Internet to a broad part of common culture at a time when the Internet allows more people to draw upon creative works without restraint. At issue in the ruling was the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended the exclusive period that artists and corporations can control their creative works by 20 years.
DISNEY CARTOON FILMS WITH MICKEY MOUSE
As a result, thousands of well-known works, including the earliest Disney cartoon films with Mickey Mouse, Fitzgerald's novels and the Gershwin song "Rhapsody in Blue," were prevented from passing into the public domain. Billions of dollars of entertainment-industry profits were at stake. Opponents said the law violated the copyright clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives authors and inventors exclusive right to their works for an unspecified "limited" period of time to "promote the progress of science and useful arts."
The first federal copyright law, in 1790, established a copyright term of 14 years, with an optional 14-year extension. By the time Congress overhauled copyright laws in 1976, that term had stretched to life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for works owned by corporations. The 1998 law extended the term for another 20 years. Congress adopted the legislation, named after the late congressman and singer from California, to bring U.S. law into conformity with the European Union.
The ruling was a victory for the U.S. Justice Department, which defended the law's constitutionality. Ginsburg said Congress had wide leeway in deciding how long copyright protection should last. She said lawmakers had taken into consideration the European Union copyright term and "relevant demographic, economic and technological changes."
In summarizing the ruling from the bench, Ginsburg said the court was satisfied that Congress acted rationally. She said the copyright scheme incorporates its own safeguards protecting free speech. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented.
Seriously, shouldn't we all be standing on our desks or something? At least doing something _more_ than giving money to EFF.
In soviet russia...
copyright extends YOU!
I swear, how can conservatives sit up straight, given the ways they're always twisting around to do the bidding of their corporate masters? Come on, Ms. O'Connor, you've answered your own question. Grow a backbone and tell your master to stuff it once in a while.
Why is it called COMMON sense when so few people have it?
He could have waited till he was no longer a sitting Supreme Court judge. He could also have recused himself from this vote.
The Copyright bill immediately previous to that one did that.
What the fuck is this? DISNEYWORLD? Apparently, when they named that place, they were almost prophetic. A note to any government software monitoring this post: STOP THIS SHIT! At least if you're going to be run by a corporation, PICK A TECH ONE!!
Under current copyright law there is no requirement that a work be re-published in order for it's copyright to be maintained. There are several cases where an author's work is locked up under the control of a publisher who has no economic interest in producing new copies. So the work is effectively lost even if the author wanted to give it away for free.
As for protecting the little guy, yes it was. It was founded in direct opposition to the way the English copyright system worked. There, publishers held onto the copyrights for indefinite lengths of time. They saw this as being counterproductive, and thus set the limitations that exist in our constitution. Of course along the way the same forces that lead to those copyright policies in England have risen here as well and that's why we have this mess today.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Why don't we change the law so that everyone is protected for - say - 75 years? After that, if you want to keep your copyright on a cartoon mouse/duck/monster or a still-popular novel, you can pay maybe $100,000 per year for continued coverage. That way, Disney can keep Mickey and the public can have access to more obscure works.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I think claiming Congress will be able to indefinitely extend 20 years at a time is without merit. The Court implicitly assumes in its opinion that this is not the case, which essentially means they would re-hear with any additional extension.
..... And as we observe, infra, at 18, there is no cause to suspect that a purpose to evade the "limited Times" prescription prompted Congress to adopt the CTEA.
From the majority opinion:
Concerning petitioners assertion that Congress might evade the limitation on its authority by stringing together an unlimited number of "limited Times," the Court of Appeals stated that such legislative misbehavior clearly is not the situation before us.
Besides, you'd be ignoring how in 20 years the dissents' balancing arguments become that much more persuasive, and that we'd get 20 years of empirical evidence on whether extensions foster the recovery of old films, etc.
What's even scarier, the concept of "common good", has been abandoned by the United States. I beleive this concept is expressed in the preamble of the Constitution, but nowadays it is considered communistic. It is because of this abandonment that the Supreme Court ruled as they did. Capitalism is only useful insofar as it promotes the common good.
Unfortunately, the majority opinion apparently threw away its rights and responsibilities to check and balance the legislature. The minority opinions dissented on two levels, one attacking this particular extension for _any_ copyrights having huge public cost with negligible public benefit, the other attacking any _retroactive_ extensions as over-reaching Congress' prerogative, despite their long history of doing it. But the precedent has been set and Big Media will run with it.
OK, Here's one for all you MIT "hacker" types out there: Obtain flags with the outline of "The Mouse" on them. Visit various government buildings. Hoist down American Flag, hoist up Mouse. Fold American flag respectfully and hold for return to owners (groups disrespecting the flag will be disqualified). Do this on January 15, 2004 so the symbolism will be understood. Points for buildings to be awarded as follows:
Local unemployment, welfare, other federal social service office: 1
School (any grade level): 2
DMV: 4
Any building in the District of Columbia, add 10 points except for special buildings as noted below:
Patent and Trademark office: 100
SCOTUS: 500
Capitol: 1000
White House: 10000 (maybe Jenna will help)
Pentagon: 50 (Pre 9/11, it was surprisingly easy to prank the Pentagon, see Navy vs. Army football)
Other points TBD by contest organizers. Winners receive adulation, pro-bono legal counsel, and possible place in history.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Libertarians are not Republicans, NOR Democrats. We are close to neither.
We are like OLD SCHOOL Republicans in some ways: End government business intervention, end social reform programs, PRO-propert rights.
We are like OLD SCHOOL Democrats in some ways:
Decriminalize drugs, end social barriers.
Don't get us confused with conservatives, which we are not.
dada
Disney and other media groups usually lobby the Democrats pretty hard, compared to what they do for the Republicans. However, the Supreme court ruled that the act of extending the copyright was not unconstitutional. Which by reading the constitution it is not. Was the extension wrong? Yes. Illegal? No.
I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
The minority makes a lot of great points about why Congress should not have passed the copyright extensions in the first place. But unfortunately the majority was correct that it is within the discretion of Congress to set the terms of copyright.
The battle needs to be fought in the legislative branch.
Unfortunately, Congress seems to have forgotten about the term "authors" as well twisting the term "limited times" nearly to a breaking point. However, it is not the Court's job to overturn a harmful law, only to overturn an unconstitutional one.
The most gauling part about this decision?
... and what does the Conservative majority do with it? They abrogate there role and say that the limit does not exist and congress can do what they want.
The Supremes have a conservative majority that are always talking about how the constitution that enumerates the powers of the congress. Under this theory any 'power' not specifically enumerated is unconstitutional on it's face.
Well, here you have the clause with a specific enumeration of a power and the conditions and intended consequences of exercising that power
This decision shows just how intellectually dishonest this court is. Time to face the music: the Supremes are all a bunch of idealogues with an agenda. The 'law' is merely something to dodge or use as a kludge to enact the private agenda. The presidential election fiasco exposed this for all to see. They've done it again with this judgement.
So much for a country based upon laws and democracy.
But the Congress can still repeal the law in question, and pass new laws that will make copyright acceptable to all of us. This will just take longer.
Start writing your Congress-critters. Companies can lobby, but we have the vote!
...richie - It is a good day to code.
fuck it, I'm moving to canada or denmark
They're using their grammar skills there.
I think we've done enough crying about losing one of the most cherished ideals of a democratic society - free exchange of ideas. What are you willing to do about it? This is time for action. It has been too long that ordinary citizens such as ourselves have allowed corporations to dictate public policies. We need to take it back. I call for a creation of a new PAC (Political Action Committee). It's sole objective will be to push for free exchange of ideas - limit copyright to "reasonable (read 20 years)" amount of time and fight any attacks on fair use. The new PAC will exist almost entirely in cyberspace and will collect names and address of fellow citizens who are willing to support candidates solely based on this issue. The PAC will poll all legistators to see where they stand on this issue and distribute voting information to all members. If enough donations are collected, the PAC will use it for campaigns against the biggest legislative opponents (that means you Sen. Hollings!). Speak up if you are with me.
Let us ask this question about 'fairness': If I write a book and copyright it today under the existing law, and next week Congress decides to repeal the 20-year extension, is it fair to me to take those 20 years away from my copyright after I've agreed to the terms of the contract by publishing my work?
If it's wrong to reduce the term ex post facto, then it's equally wrong to increase it.
Posting as AC because I'm at work, but it isn't hard to figure out who I am...
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO
How about the AUTHOR decide how long they want to keep it copyrighted?
Your post makes absolutly no sense whatsoever. Just typical paranoid ranting. No one is being forced to keep their material in copyright forever and ever. It's only an OPTION.
If I write a book and make millions of dollars it's perfectly within my rights to tell my family to make their own fortune and put my works in the public domain upon my death or whenever I feel like it.
Oh no, we can't use Mickey Mouse. What will we ever do?
Same thing we've been doing for thousands of years, Pinky: come up with our own ideas.
The few anal retentive bastards who can't let things go when they're done with them (and Disney is far from done with Mickey Mouse so get over the fact they still have copyright) are not going to affect the world in any significant manner.
There are millions of people who are happy to let their things go to make up for the few who aren't.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
venial adj.
Easily excused or forgiven; pardonable: a venial offense.
Roman Catholic Church. Minor, therefore warranting only temporal punishment.
"We are far too easily pleased." --C.S. Lewis
> Assumptively, the Supreme Court said "It's not
> unconstitutional for such a law to pass, and
> if you don't like it, go pass a different
> law." Which is entirely correct, we could
> always have legislation in the future to
> reverse this.
In the case of copyright the founding intent is clear, and is exemplified by early implimentation of that intent. The court, as it often has, acted decitfully on grounds of "policy" and the "social good" rather than a Constitutional one. The court has never had much problem effectively re-writing the Constitution, efficently bypassing the prescribed process. This is yet another such time.
It is inappropriate for the Court to absolve itself from responsibility by pointing this back to Congress. Here's why...
You could d plausably define "free speech" as speech that is unemcombered by law to the contrary. Hey, in today's redefinitionist world, they already accept that very definition, fully. Indeed, US citizens consistantly define themselves as "free" by that very definition. "Free", they say, as they are massively encumbered by laws of a totalitarian nature that intrude into utterly personal choices. (No, we know they are not "free" at all, but remain intentionally un/mis-educated about what being "free" actually means.)
Anyway, in the world you desribe, the Court may rightly rule that a "National Safe Speech Act", banning dissenting speech about Government and Corporations, or condoning a contrary foreign interest or lifestyle, is fully constitutional on the basis that Congress can always legislate differently later.
Apply same to every element of the Constitution and you end up with so much Toilet Paper(tm). Which is already pretty much what the whole of the Constitution is anyways now, but I digress.
