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."

Comments

Content of the Amendment

[Chilltowner]

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.

Re:Content of the Amendment

[Ondo]

IMO, an amendment should prevent retroactive changing of copyright lengths. If the point of copyright is to give people an incentive to publish, lengthening the time period after it has been published has no benefit, and shortening it afterwards seems like going back on a promise. Neither should be allowed.

Good Luck

[ResHippie]

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.

Re:Good Luck

[aaarrrgggh]

I have a hard time believing that the US Government would do anything that so explicitly hurts corporations without providing overwhelming benefit to citizens.

The whole point of the public domain isn't to make goods cheaper for the people, but to make those works which have become a part of our culture things that can be built upon by others.

In that way, it can actually offer more benefit to corporations... just not the huge conglomerates.

extensions and constitution

[dacarr]

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.

Re:extensions and constitution

[k3v0]

unfortunately it is rather unlikely that the US would pass this amendment. The equal rights amendment http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/ hasnt even passed, and that only guarantees women equal rights. 50 percent of the population is women, and this still hasn't passed since the 70's. Rich folk like the *AA's would never let anything changing the copyright happen.

Jefferson's quote

[hackwrench]

"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

AOL?

[wzm]

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.

Re:AOL?

[SataiCam]

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.

she is using an AOL address

[gmhowell]

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).

You are part of the problem

[FreeUser]

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.

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 ... which is not a given unless folks like yourself choose to be.)

Re:You are part of the problem

[yerricde]

the icons of our culture (Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer IIRC, and certainly Micky Mouse et. al.) are all privatly owned, copyrighted material.

Really? Here's why Mickey Mouse may have fallen into the public domain, not through copyright expiration but rather through lack of proper notice when notice was required.

Politicians do ultimately listen to votes, not dollars, but as long as people like yourself remain inactive dollars will equal votes.

Voting for candidates doesn't work if neither major party candidate represents my views ("don't blame me; I voted for Browne"). So how do I get one or more of the congressional candidates in my area to adopt any of my pet issues as a plank?

Eldred Act

[sleepingsquirrel]

For another proposition (by none other than Mr. Lessig himself) on reducing the effects of long term copyrights, see the Eldred Act FAQ. The excutive summary...

What have you proposed?

We have proposed a tiny tax designed to move unused copyrighted work into the public domain.

How would it work?

Fifty years after a copyrighted work was published, a copyright owner would have to pay a tiny tax. That tax could be as low as $1. If the copyright owner does not pay that tax for three years in a row, then the copyright would be forfeited to the public domain. If the tax is paid, then the form would require the listing of a copyright agent--a person charged with receiving requests about that copyright. The Copyright Office would then make the listing of taxes paid, and copyright agents, available free of charge on their website.