Forbes on Lessig and Eldred

scubacuda writes "In the Forbes editorial, Fact and Comment , Steve Forbes voices his support for Lessig and the Eldred case: 'Maybe Congress should just be done with it and declare that a copyright is forever....Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig has proposed a sensible compromise..."[I]f Congress is listening to the frustration that the court's decision has created, [paying to maintain copyright extensions] would be a simple and effective way for the First Branch to respond." He's absolutely right.'"

Comments

Congress CAN'T declare it's forever

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, Lessig was trying to argue the fact that since they keep extending it, it basically it is forever. The reason they can not do this is the Constitution specifically says a "limited time." Forever is not a "limited time" by anyone's definition.

Re:Congress CAN'T declare it's forever

[KDan]

Go check the definition of "sarcasm". Honestly, do it. It will do you some good.

Daniel

Sweet!

[KDan]

Let's hope they actually listen to that. That proposal, to have copyrights expire unless some token amount is paid in (ie someone clearly takes an interest) would put enormous amounts of material into the public domain. It would be brilliant!

Daniel

Re:Sweet!

[Remik]

It is brilliant, and unfortunatly it's also 'illegal' under the terms of the Berne Convention, of which the U.S. is a signatory.

As part of the treaty, a persons right of copyright may not be put in jeopardy even by small formalities. It is one of the problems that arise from the European conception that an artist has a 'moral right' to the work they've produced.

-R

Re:Sweet!

[rossz]

So what? The Berne Convention may well be contrary to the Constitution, and according to the Supreme Court ...

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). The Court ruled: ...no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.

And in case you didn't know, the Constitution is not a small formality.

Re:What about

[Remik]

Take a look at Creative Commons.

-R

Re:Doesn't solve my problems with copyright at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the sums required to extend copyright are tiny (and therefore useless), For the most part, Forbes' solution would just maintain the status quo.

This is Lawrence Lessig's idea, is it not?

Lessig is suggesting an insignificant, almost negligible fee. How is this useless? The idea is that if the copyright is being neglected by the original, perhaps dead owner, then the copyright will go to the public domain.

Re:how about...

[PHP $tud]

[quote] ...disallowing corporations from holding copyrights of anything. reserve copyright for individuals only. that would protect the small time artist
[/quote]

The problem is that a "corporation" is not necessarily a faceless evil entity. Often *individual artists* make a personal choice to license their works to a "corporation" of some form, or make some other more complicated arrangement (artists' deals with record companies are often very complicated). Also, an "individual artist" make actually choose to be a "corporation" for tax or business reasons.

So you see it's not quite that simple...

Re:Doesn't solve my problems with copyright at all

[Sloppy]

Please read the Eric Eldred Act FAQ.

Small artists can afford to pay a dollar every three years. If they can't, then they have nothing to lose from the work falling into PD anyway.

The only reason there's that dollar charge at all, is to subvert the Berne convention's terms by making it a "tax" instead of "registration."

Seems like I've misunderstood

[Adrian Lopez]

After searching google for the "Eldred Act" it seems that Lessig is not proposing that copyrights be renewable forever, as Forbes' statements seemed to suggest, but rather that copyrights should still be granted for limited times with the added restriction of an extension fee every so-many years. That's not as bad as I thought, although I still think it would do little to free up the most valuable works.

Um, amendments?

[theCoder]

Congress can't change the constitution?

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Maybe not alone (they need 3/4 of the states to approve the change), but Congress ceratinly can try to change it. I do kind of wonder how well that would be received, since a lot of people I talk to don't even know what the public domain is. Not that I want an amendment like that tried, though :)

Also, IMO (which doesn't count for squat legally :), Lessig's solution doesn't violate the constitution, especially considering the recent Eldred v. Ashcroft case. Congress would be securing for limited times (such as a year) each time the payment is paid. And paying for each limited time is no different than the current copyright extension going on, which the Supreme Court says it can't do anything about.

I do agree with your assesment that the length of copyrights are way too long. I find it disturbing that nothing copyrighted today will ever enter the public domain within my lifetime. I agree that that's not right. I wish we could get some Congress-people to agree.