Now, here's the rub...
Disney employes people. They make alot of money off that damned mouse. The fact the inventor/author was left wholly unpaid for the work, in a relative sort of way, doesn't bother anybody. So, as long as Disney controls the asset it retains maximum monitary value and, if you ask Disney, allows them to employ more people.
The argument is false, of course, that logic leads directly to Fachism but the chain of causallity is deeper than a single step, Govenrnment is utterly unable to growk anything more complex than a single logic step, particularly when they're paid to be stupid.
In the end, a few a barrons at Disney will lord over the many, more effectively than masters ruled over their slaves (You had to buy a slave. It was a major investment. Today, you just have to feed them until you've sucked them dry, then send the off to starve.). The masters will be touted as a gleeming successes of "Capitalism", when in fact, they "earned" their billions by law and theivery, rather than Capitalist endevor. The arts and sciences will stagnate, as they already are. In time, the "American Dream" will become the "American Psycosis" -- I'd say we're already there for great many.
Most seem to take this as corporations against everyone else just because it is Disney. The point is why should an artist ever loose the rights to his/her own work? Why should some talentless business type be able to exploit an artist work just because the copyright ran out. This could actually work against Disney and benefit a friend of mine on a deal that is in the works now. The real issue why should artists be forced to give up their rights in order to have any hope of a career. The music industry has always forced artists to give up their rights if they want to have their work published. It should be a basic human right that an artist retains the rights to their work and those copyright should pass to at least the next generation so their children can benefit from their work.
For about the last 50 years, Americans have tried to get the Supreme Court to exceed the bounds of the constitution and legislate. In other words, they want the SC to decide based on "what is best" as opposed to "what is constitutional." And sometimes the court obliges (for notorious political rulings, see Dred Scott and Roe v Wade).
The tripartite system of government ("checks and balances") clearly places the legislative function in Congress, with two checks on it: the president's veto, and the Supreme Court's rulings.
The president is allowed to veto for any reason, but the Court's job is to uphold the constitution.
For this reason, members of the court are appointed for life - to be relatively immune to fads and whimsy and to stabilize government by limiting it only via the constitution.
In the case at hand, three arguments are made:
Once again, don't blame the court. Blame the Congress. In other words, blame the democratic process.
If you don't like this (and I don't), there are two courses of action:
Of course, this isn't easy, and money talks (as it *always* has in every governmental system ever developed, regardless of any bureaucratic measures such as campaign finance laws).
The only good weather is bad weather.
Another reason Disney CAN'T lose their copyrights quite a few people are unaware of is alot more immediately more important to the Disney corporation: They can be quickly ruined by things they published in the 20s 30s and 40s.
Here's a fairly tame example of Disney's fears. They produced piles upon piles of literature that - while not meant to be degrading at the time - would be a serious embarassment if they were made widely known today.
My grandfather has a few of the Donald Duck comics he used to get at his gas station in 1940s Dayton, Ohio. In these, Donald refers to various and sundry brown people as "porch monkeys" and "cotton pickin tar babies" - let alone the dozens of people of color portrayed in pitiful stereotype. Native Americans, negros, hispanics, etc. etc. all shown as lazy, drunken, slobs or as murderous psychopaths.
The least of Disney's worries is their animated/live action film "Song of the South" - which they have pulled from shelves. This movie actually celebrated the rich culture of blacks in the 19th century south and in treated the subject with respect.
With the works I'm talking about, there was no respect present. Such as that shown in the example - the stereotyped character was put on display as an oddity.
that, I think, is Disney's major motivation for keeping an iron grip on copyright.
the people currently with wealth have set about to keep others from getting wealth, because it might mess up their maintaining wealth.
And third parties should not be able to air political commercials.
So you think that you should be allowed to silence people because they agree or disagree with the views of a candidate? How is that __not__ a restriction on political speech?
The "Election Fund" can be paid into by anyone who wants, as well as a portion of tax proceeds being put into it. The money from that fund is then divided equally amongst ALL of the candidates for the office it is for.
How about you just ban all group donations and let individuals give only $1000 per candidate. Let people give $2000, divided into two $1000 donations to their top two picks. Come on, don't tell me that in a system where 5, 7, 11, etc candidates are up for election on a ticket you don't have a first and second pick? There's nothing wrong with letting people give to each campaign up to $1000. There is something wrong with $300,000 to a party though.
People may end up with $100K as their election budget and no more. It means they have 30 seconds informative commercials and lots of pamphlets. Sounds good to me.
Not to me. I want a healthy republican system. I don't want a system that lets candidates be the sole individuals with political voices in the media. I want groups like the NRA to be able to make public rebuttles of gun control arguments and NARAL able to do the same with anti-abortion arguments. I want people to be able to challenge candidates' honesty and positions without fear of imprisonment or fines. You obviously don't. How can you feel comfortable with a system that is so one-sided?
Not saying this is the obvious best solution, but it would allow for auditting of each candidates campaign since you know how much they can spend so you just track their receipts and it's easy to find out who is cheating most of the time.
Not true. Suppose they claim to have put out only 5,000 pamphlets, but someone gave them under the table the funds to print 50,000? How are you going to count that? Go count each pamphlet? I hope you love dumpster diving, that'll become one of the requirements for working for the FEC......
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
This was a truly bad year for the American recording industry sales were way down. They got their wish - end of Napster - what is that old saying about being careful what you wish for. The fact is that we rarely if ever see all the consequences of our actions.
What are some of the outcomes of this ruling for Disney. Many I do not know. Now Diseny will have to defend more product over more time, Will Disney be able to handle this load that holds them to the past and innovate fast enough to keep with the new competitors? Will the copyright laws become so bloated and vile that the American people will just start ignoring them?
If there are too many laws trying to do too much the effect is that soon for all practical purposes the laws become impossible to enforce. This is already happening in the US - our courts are becoming more and more over loaded. What good is a copyright law that takes 10 to 20 years to enforce, we are getting there.
The headline confuses me. Am I to understand that this ruling only applies to Disney? If I create something and copyright it then I will not receive the copyright protection that Disney receives? Only a Disney copyright is indefinite, all others expire?
/. crew would pull their heads out of their collective ass.
Jesus H. in a freakin chicken basket! I sure wish the
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Once again, it would seem that even the (supposedly) brightest among us cannot distinguish between "I won/lost" and "the system worked/failed."
Today, my side lost, but the system worked. A large majority of justices, from across the political spectrum, came together to decide that they would not second-guess Congress. Checks and balances were applied, and the court decided that Congress could pass such an extension within the Constitution. That is an example of the system working, not the system failing. Instead of trying to push a policy from the bench, the court erred on the side of caution. When campaign finance reform comes before the court, and when (I hope) the court again defers to Congress, remember that consistency is a virtue.
For those of you who commented before reading the decisions (and I suspect that would be the majority), go back and go over all the opinions. Don't read it to rip every sentence that you don't like; read it to understand the logic behind it. If you still disagree, that's fine.
Whining about corrupt judges and evil conspiracies, however, will not serve you. Constructive action, like joining the EFF, writing to your Congressmen, and voting, will serve you.
Your argument makes sense to a degree, but you're ignoring the difference between physical and intellectual property and the argument scatually being put forward by Eldred, Lessig, et al.
Second part first. Eldred's case wasn't based on a claim that all intellectul property should be made free. If you don't belive me (And why should you?), read Lessig's book, The Future of Ideas. He makes a very clear argument concerning the need to give creators monopoly control over their works for as limited time as prescribed by the U.S. Constiution. The key here is the phrase, "limited time." The copyright regime in this country was worked out to strike a rather elegant balance between the need for innovators to profit from their creations and the need for the public to absorb those ideas and create derivative works. This balance furthers the progress of science and culture. Current policy increases the power of the copyright holder and diminishes the secondary aspect, threatening to stifle progress.
First part second. There is a fundamental difference between physical property (say four of Tetley's) and intellectual property (the recipe for Tetley's), specifically, that freely distributing your physical property will eventually leave you without beer, but freely distributing your intellectual property won't leave you qithout beer, it will merely allow others to have access to the recipe. The brewers should have the right to monopoly control over their product for a limited time, but even when the recipe for Tetley's goes into the public domain it doesn't prevent them from brewing their beer, it merely allows others to do the same... or to put out higher quality versions of Casablanca without previews you can't fast forward through, sample Louis Armstrong recordings for your hip hop tracks, etc. You could even argue that legacy copyright holders like film studios have an advantage when it comes value added features like "behind the scenes" footage, scripts and notes, etc. But it's on their head to leverage that advantage in order to compete.
That isn't socialism, it's a free market. If I can brew a higher quality version of a product that customers prefer, well, continue to innovate or quit and go home.
(Getting FAR offtopic now but...)
Sounds fun... But how you gonna eat?
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
While I think your attempt was noble, I believe it was misplaced. You state you are looking for what the "Framers of the Constitution" wanted? If you read the constitution, the Framers did not want a strong judiciary. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was so appalled when John Marhsall illegally decided judical review was the court's power he stated, "In the hands of the Judicary, the Constitution is but a ball of wax, to be molded and shaped to their desires."
Surprisingly, I agree with the decision. The responsibility for changing bad laws is Congress. Congress is the branch empowered to write laws, and also the branch responsible for changing laws. Even if you grant the Supreme Court the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws, there must be a *clear* and *direct* violation. Any amount of time is not "infinite", even if it is _practically_infinite_.
You speak as though the effort is over. Why not spend your energy now on educationg members of Congress on why this is a bad law and get it repealled? In essence, this is what the Supreme Court is telling you. There is a new house majority leader taking office this very month. If you don't try, you never will know if it will succeed.
'Nuff said.
I can deal with copyright extensions up to death, as that is very much incentive to innovate. If I create a character, I can continue to develop it, create sequels, prequels, spin-offs, developments and all.
That "character" would be pulled apart if the general public could turn it in every direction while I was trying to create him or her in my image.
The copyright act of 1790 was 14 + 14 years, which isn't close to "to death" for a healthy young person. In 1790 that would have been incentive for contemporary creators that could continue to develop their intellectual property that would otherwise expire.
So tell me again, how much more will Walt Disney create because of this act?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Here's something you can check yourself:
Go to a DVD store or rental place. Pick through a bunch of DVDs and look for a copyright date.
Guess what? You'll find a data on pretty much all of them but the Disney (Buena Vista, Touchstone)
labels. What to know why? Disney already knows that copyrights will never die so it's irrelvant when they were granted in the first place.
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras
Mickey Mouse's introduction was in Steamboat Willey which was a parody of the Buster Keaton movie Steamboat Bill, Jr.. Disney has been borrowing/stealing their stories from day one.
