Slashdot Mirror
Shortening Copyright After Eldred Loss
SataiCam writes "Marci Hamilton has an article over at Findlaw.com covering potential options for getting a shorter copyright after the Eldred loss (or, more likely, keep this one from growing again). Clearly such a movement is an uphill battle, Hamilton does nothing to argue against that, but the options are there. It's an interesting read with some good points and a tone of "if you want it, go out and fight for it." I don't necessarily agree with all she says, but that's not surprising, she is using an AOL e-mail address, after all."
It's a really interesting idea to clarify the Copyright Clause with an amendment to the Constitution, but what should the amendment say? Should it lock in the terms to 50 years? What if future generations have the opportunity to shorten it further? Could it implement a much more rigorous system for expanding/contracting the terms? What is to be done about life-of-author terms for individuals vs. corporate terms? Is anyone else nervous about even entering the word "corporation" into the constitution, lest it be interpreted into whole new areas of corporate law (i.e. setting a constitutional precedent for the "rights" of corporations? IANAL, just curious about the possibilities and pitfalls.
I think I've been reading too much about this stuff lately, but I have a hard time believing that the US Government would do anything that so explicitly hurts corporations without providing overwhelming benefit to citizens. It's clear that privacy is important to people, but copyright isn't a huge deal in everyday life.
I guess I just don't have the energy to help reinstate a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people" because it would have to be done from without, not within. Don't allow politicians to accept donations from anyone/thing that doesn't have a right to vote. The barriers of entry to this system, like so many other things, prevent really new ideas from coming into it.
Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those that do know me, DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me.
Considering it is the US Constitution that establishes copyright limitations, perhaps our best (or only) bet in establishing the upper ceiling for copyright limit ceiling is a constitutional amendment. Nothing can really override that except for another amendment, if I remember my high school government (and middle school US History) classes correctly.
This sig no verb.
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Issac McPherson
jefferson idea candle taper
The submitter uses a hotmail address, and yet feels as though they can discount someones opinion by pointing out that they use AOL for email? Thats pretty lame, why not voice your disagreement by countering the authors points with your own.
Elitism sucks, especially when its directed from sources who don't have much room to talk.
Marci A. Hamilton is the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. Her other columns on copyright and constitutional law can be found in the archive of her columns on this website. Her email is hamilton02@aol.com.
Well, it looks to me like she has a bit more authority on which to discuss legal issues than either the poster or timothy (whoever ended with the snide comment). Perhaps she travels, so got AOL. Perhaps she has many business contacts who have the address, so hasn't changed it.
In any event, her opinions on legal matters are more important than some random John Q. Dipshit such as yourself(ves).
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I've never seen a good explanation of exactly what EU copyright law is. "Harmonization" is a popular argument for the extension, but opponents seem to gloss over that, and I've even seen it claimed that some works will go out of copyright in Europe before they do in the US.
So, what exactly is the deal here?
You can tell it is the end of a hard day when you misread Marci Hamilton as Luke Hamill and think, "Luke leading the rebellion against long copyright terms, hell yea!".
I think I've been reading too much about this stuff lately, but I have a hard time believing that the US Government would do anything that so explicitly hurts corporations without providing overwhelming benefit to citizens. It's clear that privacy is important to people, but copyright isn't a huge deal in everyday life.
... which is not a given unless folks like yourself choose to be.)
Shortening copyright doesn't hurt the vast, vast majority of corporations at all, and it increases business opportunity for resellers of public domain works (more books published by more publishers, etc.). It only hurts a very, very few large cartels who happen to engage in a negative-sum game of locking down large swaths of our culture and preventing others, businesses and individuals alike, from participating.
Furthermore, copyright most assuradle does affect all of our lives, very intimately, and were it ubiquitiously enforced (as will happen in the digital age if the recording and media cartels have their say), you would probably be shocked at the things you wouldn't be allowed to do, or would be required to pay in order to do.
