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.

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.

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.