"Eldred v. Ashcroft"
Need more be said?
I appologize if this post seems a little out of place: it is a response to a thread elsewhere on this page that I can't seem to find again.
The public does not care about 120 year copyrights because they have lived their entire lives in a prison where they have been shielded from what is possible. Presented with the counteroffer of 20 year copyrights, the public might get more excited. Let's be real, after 20 years a movie / book / song has either recouped a significant reward for the copyright holder, or has been taken out of circulation. The Beatles, Bee Gees, et al have made huge sums of money on their works, and have been justifiably rewarded hansomly, which they have invested. But for every Sonny Bono there are ten thousand smaller artists whose legacy would be better secued if *anyone* taking a fancy to their work could promote, remix, re-release, or otherwise enjoy their work. If someone were so inclined, they could release a complete collection of Soul Train episodes 1975-1980 on DVD, or a sociologically significant 1950's retrospective with every failed NBC pilot for a children's program. We could release Data CD's with true snapshots of life in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's, rather than just what a corporate filter will allow.
We live in a country where 1960's vietnam protest songs can't be sung in public without a royalty check going to a corporation. There is something wrong with that. We need to organize and fight for a return to a 20 year copyright. Perhaps then will our culture be secure for our children. Perhaps then will our artistic legacy be secure.
-C
This sig is a mnemonic device to allow you to recognize this poster in the future. It is only a device.
The ______ Agenda
The problem is that the format of Slashdot matches our attention spans - very short. Readers read an article, make and read a few quick comments, and then move on to the next topic. Two days later, the topic has completely vanished from our screens, literally. This may not be the best venue for a serious threaded discussion. And honestly, I can't think of any online message boards which succeed in this (corrections please!) although some mailing lists may come close.
Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
Well, in a tech way.
I say we assassinate Mickey Mouse.
Make a Mickey Mouse and the 7 dwarves porno cartoon.
Make a Mickey Mouse ultra-violent video game.
Spread stickers with pictures of Mickey smoking a roach with Walt.
And on each of them put "In response to the Sony Bono Copyright Extension act. Have nice day."
"Meet" might be correct, but shouldn't that be "too much" not "to much"?
Gee, I wonder if Disney is ever going to argue that Walt never died when (and if) Mickey's copyright expires.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Why isn't there a way to undo a moderation? Argh!
After reading the majority opinion, I have to say I basically agree with the court's reasons for finding against Eldred et al.
I don't like it, but basically the founders screwed up by leaving too much discretion over the definition of "limited Times" to Congress, and then by setting precedents themselves (i.e., Thomas Jefferson as President signing into law the first extension Act -- though for patents, not copyright; they're covered under the same clause and Constitutional rationale) that Congress could use that discretion as it saw fit.
I don't like the decision, but the court was consistent with itself and legislative history.
It seems that the only way now to put a real limit on Congress' power to extend copyright would be to pass a constitutional ammendment, or trust the motives of our future legislators (who, as we know, will be Honda Asimos operated by remote control by Jack Valenti from within the CEO's office at Disney headquarters).
Are the justices trying to re-establish a reputation for primacy of the legislative branch? Why?
I thought that we abolished slavery. Guess I had that all wrong.
I also thought that no one could own an idea - just borrow it from the public domain. Guess I had that all wrong too.
I've moved on.
If the SCOTUS ruled that it is constitutional for Congress to retroactively extend copyright, wouldn't it also be consititutional for congress to retroactively decrease the term?
Everyone who disagrees with the extension should immediately write their Senators and Representatives explaining their dislike of the extension. They should put their Congress Critters on notice that they will vote against any one who does not work to roll back the extension.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
This is another principal reason why the 'Bono Act' should have been struck down by the courts. How in the world can a copyright extension law which acts retroactively possibly fall under the powers granted to 'promote the progress of science and useful arts'. How does extending existing copyrights promote the creation of that art, some 70+ years ago?
One very overlooked part of that clause, 'science and useful arts', gets far less attention that I think it should. I'm not sure how 'Mickey Mouse', Britney Spears, etc, are 'useful arts' or 'science'.
MORTAR COMBAT!
As Stevens' dissent describes, the court basically decided that since congress has been granting these unconstitutional extensions for a while the court no longer has the authority to stop congress in this particular unconstitutional endeavor.
Some of what he discusses were individuals and companies lobbying congress to grant them patents on inventions within the public domain, occasionally for years. I can't help but wonder if that's prescient foreshadowing. Why bothering inventing new stuff when you can buy congressmen and have them grant you monopolies on older, proven inventions? Yeah, I'm going to file for a business method patent on that one.
But don't worry, in the distopian future I'll create with my impending stranglehold on the future technology of yesterday, everyone gets a free Atari, and not the 2600, the 5200, and two free games! Rejoice future subjects.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
Heh, that's just what those of us in the top 5 tell the next 995.
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/Lincoln.html
;-)
What Lincoln Foresaw:
Corporations Being "Enthroned" After the Civil War
and Re-Writing the Laws Defining Their Existence
by Rick Crawford, crawford@cs.ucdavis.edu
Here is a sobering quote by Abe Lincoln:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY) Some people expressed doubts about its authenticity, given Lincoln's work as an attorney for railroad corporations! It was an interesting job tracking it down and verifying its authenticity.
The first ref I heard for this quote was Jack London's 1908 Iron Heel. And although the quote indeed appears there (near p. 100), Jack London offered neither context nor source.
More recently, David Korten's book, When Corporations Rule the World (1995, Kumarian Press), sources the quote to Harvey Wasserman (America Born and Reborn, Macmillan, 1983, p. 89-90, 313), who in turn sources it to Paha Sapa Reports, the newspaper of the Black Hills Alliance, Rapid City, South Dakota, 4 March 1982. But given Wasserman's ties to Howard Zinn, and his status as co-founder (?) of the Liberation News Service, citing that kind of trail is like waving a red flag for the skeptics
Fortunately, after some burrowing in the univ. library, I was able to confirm its authenticity. Here it is, with more surrounding context:
"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. . . . It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
The passage appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.
For a reliable pedigree, cite p. 40 of The Lincoln Encyclopedia, by Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY). That traces the quote's lineage to p. 954 of Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait, (Vol. 2) by Emanuel Hertz (Horace Liveright Inc, 1931, NY).
Based on about 3 hrs of research, it appears Lincoln has been extensively SANITIZED FOR OUR PROTECTION. The Hidden Lincoln; from the Letters and Papers of William H. Herndon, by Emanuel Hertz (Viking Press, 1938, NY), details how Herndon (Lincoln's lifelong law partner) collected an extensive oral history and aggregated much of Lincoln's writings into a collection that served as the basis for many "authoritative" books on Lincoln.
By all accounts, Herndon was scrupulously honest and plainspoken. Hertz quotes Herndon's characterization of the various "big-name" authors who relied on his collection for primary source materials:
"They are aiming, first, to do a superb piece of literary work; second, to make the story WITH THE CLASSES AS AGAINST THE MASSES. [my emphasis added] It will result in delineating the real Lincoln about as well as does a wax figure in the museum."
In several books, I found numerous places where Lincoln spoke about Capital and Labor ("Workingmen"). Lincoln re-used his own material frequently, and virtually identical passages appear in several places. Lincoln praises the moral rightness of both Capital and Labor, but this is invariably in the context of a nation where NO MORE THAN ONE MAN IN EIGHTis a Capitalist or a Laborer, ie, where 7/8 of the population are "self-employed" on their own farms and homesteads.
This social context of general self-sufficiency would explain how Lincoln could serve for years as a railroad corporation lawyer with (apparently) no qualms, yet pen the "corporations enthroned" passage to Elkins.
A final Lincoln tidbit, although it pertains to one very specific case:
"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel."
speech to Illinois legislature, Jan. 1837.
See Vol. 1, p. 24 of Lincoln's Complete Works,
ed. by Nicolay and Hay, 1905)
Is it incorrect?
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Best explanation of the arguments I've seen yet.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Pay attention on page 95 when Goofy refers to the young african boy as "Thuh dim-witted little monkey!"
They did this kind of thing constantly back in the 20s, 30s, and 40s....
(they being most everyone - not just Disney)
But this concerns just US copyright laws correct? Does this involve international copyrights? If not, does it have any power outside US?
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
Some constructive action... - Write to government people. Obvious, really. - Next time you think of buying a DVD of a movie, check out 2nd hand prices on Ebay. You still get the movie and the record company get nothing. Donate the remainder to groups like the ACLU or EFF. - Don't forget to vote on the IMDB for movies by American studios that really suck (shouldn't be difficult), particularly those in the top 250. Not doing this might encourage more people to buy them. - Watch more european cinema. Not only is it generally better for the brain, but you won't be putting cash into corporate US lawyers pockets. Remember to be generous with votes on the IMDB.
Well, at least you Europeans don't need to worry about your artistic heritage vanishing into the past because something ceased to exist (think nitrate film) because it became unprofitable before its copyright expired.
;-)
Wishful thinking, I'm afraid...
Copyright law is more or less equally fucked up over here.
Besides, as long as the US economy doesn't experience a major setback directly related to the extermination of the commons The Powers That Be over here has a strong tendency to emulate american policies, both the good stuff, and the utterly awful and ill concieved
(think DMCA --> EUCD).
The US has a good track record economically, and the European right wing mostly wants to copy everything the US does verbatim hoping it will work here.
I wish they would be more selective, and maybe think for them selves, but...
...a lot of people would eat shit if it came from New York and cost 3000$ a pound.
Common sense is as rare here as in the land formerly known as the land of the free.
I mean, I sometimes engage in a little friendly america-bashing, but I am under no illusion that Europe is somehow superior in all ways.
Some things are worse, some are better, and some, like this, is equally fucked up on both sides of the pond.
Maybe the chinese will have the last laugh in this , china beeing known among content publishers a "a one disc country".
Who knows, they might be better of in the long run. Maybe to little copyright is less harmful than waaaay too much.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
that Disney success was in large part based on derivative work of the fairy tales written by the brothers Grimm. Where exactly would Disney be at this point in time had we have had similar copyright law back then?
I found the decision disappointing, but not in the ways I expected.
In short the majority said, "Congress can do what it likes here. It not up to us to interfere." Stevens said, "To heck
with precendence, retroactive extensions
are not constitutional." Beyer was more aggressive and said, "life of author+70 years is not (meaninfully) limited, so it's unconstitutional."
The majority deferred to a lot of precedence and to Congress, but that's a perogative I think they should have (although I liked Beyer's argument better, that Congress went too far on this one and they should have gone back to the drawing board.)