As an example, having friends invite additional friends to a party where music is playing, or a video is being shown on your television. That kills most large parties, from high school on up through middle age. Remember, public showing is defined as anyone not in your immediate circle of friends, so your good freind Joe's new girlfriend he brought doesn't (yet) fall into the category. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
The books we learn from, the music we hear, the television we watch, the songs we sing (including Happy Birthday and numerous Christmas Carols), the icons of our culture (Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer IIRC, and certainly Micky Mouse et. al.) are all privatly owned, copyrighted material.
I guess I just don't have the energy to help reinstate a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people" because it would have to be done from without, not within.
You, and the teaming masses just like you, are why we have become a plutocracy, and why our children may never know what a functioning democracy ever was. If people like yourself don't get off their asses and get involved in the political system, you will have only yourselves to blame when the jackboots come a-knocking. And, if the PATRIOT and PATRIOT II legislation is any indication, a-knocking they will certainly come.
So get off your lazy (tired, whatever) ass and do something a little more constructive than bemoaning the "inevitable", which is only "inevitable" if you choose to make it so through your own inaction.
Don't allow politicians to accept donations from anyone/thing that doesn't have a right to vote. The barriers of entry to this system, like so many other things, prevent really new ideas from coming into it.
The get out there and promote your solution to the problem. Politicians do ultimately listen to votes, not dollars, but as long as people like yourself remain inactive dollars will equal votes. This relationship however vanishes quite quickly when the populace actually does get off their ass and take to the streets on a particular subject (consider Abortion, for example, and historically Civil Rights, the lower voting age, and the end of the Vietnam War as examples where public discontent trumped moneyed interests. Money only carries a politician when the people are passive and apathetic
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Boycotts are notoriously ineffective at doing economic damage, but still good publicity. What to boycott?
1) Pick your preferred term of copyright, say 26 years.
2) Only buy/watch/listen to materials published in the last 26 years and works in the public domain (eg read penguin classics)
The most effective things would be capital intensive (isn't that always the way?). Start a business that only sells things acceptable for the boycott and advertise as so. Book stores would have the best luck, books seem to hold their relevance longer. Or start a record store selling an awkward mix of classicial and pop, I suppose. A movie theater would be indistinguishable from a regular one, but you could promote it as boycott-friendly.
If you want to be a purist you should narrow the boycott to public domain works, stick to books.
.sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
Section 1
Congress shall have no power to abridge the rights secured by any clause in the Constitution of the United States of America to protect the creative and useful works of inventors and artists. It shall possess no authority to limit, alter or remove protection of private property secured by any state, governing body subordinate to a state or autonomous territory under the jurisidiction of the United States Constitution. Furthermore Congress shall not be empowered to pass any law or support any public policy that restricts research into a useful endeavor regardless of whether public knowledge of the findings of said scientific inquiry would damage the rights secured to inventors and artists.
Section 2
The legal classification of copyrighted goods beyond the protection of those basic rights necessary to the protection of intellectual property shall be declared at the discession of each member state of the United States of America. Each state shall possess full regulatory power to determine the legality of modes of distribution of intellectual property that is sold within its borders so it can best protect the private property rights of its citizens.
Section 3
All intellectual property law addressing the creation of devices whose improper usage could lead to minor or serious violations of the law shall be judged by the law as to whether they have any legitimate legal uses. A single meaningful legal use shall constitute grounds to prohibit the restriction or banning of such goods and services. Any law that grants an extension to existing intellectual property's legal protection shall be considered an ex post facto law.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Only the original creator of the content can benefit from his creation, not his heirs or beneficiaries (such as corporations).
If the original creator dies, the work is automatically (and immediately) placed into public domain.
This way, Congress can extend the terms of copyright as long as they want, if they still cared to...
If we blindly accept their views that copyright is property, we'll lose every time.
From the article:
The royalty business model is flawed. Do you have to pay an automotive engineer everytime you use your car commercially (say, as a taxi or to deliver pizzas)? Automotive engineers have to eat, so how do they "capitalize on their work"? They negotiate a reasonable initial payment for their work. The problem is that music (like computer programming) is a service industry often mistaken for a manufacturing industry. How do musicians get paid for their work without royalties? They perform services: concerts, composing for film or advertising, teaching, etc. There are also secondary ways to make money like merchandising (t-shirts and autographed posters), access (interviews and backstage passes), etc.
This lady is living in past...