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.
Whenever I've read that Jefferson quote, it reminded me of the logo of Amnesty International, except where the barbed wire is around the flame instead of the candle, symbolizing to me how copyright prevents one from lighting their taper at another's.
Where did the candle and barbed wire logo come from?
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
I'm making apologies for the AOL comment. You're exactly right, I shouldn't have made it given my own use of hotmail and that I used AOL for many years. Cheap joke. I definitely regret it. I do respect Hamilton's opinions. She's a commentator on Writ that I look forward to reading no matter what stance she takes on an issue (I don't usually disagree with her anyhow).
As for my disagreements in this case, they're minor. My summary didn't make it clear (and that's my fault) that I do agree with her for the most part. My biggest disagreement is her statement that harmonizing US copyright with the EU was a "good" reason for Congress to extend the term. It's a reason, but I don't think it's a good one. I don't think the length of the term was smart for the EU or the US, and just because the EU did it, doesn't mean we should jump of the same bridge (just as I believe that just because the US does something, doesn't mean anyone else should--or should be coerced to--do the same, but that's a commentary for another thread). I don't see the harmonization being as important as it was portrayed in the article.
I also don't agree with her argument in her previous Writ article on Eldred that though bad policy, the CTEA was still constitutional (obviously, I don't agree with the majority of the Supreme Court either). I side Breyer, Stevens and Lessig here. Doesn't do me much good, but I still disagree. Granted, this point doesn't come up in the present article.
All that said, as I posted originally, the article was interesting (so was her previous article), and had some good points. I like the "get up and do something about it if it pisses you off" tone. Even though we get that message from other Slashdotters every time stories like this get posted, it's refreshing to hear it from somewhere else.
I also appreciate the idea that because we have harmonized with the EU now and created a status quo, that it will take both side of the pond working to reduce it. Of course, since most people I know concerned about copyright are here in the US, I don't even know if there's the same desire for a shorter copyright across the pond. I'd like to think support could be drummed up on both sides, but it's already paddling upstream to enact change on this side.
Did my point of disagreement have anything to do with using AOL or not? No, not at all. Was my comment juvenile and uncalled for? Definitely. Do I regret it in light of being told I was an elitist? Yes. Should I be summarily flogged with a wet noodle and forced to edit badly written code for 3 nights with no sleep? Yeah, probably. My apologies to all I offended. I am an ass.