The thing that really annoyed me, and suprised me, however, was the majority interpretation that copyright isn't a quid-pro-quo like patents. Lessig had argued this: in exchange for your limited monopoly, you publish your work and it eventually goes into the public domain.
That's the exchange of benefit that drives the
"progress in the arts and sciences".
However, the majority essentially said that while this was true for patents it wasn't for copyrights? Say WHAT??? Apparently, the court believes that use of a work's ideas, but not duplication of its presentation is sufficient benefit to the public in exchange for the granted monopoly.
This seems to me a twisted interpretation of the constitutional bargain created by copyright, and it is disappointing indeed.
Your claims to "rights" are no more real than the "divine right of kings" which was once unquestioned throughout the world.
Your kids will be better, stronger people if you teach them to provide for themselves, instead of trying to provide everything for them by restricting the activities of everyone else.
Evolve. This isn't the 12th century, regardless of what John Ashcroft would have you believe.
Notice at the top of the first page of the opinions:
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. (Emphasis mine)
Does this mean we can write in and say that, as a formal error, the justices missed the point?
Note to the humor-impaired: this is a joke!
That's nice. Too bad revolution, at least in a country with an even moderately capable military, really isn't possible these days.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
So Congress perverts the Constitution, takes away cultural riches from the American public, gives Disney et al hundreds of billions in welfare... Apparently, when Republicans hate welfare, it's only the kind that goes to poor people, and when they speak of our cultural heritage, they mean stand in line and be a good sheep, and when they speak of freedom, they speak of the freedom of corporations, not citizens. What a joke.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
What would Walt Disney think if some 40 years after his death, somebody with a computer and an internet connection was making porn cartoons with the characters he created?
I hate to point this out, but ol' Walt wouldn't think anything because he's dead.
Now, before someone mods me as Funny or Troll, I'm trying to point out that your attempt at using Walt to humanize this issue is completly wrong. One of the reasons that everyone here is so up in arms is because the new ruling allows for indefinite copyright -- far past the lifetime of the creator. The beneficiary of this rulling is not a creative person with feelings but an immortal non-person. So trying to convince us that perpetual copyright is good by referring to the feelings of someone who won't benefit from the ruling is ludicrous.
GMD
watch this
Copyright violation is pretty easy. One simple way to do it is to perform in public a copyrighted song. Since Happy Birthday to you is copyrighted, singing it in public is illegal (more so if you get money for it (so put out a hat and have a accomplice throw in some money)). Anyone out there interested in protesting by singing in public and trying to get arrested? It would probably be quite good publicity and would demonstrate to more people the absurity of copyright law.
forever minus one day would still be forever and I guess that's her point.
Your so-called "example" is bogus and retarded - even today's USPTO will not grant a patent such as that. It's just not patentable.
If you expect people to listen to what you have to say, make sure that what you say isn't ridiculous and meaningless.
These comments by a legal scholar with whom I am acquainted I found very enlightening:
I am very impressed by Justice Stevens' dissent. Justice Breyer's
argument, in comparison, is light weight and easily dismissed. Even if one
does not agree with Stevens, his opinion a very well reasoned and accurate
legislative history of the 1790's.
The court could have easily adopted Stevens' opinion as the majority. I
have always been in favor of giving the constitution's ex post facto clause
more weight, but the court has not agreed with me. Evidently, Justice
Stevens does.
King George was very fond of ex post facto laws, laws which change a
contract or make an action a crime after the fact. Early court ruling from
James Madision (Gibbons v. Ogden) make it clear that the court well
remembered the abuses of their former king. However, over the past 225
years, we have had a collective memory loss about the abuses of the
King. (Now that George is back in power, we would do well to remember
it.) Ex post facto prohibitions are still alive and well in criminal cases
- One cannot be convicted of something which was not a crime at the time it
was committed. However, the civil side of ex post facto has nearly faded away.
During the Earl Warren court of the late 1960's and early 1970's, I think
it is likely that Stevens' argument would have been persuasive. However,
since Rhenquist's appointment by Richard Nixon, this court has had thirty
years of conservative, conservative, and even reactionary rulings. This is
just one more safe but conservative ruling for them. Where is William O.
Douglas when we need him?
No matter what one thinks of Al Gore or even Bill Clinton, it just pains me
no end to think that George W. may get to appoint up to six supreme court
justices during his term. If not the presidency, the democrats really need
to take back the senate in two years. It is they who confirm supreme court
appointments.
Otherwise, can you imagine Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft?
OK, now I am really depressed.
Excise tax is a yearly tax you pay for owning a car.
You mean like when I renew my registration? I just got that lovely bill in the mail last week. :-(
If you lease a car, you get a tax hike in the lease once per year.
I don't remember that happening, but I do recall that each lease payment I made had something like a 5% tax added onto it.
Entertainment tax: Many states/cities have an additional tax charged on hotel rooms and restaurant tabs to help pay for city expenses
Oh! OK. Thanks for the info.
Yes, you do in fact get hit with charges from Mutual Fund investments for the buying and selling of shares withing the fund
Huh. I guess I just don't understand MFs at all. I thought those were just the trading fees the MFs charged you, not taxes. I guess I'll have to be more cautious once I'm in a position to start investing.
Don't get me started on how those taxes are wasted.
Hey, don't get me started. I could go on for hours about all sorts of waste of taxpayer money.
Because you don't fly doesn't mean someone else isn't paying a disproportionate amount of the taxes,...
Personally, I don't see a problem: if you use a service and I don't, then you should pay for it, and I shouldn't. Similarly for cigarettes, alcohol, and luxury items.
Oh. Out of curiosity, are you of the opinion that business profits shouldn't be taxed at all? If so, I'm afraid we'll simply have to agree to disagree.
Water and Sewage: I pay INCOME TAX. No, I don't expect those things for free, but it is an additional tax above and beyond your paycheck taxes
The house I grew up in had a cistern and septic tank. Pulling water and sewage taxes out of my parents' paychecks would've been a little unfair, in my view.
We're all a bunch of programmers and sysadmins. I am having a hard time thinking of two lazier classes of people.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Well, I'm not so sure ... usually it's a venial offense or mistake or whatever, and that's a pretty mild reproach.
... FWIW I think venal is a little harsh. This not an unjustifiable ruling, it's just a bad ruling by a fairly conservative Court. I would have been floored if they had overruled Congress on the extension of the copyright term, given precedent, and prefer that sort of thing to be decided by elected, sometimes venal legislators rather than an unelected unreviewable group of justices. We save the Court for the relatively foul measures of the legislature, not disagreement over judgment calls like the magic number of years. If the Court starts picking and choosing here, they might start getting a lot more intrusive in other areas, too. At least we can yell at Congress.
I think the writer had in mind VENAL -- as I did when I saw it, so it took a minute to figure out why the dictionary.com definition was "wrong"!
And
However, what I really dislike is the *retroactive* application of the law to existing copyright holders like Disney. It (1) makes no sense under the Copyright Clause purpose to promote creativity, (2) stomps on the freedom of speech ethic if not right, and (3) looks like outright cash quid pro quo (well, might as well say it, that's what it is).
The retroactivity portion is what the dissents focus on, though I haven't plowed through it all. Without retroactivity, groups like Disney would have much much much less incentive to push for things like the Sonny Bono Act, as there would be no benefit for decades. The Sonny Bono Act provides Disney with money right away, with (early days) Mickey otherwise "expiring" this year.
Don't forget, this thing can be repealed. The chances are slim, but it's not written in stone.
© 2003 Mickey M. Mouse, all rights reserved.
I think they will try to apply it, but we should still practice and preach civil disobedience at every chance we get anyhow. The whole reason that they HAD an expiration date to begin with was because they are NOT an inherent right. So how about if I turn it arround and say that the "right to copy" is a moral right that exists above government like freedom of the press, religion, and speech.
It's time to get rid of copyright monopolies once and for all, and we have the technology to do it. People who create are NOT gods and people who copy are NOT self centered SOB's that will never make a contribution to society, and most people do both. As if copyrights ever benefited more than 1 out of 10,000 artists anyhow. As if the out of touch Disney culture and Hollywood shouldn't have clued us in a long time ago. As if people who copy are akin to pirates who board ships and kill people. As if copyrights ever had a moral equivalence to physical property. This is just sooo much crap - it's all or nothing now.
Many folks don't know two facts regarding corporate personhood:
1) the American revolution was in large part a revolution against the govt. supported practices of large (British) corporations. In post-Revolutionary America, corporations were far more limited and were established primarily to serve the public good, the interests of stockholders was supposed to be secondary to the commonweal.
2) Corporate personhood was established in 1886 (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) without debate by the USSC, either by accident in an extraordinary example of judicial activism (sources differ) that has in many ways set (non-incorporated) individuals back to the position wrt to Corps. that our forefathers rebelled against.
Refs & More info
I have a relative who works at Disney in CA. He was telling me that they have a giant "treatment" display where people display ideas for upcoming movies, etc. Most of it is just gigantic blown-up images from existing comic books. They don't even pretend to care where they came from, or try to get permission from the original authors.
Also, apparently there are a BUNCH of sequels in the works. No telling how many will actually see celluloid, but the fact that they're turning to sequels for their revenue instead of creativity is telling. The "new Disney" is now just another Hollywood whore.
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
Did you know that? :)
"Secret" SIDs aren't really secret, and to paraphrase Rob, "they're in the code, use 'em."
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I'm sure that in the Hollywood version brave revolutionaries will be asserting their rights to fair use in the face of corporate redcoat henchmen, however in this case history is not on the side of a good drama.
:-)
The 1710 Statute of Anne, rather than ushering in "one of the most corrupt periods in English History", was designed to fix the abuses of the previous century. In addition to limited term copyrights, it heralded a freer press, as advocated by John Milton's "Speech for the liberty of unlicensed printing" back in 1644. (Strictly speaking, the royal license requirement, as seen on the front of reproduction Shakespeare folios, had already lapsed in 1688 with the 'glorious revolution').
The Statute of Anne was seen as good practice by the framers, and indeed both this and later findings by Parliament are quoted approvingly in the dissenting finding by Stevens. That's why the clause in the Constitution resembles this statute and not some reformed version.
Next up: decide royalties due to the heirs of John Locke for his contributions to the Constitution
Antonin Scalia already has has a published book. So do Sandra Day O'Connor, Chief Justice Rehnquist (actually he has two), and Stephen G. Breyer
Disney has a long history of "borrowing" from the public domain (in addition to Treasure Planet, there's the Seven Dwarfs, Kippling's Jungle Book, even Steamboat Willie was based on a Buster Keaton movie). Given the Court's ruling, after a few hundred years there will be nothing new in the public domain from which to borrow. Disney's free source of ideas will have dried up. But don't dump your Disney stock right away. They could always payoff a future congress to retroactively assign everybody's copyright to themselves.
In reference to an argument that the CTEA's terms are so long that they are effectively a perpetuity, the footnote refers to the common standard in property law that a 99-year term is the longest possible term that is not (effectively) in perpetuity, and then stating that the CTEA's terms are (generally) within this bound.
But, if the 1922 copyrights are still active in 2021, then the case might reasonably be taken to the court that Congress has created a perpetual copyright by creating one that has lasted longer than 99 years.
The man is trying to oppress!!!!
Why do you assume that companies have the right to collect the maximum possible profit? There are two sides to commerce: the producer and the consumer. The producer benefits from being paid; the consumer benefits because they get something they value.
If a producer can cover the actual cost of production, and make enough extra money to keep them from switching to some other business, they will produce. If a consumer can get more value out of something than it costs, they will buy it (or make it themselves). The actual price will end up somewhere between the cost of production and the value of consuming.
Note that this is a trade, and both sides get something of value for less than it cost them. I think it is legitimate to argue about who should get a bigger chunk of this benefit, companies or consumers. I don't believe that the company should be automatically entitled to maximize their share.
The extension of copyright terms tilted the benefits towards companies and away from consumers. Companies will now be able to charge future consumers more than they otherwise could, and consumers will therefore get less benefit than they otherwise could. The companies didn't have to pay (much) to get the laws changed, so they got a substantial financial benefit that they didn't do anything to earn. I'd say that there is a "Socialist States of America", but for companies, not citizens.
-- Pot is safer than Beer
Oh. Damn...
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
There are very few posts that truly should transcend into a realm of godlike proportions. The parent post is one of them.
I disagree with the ruling, but let's face it, we were basically hoping to do an end-run-around the representatives that we keep electing. 7 to 2 is basically a slam dunk. Depressing...
Who's the leader of the court
That's made for you and me?
M-I-C
K-E-Y
M-O-U-S-E!
Yippee!
In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
What clause of the Constitution is that? There is no clause in the Constitution that says any such thing. Sure, our founding fathers, especially Jefferson, talked about the "right to revolution," but this was considered a natural right rather than a legal one. Perhaps you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which says that it is a "self-evident" truth that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." But the Declaration is not the Constitution, and it is in no way binding law. It was a document announcing the colonies' independence from Britain, justifying the colonists' (illegal, and by British law treasonous) activities by appealing to a higher law. But the Declaration is not law and never was. And the Constitution does not recognize or legally protect any such right to revolution. Future revolutionaries, like the USA's founders, will have to appeal to higher laws than the Constitution to justify their activities.
Read the majority opinion. The justices are clear that Congress can extend patents in exactly the same way as copyrights.
Then you'll get back to token gestures such as the reading on stage of Brahm Stoker's Dracula when it was first published in order to protect any possible theatrical productions. It would be a negligent management that did not do something trivial such as a small CD-ROM run sold to friends in order to protect such assets in case they ever became popular again.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
If you bought a perfectly legal Mickey picture from a Disney-approved outlet, it would be yours. You could then apply a red circle/slash across it, and display it with pride.
I am thinking about writing a chain letter in order to educate the masses about this problem, and that quote would be a good thing to include. What is the source for that quote?
BTW, I urge anybody reading this to write their congress people and to write a chain letter to all those you you think might care about this situation.
I know that chain letters are annoying, but this is important!
Some things to include:
* It is illegal to sing "Happy Birthday"
in public, until at least 2030 (assuming the copyright does not get extended again).
* Disney makes popular works from the popular domain. By increasing the copyright term, they are starving themselves of new materials. Like Disney films? Then shorten the copyright!
* People that desire works that are out of print often have no legal means to obtain those works, because they are protected under copyright.
Rights are not based solely on laws, but on court cases. Ever hear of "miranda rights"? That is one of MANY "rights" given to the people by the judicial branch. And the judicial branch has made much law and has used the Declaration and other parts of the "constitution" as a basis for "creating" such "rights."
Sig:
Navy nuke sub lifestyle?
How in the world could the situation the parent comment describes ever happen? Now, it has been quite a while since I've put on a school play for my parents, but my school never charged money for admission to these performances. In fact, my mom is a teacher and she just organized a school play version of "Shrek". I've yet to hear any lawyers pound on her door.
I too disagree with the Supreme Court ruling but the above argument doesn't make sense to me. And if you need a way to fund these school plays then open up a concession stand during the performance.
Here are
Family Business's 100 Oldest Continuously Run Family Run Businesses. The oldest is Kongo Gumi, a Japanese construction company of Korean Origin in 768.
This ruling is very unfortunate. By a vote of 7-2, The United States Supreme Court has sanctioned the largest (in Mr. Justice Stevens's words) " ... gratuitous transfer ... " of "intellectual property" to corporate interests in the history of the United States.
I do not believe that sufficient voter interest on this issue CAN be stirred up to coerce the Congress into correcting this abuse of its power. The current trend in "intellectual property" law makes it relatively clear that Congress has been bought by the content-creation industry and, being good, honest politicians, they will probably stay bought. On the question of copyright law, Congress no longer represents the people who elected them.
I DO, however, see a possible attack on this law and all of the past retroactive copyright extension legislation. That attack would be for members of the PUBLIC, as the owners of the public domain, to sue seeking to invalidate ALL the retroactive copyright extensions as "takings without due process of law" under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. This would NOT invalidate the, IMHO, unconscionably long terms of copyrights obtained since the CTEA was passed, nor would it shorten the terms of copyrights obtained under the other statutes on a PROspective basis. What it WOULD do is establish a principal that the copyright term an author receives at the time of publication is ALL he, she or it (in the case of a corporation) will ever receive. This will harmonize copyright law with patent law and is well-supported by precedent in the area of patent law.
Unfortunately, few members of the general public have sufficient resources to fund such a course of action. Maybe the EFF, ACLU or FSF would be able to undertake it, but I certainly know that *I* couldn't fund it on my own.
utter rubbish
Actually Song of the South has aired regularly here in Australia on the Disney Channel. I think you can even rent the video. It was completely unavailable for a long time though.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
The value of the book to the publishers depends on how long they'll be able to extract revenue from it. The longer copyright lasts, the more potential for reprint, serial, motion picture, musical, comic book, and other revenues (some of these, I suspect, are more likely than others)
Prolonging the copyright term makes his contract more valuable to the publisher, and hence makes them willing to pay him more money up front.
That's one angle. The other is the possibility that the book deal was just a payoff - that they have no expectation to make their money back on sales of that title, but that the industry funneled money through HarperCollins to help ensure a favorable outcome to this Court decision, thus helping them maximize revenue over the long term. This one is more far-fetched, but worse things have happened, and let's face it, Thomas is smart, but no paragon of virtue. Of all the people sitting on the Court, he's the one I wouldn't put either one of these past.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
While I'm definitely not a lawyer, it seems to me that somewhere along the line, the ideas of trademark and copyright have been egregiously confused in this case. In my (somewhat uneducated) opininon, Disney made a stupid mistake when they took a work of art (Mickey Mouse) and then used it, in effect, as a trademark (also Mickey Mouse).
When the copyright ran out on the work of art, they were then forced to lobby with the intent to change copyright law into trademark law so as to protect their ill chosen trademark.
If there are any lawyers out there, can you tell me if this characterization is correct? If so, how was this allowed to happen?
I was reading literature in America, and it was like, bleep beep ka-ching, and then, like, half the public domain was gone.
And I was like, euh?
There was some rillygood stuff about to go in it.
And then poor people could only read stuff by hippie writers who didn't copyright their works, so it wasn't as good.
It kind of, a bummer.
c-hack.com |
There have been several high profile (probably because of the look-at-the-poor-wee-dears value) cases in the UK. One primary school wanted to put on a version of "The Lion King" and the lawyers descended with all sorts of threats. Andrew Lloyd Webber is apparently rather clear about making sure his plays (e.g. Joseph and Technicolour...) get permission. It's an issue for teachers in the UK have to be aware of.
Money doesn't tend to be an issue, it's more the right to put on the show/ make an adaptation for a bunch of seven year olds in the first place. I am more interested in the issues surrounding the rights to perform /adapt / evolve a piece of art rather than the money issue. I think the money issue is probably the leverage the big companies use to prevent innovation in these circumstances.
http://www.hbc.com/hbc/e_hi/default.htm
but economists know that lengthing a copyright term has little to no effect on the Present Value of the published work, thus it has little effect on what an author gets paid. What it does effect, is companies that have the copyrights to works produced long ago, but i dont think any of the justice's works would come close to that qualifier.
Thanks.
Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
Sorry to frag your optimism but you have this backwards.
Here's how it works;
Is that a better life? Sorry to be a pessimist here but this topic is seriously BAD news.
The Chinese yelled and jeered. "Bring your movies and music!", they cried. "If you wish to sell your entertainment to us, bring your movies and music. Bring out your CD's and DVD's. We are the copyright infringing Chinese. We will fetch your IP from your p2p networks if you don't. Bring out your highly paid superstars."
"The stars stay or come at their own will," said AmericanMediaMogul.
"Then what are you doing here?" They answered. "Why do you look out? Do you wish to see the greatness of our market? We are the copyright infringing Chinese."
"I looked out to see the Protection of Copyright", said AmericanMediaMogul.
"What of copyright?" they jeered. "We are the Chinese: we do not stop the copying for impotent US laws, for US congress or US supreme court. We come to copy, by sun or moon, movie or music, book or software. What of copyright?"
[inspired by prof. Tolkien ]
Moderation Totals: Insightful=3, Overrated=1, Total=4. Interesting that "Overrated" adds +1, not -1!
How many of those ideas are worth an eternal exclusivity?
Most companies perform a service which was honed to perfection by others, long before the current companies started offering the service.
As far as I could tell the majority had the weight of precedent on their side, although they completely passed up the chance to actually say anything about what the "limited time" clause means (which is most definitely their job). Anyway I think these points have been made by others already. I just wanted to point out one glimmer of good news that shows through in all of this.
The court rejected the argument that an extention of copyright terms would violate 1st Amendment rights, and they gave a pretty good argument for doing so (briefly, if a copyright does not restrain free speach now, then it will not restrain free speech just by sticking around a bit longer). However (and this is the good bit) they explicitly said that copyright legislation is subject to 1st Amendment restraints, and strongly suggested that fair use rights are required in order meet these constraints. This is increadibly good news, and bodes well for future rulings over the DMCA.
Methinks not.
well said that geek!
OUR EVOLVING CONSTITUTION
Imagine that you live in Plum Creek, a fictitious, medium size town somewhere in the United States. It has two high schools, East High and West High. The rivalry between the two schools' football teams has been a major feature of local culture for decades. Last year, a boy living next door to your home was playing on the West High team. He invited you to attend the season finale, the game against East High. It began with the usual rules; however, East High couldn't seem to move the ball. The team had big, strong players but they were slow, and they had no passing game.
The referees reacted by announcing some rule changes. From now on, a team only needed thirty-nine and one half inches for a first down. And it had five attempts rather than four, but only if it didn't try a pass play. Any forward pass would end a series of downs.
People sitting near you in the stands were quite upset about the changes. They were aware that two of the three referees were uncles, and the third a next door neighbor, of East High players. A committee elected by all the high school coaches in the state had hired the referees. But they had long term contracts, and it was almost impossible to get rid of one who was biased, corrupt, or incompetent.
Many years ago, the coaches committee had also written a rule book, and all the coaches had then voted to adopt it. It stated that no rule could be changed without the written approval of three-fourths of the coaches. It also said, "A first down requires an advance of ten yards or more in no more than four plays." It didn't say anything about special limits on pass plays.
When irate fans complained about the clearly fraudulent rule changes, the referees brushed them off. "You don't understand the rule book," they said, "it's a living document which evolves to meet the needs of changing times. And we have the authority to guide that evolution."
You have just read a rough description of modern U. S. Supreme Court jurisprudence.
(copied from http://ttokarnak.home.att.net/Evolution.html)
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
If a company re-publishes the work, it does not alter the original date of the copyright. If that were true Disney wouldn't care if the copyright term was 20 years or 100 years, they'd just keep re-releasing the films every 20 years to protect them. Furthermore, if that were true, then the "limited times" clause would clearly be violated because an individual copyright holder would be allowed to extend their copyright in perpetuity.
I don't have time right now to go digging into the statutes, but I'm pretty sure this isn't the case. Now, let's say a song was copyrighted, and then it was recorded. The words and notes of the song have one copyright and the performance has another copyright. Each additional recording of the performance could be copyrighted by itself, but that wouldn't effect the copyright of the original.
Thus, even if bach's original music is no longer subject to copyright I cannot:
1) freely copy a CD of a recording of the music done by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.
2) freely copy sheet music published by a sheet music producer
I could, on the other hand, write my own sheet music and sell it legally. I could also make my own performance and copy it all I wanted (or copy other performances that had individually expired).
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
If you do any reading of the thoughts the founding fathers did on the subject of copyright, your notion is in fact quite a strange thought. Unfortunately, it's a thought shared by many these days. If you are an author, and you don't want people spreading your ideas around, you have a simple recourse: don't share them. Once you share them I have a fundamental freedom of speech right to do with that knowledge what I will. The founding fathers realized that in some cases it may serve the public good to infringe our personal freedoms for practical purposes (eg. I can't yell fire in a crowed theater. I can, however, yell fire in my own home.) That's why the copyright provision of the Constitution is written the way it is. We, as a society, agree to abridge our fundamental rights, to motivate authors to share thier ideas with us. The fundamental goal is to ensure that many works become available to the public. Once you share your ideas with us, you have no more fundamental right to them than I do. You have no right to profit by them. What you have is a social contract in which we collectively agree to abridge our findamental rights so that we as a society get something in return. Extending copyright alters that contract after the fact, and amounts to government welfare. It's like a used car dealer selling you a car for $300 per month for 3 years, and then lobbying congress to extend the term of all such contracts to 5 years, 7 years, 120 years. You as the buyer of that car get no more consideration, simply a higher bill. It is indeed a wildly strange thought to think that just because someone came up with an idea, that he somehow owns it.
And beyond just Disney, this question looms large on the issue as a whole. When a copyright runs out, the holder doesn't have any requirement to actually make the piece available to the public. I guess maybe this is the role of the library of congress? But they don't actually have every book, movie, etc. I mean how would they, books possibly, but what format would they have gotten the original moves in that they'd still be valid and useful today? Yet another major problem with copyright terms that outlast the media their printed on.
Vote Quimby.
On the one hand I admit this idea is silly, but I didn't write the rules of the game, the IP cartels, the congress, WIPO, and now the US Supreme court did. On the other hand, perhaps this is a way to use their laws to protect ourselves from invasions of privacy and unwanted intrusiveness of surveillance, which in this context is "stealing" our copyrights, and then pirating that information by copying and sharing it across countless goverment and corporate databases.
Anyone who sees a flaw in this argument is welcome to contact me. If there are any lawyers who think something like this can be pulled off, then also please contact me.
www.enthea.org
We've designed it to be stable enough to cover sections in dirt and grass and raise livestock (cows and chickens etc) assuming that they'd adapt to the mild motion of the ocean that couldn't be absorbed by the structure. We plan on hydroponic, fish and seaweed farming also. Of course you can always buy food from land-dwellers and simply store it too. Really though the ocean is an abundant source of food.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Why aren't any of the news sites (eg cnn, bbc) carrying this story. It is one of the most important IP verdicts in a century and there isn't a single story about it that I can find.
Am I paranoid or has everyone buried the story? If there was more public pressure about this things might have gone the other way.
If Martin Luther King Jr. had ignored the gathering masses and had delivered his "I have a Dream" speech to the people standing behind him, nobody would have listened or cared. This is what's currently going on. We need to turn ourselves around and start speaking to the masses. We must awaken the collective consciousness. This Supreme Court case decision is a call to arms, and we need something (the commercial) to crystalize that in the minds of the masses.
If it is profound enough, it only needs to air once for it to remain in the minds of the masses. (remember the 1984 mac commercial? there's your proof) Who's up for it?
It is a bad law. But it happened earlier than you think, and it is not unique to the US.
The law was passed in 1998, back when the internet boom was starting to get going.
And the justification for the law was that a few years before, the EU (which was named the EC then) had just passed a rule increasing copyrights to this length in all of its member nations.
So I blame the US, but I also blame the 1990s culture and European bureaucrats as well.
there is really one way to enforce our constitutional right to govern, and that way is to march on Washington and the state capitals, grab up a bunch of crooked politicians and execute them. This is literally the tried and true method of grass roots political action
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
--Chairman Mao, "grass roots" activist and mass murderer
There is a Hungarian proverb:
"The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."
This issue is resolved for a long, long time. You can bark like a dog, or you can move on. It's your choice.
AC
--
Liberty, January 21st, 2001.
(YAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNNNN!!!!! *Smack* *samck*) Ngh ngh ngh.....zzzzzzzz.
Liberty's comment on the USA "Patriot" act.
ZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!! ZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz!
Liberty's comment on Eldred v. Ashcroft SCotUS decision
In other news, "The Three men I admire most" took the last train for the coast. AmTrak funding was discontinued shortly thereafter. Turning to our final item, Lady Liberty, long asleep in our nation, passed away quietly in the early morning hours. She was preceeded in death by her sister "Fair Trial", brothers "rights of the people", and "Free Press". An uncle, "Bill", of Rights, Iowa, passed away late last year. Her step children, Church and State, were reconciled after a long seperation.
That's the news. Further announcements will be sent to you via e-mail from the government, as a press corps is deemed to waste vital national resources needed in our distressed markets and had been discontinued by order of the Whore^h^h^h^h^h White House. Good bye.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
When the "little people" need a bad law passed, they cannot afford to buy their own congressmen. The powerful business interests can. And so.
I have no hope left.
Its times like this that its good to know about that one obscure clause in the American constituion: Revolution is legal. It has to be - the nation's founders had to consider there own government to be legal, and not a treasonous userpment of power.
According to Bill Bryson (writing in "Notes From A Big Country" - I don't know if this book was published in the US) the right to "rise up and overthrow the government" (his phrase) is explicitly written into the constitution of the state of New Hampshire. He seems to think it's a good idea too.
to collect money to provide an all expenses ski trip, complete with a lift ticket good for the intermediate run at the California/Nevada Heavenly Ski Resort (which Sonny Bono was known to frequent), for a certain seven Supreme Court "justices."
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Hey, I copied the date text directly off the web page... apparently without reading it carefully :-)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
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;
"Limited times" - Isn't that binding?
-----
For great justice!
As a fine artist and a graphic artist, I make 100% of my income from what I create. Every time I put an idea on paper, canvas, wood, anything that is a solid media and anything that I digitally create is copyrighted. I do not need to register with the U.S. Copyright Office (unless I want to go after punative damages - and even when I find a violation, I can still register the image and go after punative damages).
The copyright guarantees that I will actually get paid for coming up with an idea, or a painting or a sculpture. Without the copyright, there is a good chance, even with a contract that I would not get paid.
I am not sure how things work with the music industry but in the graphic art industry, I can sell my rights completely, limited and for a time. Each contract is different.
Where I am mentioning "artist" I am specifing a visual artist, not a musician or performer -- copyright law covers those areas very differently from visual arts. In the begining, many artists sign away full rights as a way to get published or to have there work created into other media. An artist may do this once or twice before the next assignment is limited rights.
In one design that I created and was used for a T-shirt, the rights that the company purchased was for 1st time North American usage for a period of 18 months. Period. Any further use is a violation of the copyright and the contract and I would be able to go after the company for damages.
Now for this ruling. I do not agree with this extension. Material should be protected but also be allowed to enter the public domain. It is what allows culture to continue to grow (maybe not the greatest and healthiest growth). Personally I think it is time that visual artists, musicians and composers start to take a stand. Some of these contracts that the RIAA/MPAA have artists sign are, IMHO, riduculous.
As another poster mentioned, I do think that Disney(TM) has an alternative motive than just protecting Mickey Mouse (c)(TM). In an Animation class in college I have seen several of the movies that Disney made during World War II when it was thought that Hitler would take England. These movies have stereotypes and negative imagry thoughout, both in anti-Allies and anti-Axis. Fantasia has had major edits done to the story and imagery due to fears of racism and slavery. (See the section created for Beethoven's Sixth Symphony, "The Pastoral").
I have read several posters mentioning derivative copyrights. AFAIK, the creator of derivative work DOES NOT need the permission of the original owner to create the work - but does need, depending on the situation, permission to publish the work. That is the difference.
One of the best cases for copyright protection for artists (and sometimes companies) is the case of SideOut Sports(TM). I don't remember if the offender was Nike(TM) or Reebok(TM) or the fine details but, SideOut Sports was able to stop a multi-million dollar campaign and product launch for womens' athletic gear. The merchandise was in the stores, magazine ads were running in sport, ladies' and general publications, airtime was purchased on radio and television.
The campaign was stopped due to the copyright violation of the logo SideOut Sports had created for them. If I remember correctly, a relative of one of the founders was a lawyer and had recommended them (SideOut) to register. That registration stopped Nike/Reebok dead in their tracks. The product launch was pulled from the stores, media etc. This is a small, regional company going after a multi-national corporation and winning. And win they did.
Sorry for the ramble, but I feel very strongly about copyrights.
design is art - art is design
Folks, this is what we are up against. The House Judiciary applauds the supreme court decision.
At least now you know who aren't your friends.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
What we need is an Extended Bill of Rights.
Add to our existing bill of rights and to the constitution so that the polititions can not revoke them in exchange for political contributions.
1) Restrict Copyrights to the shorter of the following two limits:
A) The length of time that the Copyright Holder or Agent shall continue to produce, market and provide the Copyrighted Item.
B) The length of time that should not exceed 100 Years.
2) There shall be no law made which shall inpede fairuse of any material, including but not limited to producing copies for personal use to secure against loss, damage or migration to allow for continued use of material; Ability to develop or aquire from other who have developed products which are designed to assist is preserving fairuse.
I am certain that the current political climate will not be able to protect our right, however a properly written consitutional amendment should be able to muster the required support.
start flooding the net with works that should be in the public domain.
Um. The act Thomas is accused of is absolutely clear. The evidence is presented.
Your question (whether the act Justice Thomas has committed should be considered a conflict of interest) is left to the reader. While the poster makes his beliefs known, he has presented enough information that you can make up your own mind. Apparently that's exactly what you've done.
So no, it's not flamebait. It's even relevant.
As to the question, there are ten different ways that Thomas could avoid any semblance of a conflict of interest in this case. He could have recused himself. That's the common thing for a Judge to do. It might not have made any difference, but whatever. It's still interesting.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Well, one must also remember that at the time of the founding fathers, the United States was quite a bit smaller than it is today. If we had 50 states to deal with, I'm not sure the Constitution would ever have been ratified.
It's easier to get "dramatic new ideas" through when the group making the decision is smaller. You can see this all the time in the corporate world, in fact. Someone has a great idea and a company gets formed around it. Eventually, the company grows and becomes complacent -- and then a new start-up type business with better, fresher ideas suddenly snatches up a big piece of their market share.
The bigger a company is, the more slowly it moves, entangled in red tape and pointless meetings where nobody can agree on big changes. Government today is in that same boat.
Shrink government by slashing its budget, and then maybe you'll see improvement. I don't expect any to come about any other way.
If you're unfamiliar with the case, Google on it. Basically this guy had a claim that Coke had let its copyright on the Coke bottle shape lapse, so when he presented an idea to Coke's marketing group using the design, HE established a new copyright on the design, with his modifications. Coke then lied and said they had reestablished the copyright in 1989. problem is, he showed them his designs years earlier, so Coke DIDN'T have the copyright. So Coke owes him millions for fraud, breach of contract, etc. according to his case. This case effectively ends his, I suppose. Not being a lawyer I hope I'm wrong.
Never pet a burning dog.
And they wonder why there are riots, unrest, protests, marches, and the like. It is, at it's worst, a government of, by, and for those who have enough money to buy whatever they want.
Make your own laws? They say? I've heard that kind of remark before. "Let them eat cake," so said another of high ranking authority who also distained the common man's plight.
Make our own laws? But who will get them passed in Congress? It is like a peasant fighting a knight, on horse back, with a broadsword, shield, and expert training. When you are up against a company which makes well over a billion dollars a year, can buy and sell lawyers, corporations, and even Congressmen - what hope does someone have of getting a law passed that does for the common man what it removes from the common corporation? The answer is none.
Like kingdoms of old we now have kings to whom we give our allegiance. They are known as CEOs, CFOs, and the board of dictators - sorry - directors. The writings of the forefathers of the USA warned us of this happening. Of the influence which the wealthy can have over those of lesser men. They told us we would become slaves if we were not always vigilant. But we have slept and we find that, in the silence of the night, we have been shackled by invisible chains. We are told that, like errant children, we must be punished for wanting what our forefathers had.
"It is a new world," they say. "The same old laws no longer apply." The laws were good laws I say. They kept tyranny, despotism, conspiracy, and slavery at bay. Now, we have no protections. Like Orwell's 1984 we now have people who are disappearing never to return. Towers of minitruth, minilove, and minipeace. For spin doctors have found a way to twist the truth so that you or I might just simply vanish. No proof is needed any longer. Just a word - that's all.
"And how does this hurt us?", you ask? It used to be that you could expect to be able to use something within a generation or two. Now you will die before these things are free. Your children will die and your grandchildren will die. And even then they may not be free. It is not so much that Congress has the right to extend the "limited time" clause but that they do so to the exclusion of the needs of the American people. That is to say - the balance has not only be overweighed by Congress' rash actions but the balance can't even be located any longer. Congress has done away with it. So who cares if Mickey Mouse is saved so the Walt Disney company can make money? The idea is change. We have stagnation. Inertia at its best. And oh! Don't touch that scared cow - it might produce better milk if treated right but we will make due with what little trickles from it's udders.
Here is a prophesy for you: When people begin refusing to pay money to the corporations, the corporations will attempt to force everyone to pay them willingly or not.
Anyone for DRM? Secure Internet? It's only for your own good you know. Oh! You want your freedom? Silly person! You really just want this new CD right? Or maybe this game? Just give us your mind, body, and soul and we will give you just about anything you want. See? Now you can be happy!
Personally? I think it all sucks.
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
No, I can't quite say I agree with you. Democracy is failing because it's a fundamentally flawed idea. It promotes a mob-mentality "majority rules" type of government, without regard to a minority (which might be advocating a much better solution to a given problem).
The United States was supposed to be a Republic, *not* a Democracy. People (myself included) often interchange those terms, forgetting the important differences between them.
Anyway, under the current political system, the people we get to vote for are always pared down to a small subset of the possibilities we might really want to see leading our nation.
Let's face it, if you don't have a LOT of money, you're not going to become president. The stakes are just too high. To make matters worse, we designed things so becoming a senator or congressman/woman is a "career choice", rather than a volunteer position. That's a *huge* mistake. Those positions should be able to be held by the "common man", as a part-time, volunteer type of activity -- with only small compensation paid (to offset any expenses incurred performing the task).
This explains why everyone in the twenty fourth century enjoys twentieth century media, everything past then is locked down under such strict copyrights only the Ferengi have it.
This sig has no nutritional value...
I was just perusing the australian copyright law. It appears that in australia copyright protection may only exit for 50 years. Or are there other restrictions that I have not seen. The australian law can be downloaded from http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/browse/T OCCO.htm
- look for copyright.
Don't Mourn; Organize!
is what Joe Hill said, as they draged him away
The Supreme Court is not going to bail you out. You must lobby your congressman yourself. Your first job is to pry the committee gavel out of Fritz (Jack Valenti's buttboy) Hollings' hand.
Stop Whining and and get to work!
Will the copyrights still expire in other countries?
If it doesn't wont this just have the effect of reducing the number of older/classic works being published in america?
Go here and create your own discussion.
Yeah, right.
O.K. I'm free tomorrow (unemployed in fact) ... any suggestions for an effective way to protest in the Boston Commons tomorrow about noon? Really curious ... I'm not overly concerned about getting about getting busted ... just looking for something simple that will piss off Disney, et al.
... I'm not afraid of effort, but I am a little short of cash.
Let the ideas flow
In other words, in the process of considering the merits of this case, Thomas found himself in the position of having to weigh the arguments of the plaintiffs, who weren't paying him anything, against the arguments of an organization representing a client which is personally paying him over a million dollars. That's a huge conflict of interest.
The article states that:
What made HarperCollins decide to pay 10-20 times the going rate for a Supreme Court memoir publishing contract? Is Clarence Thomas that terrific a writer that his memoirs are worth 20 times as much as Rehnquist's memoirs? Does he have a long, distinguished career as a Justice? Is he the author of any major opinions? Is he a guiding force on the court? Is the public clamoring for his memoirs?
What could have possibly inspired HarperCollins to dump such an insanely overgenerous publishing advance in Thomas' lap on the eve of the Eldred decision?
Thomas was either crooked as hell for taking the money, or ignorant as hell for not making the connection. He should at the very least have recused himself. It wouldn't have affected the outcome. The fact that he didn't is inexcusable. It's just another sorry chapter in Clarence Thomas' spectacularly undistinguished and disgraceful career as a Supreme Court Justice.
Ooooh. I know I'm just dying to publish the memoirs of some dead jackass Justice who died in the 1920's. I'll be so crushed when Congress extends copyright again and I have to wait another 20 years.
Good questions. No way Thomas' memoirs are 12 times more interesting or valuable than O'Connor's. This stinks.
They just published an op-ed piece that pretty much says we have arrived at the perpetual copyright.
Also, your elected officials are happy about it.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
For an interesting story about Mickey on the side of a daycare center see here.
There is another story with more examples here.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
And don't forget - entities that hold copyrights and publish are usually not the ones that create. And in many cases, their agreements with those who do expire long before the copyrights...
And in other news, the US has instated a royal family, and converted to the euro, in order to harmonise with the EU. Mod this poster up.
The real issue with this judgement, as per Mr Lessig's fine blog and others comments therein, is that while the SCOTUS for the most part agreed that the extention was in principle against the constitution, they incredibly ruled that the SCOTUS did not have the right to overrule congress in this matter. Their ruling also included the view that the extension still meant that copyright was for 'limited times', and that congress was not deliberately trying to circumvent the limited time provision with multiple extensions.
It's only when you read the disenting opinion that you might think that some of the SOTUS justices are actually on this planet. My favourite point is when it is pointed out that the bill is named after someone who proposed that copyright should be forever.
like...
I guess I could go on, but I think thats unnecassery taken the audience here...
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
The upside to this is at least a line has been drawn now and both the Media companies and Congress know another extension will be opposed.
"You don't need a weatherman/ To know which way the wind blows" -Bob Dylan: Subterranean Homesick Blues
Once something matures into the public domain, all it takes is one copy in the hands of someone who wishes to make it publicly known. Thus, it could only be prevented if all, not "most", of it has been "lost or thrown away".
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
(double taxation)
You say this as if it were inherently evil. As I said before, it's the only reasonable way to ensure that I don't get taxed for things I don't use.
And, companies pay much, much more in taxes than you do.
Good. If corporations weren't immortal , amoral entities with quasi-citizen status then I'd feel bad about taxing them. As it stands, it's my opinion that if corporations have the same rights I do (free speech protection, right to petition Congress, etc.), then they should have the same obligations.
exactly - and there are a number of companies chomping at the bit to publish this stuff just to throw some egg on disney's face.
Hell, I know some church groups that would do it just to see the evil, "pro-homo" disney corp. choke on it.
Whatever their reason, I hope they succeed.
It's interesting, but it really is irrelevant. If he were deriving income from some ancient copyright about to expire, then there would be a conflict. There's no author in existence who really cares whether they get money 70 years after they die rather than 50. The only copyright holders who do are clinically immortal. I.e., corporations.
Dyolf Knip
Who do you think wrote the check? The Easter Bunny?
It was a corporation whos entire line of business depends on copyright.
Okay, last reply. I promise.
My apologies; you used a double negative in your earlier reply about corporate taxes, and I got confused. I didn't realize you agreed with me (FWIW, I knew about the payroll tax).
What do you think about a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax? Although it might not eliminate double taxation entirely, I imagine it'd go a long way in that direction. I suspect that we're only a few years from another major tax code overhaul, like the one in 1986; maybe the idea will gain some traction in Congress.
Thanks for the interesting discussion. I learned a few more things about taxes (always a good thing), and even though we didn't see eye-to-eye, we managed to avoid degenerating into a flame war.
is one reason this decision is terrible.
The vaults of silent movies, many of whose copyright holders are dead, will continue to decompose
because of the off-chance that that copyright holder--after decades of indifference to his own product
(thinking that his copyright had run out)--would surface and declare that the time and money used to bring his movie back from the grave
is of not deserving of compensation and that all profits are his.
Why don't I have a right to pass on what's mine to somebody else? Should my worldly possessions both material and etherial become public domain or the property of the state when I die? Where does that line end, with my personal copyrights (whether I'm an author, artist or innovator), or does it extend to everything I own, including the clothes on my back? I ask because you don't seem to make any distinction.
I laugh at your "devine right of kings" argument. Are you suggesting that US culture (I assume you're American, you're post seems to suggest it) is based upon the rejection of inheritance? That each generation inherits nothing from the previous one?
That's just plain laughable. Look at who owns what in your society. 1% of the people own 50% of the wealth. Old money rules, in business and in politics. Do you think that George W. Bush would be your president if it wasn't given everything on a platter by his daddy (and his daddy's daddy and his daddy's grandaddy)?
Sheesh.
The American War of Independence was about taxation, not about inheritance, or even representation. When you celebrate on the 4th July you're raising a glass to a bunch of fat, middle-aged men who didn't want to pay their taxes. Not coincidentally, it's those same middle-aged men (metaphorically-speaking) that are screwing you now.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Couldn't they still get the word out about those comics? Put some issues on "display" at a comic book convention or some such and invite the media to take a look, especially the ones with 24 hour cable news channels that need some "interesting" content. It is still legal to display collections of copyrighted work, isn't it? (I hope so.)
There is one critical thing to remember about copyrights... If nobody enforces them, they might as well not exist. Is the government going to break into my house, steal my computer, and decrypt my hard drive to see how many cdroms I ripped to mp3 and stored? Nope; they won't. The same applies for future technology when it becomes just as easy for me to store all the latest Disney movies on my pc... If companies want my money, just sell something that is worthwhile; don't lock up all the products in safes and have people with guns sell us stuff.
Well, that would work a little, but being able to dump the work dot-for-dot verbatim at a comic shop would raise more eyebrows.
Imagine if little suzy and johnny come home from the comic shop with that piece of crap in hand.
As for myself, I don't think Disney should be all that embarassed about what the company did over fifty years ago. Every aspect of society was doing the same thing. It would be very stupid of us to try and judge something that happened 63 years ago by the standards of today.
However, I'm also not dumb enough to think that groups of offended minorities wouldn't pounce on this.
Hell, I call my own son a "monkey" not dim-witted, but I do call him a monkey. Especially when he's bouncing around and making lots of noise. I'm just glad I got him to quit throwing feces when he got mad.....
- As for your "legacy"... Face it - If your work doesn't make you wealthy in this life, it won't do so in the next. At most, someday your kids might make a few bucks selling the distillation of your life for some company to use in a commercial. Yay, the thought makes *me* want to go out and create. - I'm sure Van Gogh would've liked to get in on the money generated by his paintings after his death!
-Jim Power
Um... Me, too!
All this does is blur the line between black-market and legal imports. Many developed countries will continue to use the old 50-year limit on copyright (a very sound and fair lenght of time, IMO). So, while no other U.S. business can mass produce Disney products without paying licensing fees and royalties, any Euro, Canadian or Aussie business can. This was brought up in a Slashdot thread two weeks ago when it was announced that early Elvis recordings (and other 1950s material) would no longer fall under copyright protection in the EU because they still use the 50-year rule. It was also mentioned in that thread that the RIAA/MPAA are trying to make any resulting imports illegal in the U.S. I have to ask, when do the artists (of any art form) finally grow balls and fight for the arts, not the business, and tell the RIAA/MPAA to screw off?!
Clause 8: 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;
Disney, as a corporation (even one with rights and lifespan that surpass the average citizen's) is neither the "Author" nor "Inventor" of their "Writings" and "Discoveries". They are the commissioners of those works that are then written and invented by authors and inventors. As far as I know, only an officer of the company can legally be held to "represent" the company, not a lowly non-officer employee/artist.
If that's the case, then the rights that this Constitutional clause protects are only those of the writer/inventor[originator?] and not of his employer/commissioner.
There is a problematic situation where some corporations force employees to sign forms which state that everything they create while employed belong to the employer. But, haven't there been cases where those contracts have been nullified by the courts?
A NYT editorial on the case:
The Coming of Copyright Perpetuity
In 1998 Congress was the scene of a battle over public domain, the public right of common, free and unrestricted use of artistic works whose copyright has expired. Corporations like Disney, organizations like the Motion Picture Association of America, and dead artists' families wanted to extend copyright. Advocates of public domain wanted to leave copyright protection as it was, which would have allowed many early 20th-century works, including corporate creations like Mickey Mouse, to slip into the public domain. The copyright owners won, and yesterday they won again when the Supreme Court, by a vote of 7 to 2, decided that Congress was within its constitutional rights when it extended copyright. The court's decision may make constitutional sense, but it does not serve the public well.
Under that 1998 act, copyright now extends for the life of an artist plus 70 years. Copyrights owned by corporations run for 95 years. Since the Constitution grants Congress the right to authorize copyright for "limited times," even the opponents of an extended term were not hopeful that the Supreme Court would rule otherwise. This decision almost certainly prepares the way for more bad copyright extension laws in the future. Congress has lengthened copyright 11 times in the past 40 years.
Artists naturally deserve to hold a property interest in their work, and so do the corporate owners of copyright. But the public has an equally strong interest in seeing copyright lapse after a time, returning works to the public domain the great democratic seedbed of artistic creation where they can be used without paying royalties.
In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright perpetuity. Public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful creative ferment.
---
That shows exactly why this case was lost. The editorial writer was obviously trying to show how negative this decision was but his writing betrays the fact that he (or she) has already bought into the mass media's idea of how copyright works. "Artists naturally deserve to hold a property interest in their work" is false. Having control of an idea once you express that idea to another is patently non-natural by the very definition of idea. If it was a natural state we wouldn't have had to enumerate that congress had the power to grand that right. Again, completely false. The state of affairs for tens of thousands of years was that of the "public domain" even if it was not named as such. Without the power of copyright law as created a few hundred years ago everything was public domain. If you saw/read/heard something and had the ability to recreate it you were free to do so. The very notion of trying to control the spread an idea would have been laughable in civilizations past. This person, as well as our justices, have lived in a world where copyright lasted forever (from their birth to their future death) for their entire lives. They have rarely if ever had cause to consider the idea that works even can pass into the public realms much less that they should and must. Until we can overcome this basic problem that taints the field of play this is and will be a losing battle.
p.s. Yes, I'm breaking the copyright on that editorial by posting it.
jello.
aka aron.
I completely agree with ninejaguar's statement here.
Felons are allowed to run and even serve in Federal offices, according to the Supreme Court, even if the felon's right to vote has been suspended.
So Bush's supposed felony (and the evidence is mounting that he is indeed a military deserter) would not prevent him from holding public office.
On the other hand, under some interpretations of the law, he should have been shot for desertion during wartime (remember, the Viet Nam war?) which would definitely have prevented him from serving.
Since Nam was one of our "undeclared wars" - I think at the time they called it a "police action" - there is plenty of weasel room here.
The question is: why does coming up with an idea give someone the right to limit everyone else's use of it? If I were to find a novel approach to getting around the new viaduct construction in my area and someone followed me I wouldn't have the right to sue them for stealing my idea. Copyright laws are ridiculous inventions of corporations to protect their money machines. The ideas themselves aren't even original. Mickey mouse? He's a mouse, an idea that has existed for quite some time. Since Walt Disney(who is currently dead and could care less) came up with this brilliant plan of calling him Mickey we aren't allowed to name any other mouses Mickey unless we want to get sued. Why should I have my creativity limited by having to check and see if someone else has already come up with my idea? In short, the problem is not with the supreme court justices. They are merely referencing the consitution, which places no limits on this sort of stupidity. The fault lies in the brainwashed minds of the apathetic masses who have been convinced that some company has the right to tell them what they can put on their web page because they bought the right from some long dead artist.
My Blog
The archaologysts will ponder "what is this mouse? I have seen it on hats, I have seen it on shirts, I have seen huge statues of it in the ruins of L.A. Anaheim, Paris and Tokyo. Is it a god? Why is it painted so often with it's limbs dissconected on transperant sheeting?"
They will have a lot of questions...
But I am sure they will never ask one question:
Is it o.k. if we copy this according to the Sonny Bono copyright extension act?
They will make a copy for every museum, a picture in every historical textbook. The mouse also will star prominantly in every historical epic created by the 51st century Cecil B.DeMiln equivilant (with not a cent going to the Walt Disney corperation nor Walt Disney's thawing head). And although historians will be sceptical, the average person will suspect that Mickey had _something_ to do with the building of the CN tower, statue of liberty and the channel tunnel.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
ALL ELSE FAIL IT.
In the Forbidden Fruit Orchard is built a wall
Where Congress has painted the rights of us all.
The fruit is ours to pass around
As soon as it falls from the tree to the ground.
We can eat it and share it, can use it for seeds
And, better still, use it to create cross-breeds
In our fertile minds, to inspire and restart
The evolution of a sweet fruitful art.
So we gaze up in wonder at the fruit with such
Loyalty and trust, knowing we can't touch
It until it ripens, and come that day
We'll make our own in a similar way.
We just have to wait, and still pay for the fruits
That they sell without seeds for our everyday use.
(cont. elsewhere)
Clones of Tarzan, the Lion King selling in shops never persisted, though.
Read it here! This is Funny...