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

Re:Sweet!

[evil_mojo_jojo]

Yes, but doesn't this spawn yet another "industry" of professional copyright maintainers? Sort of like domain name squatters?

What Lessig Wants

[Remik]

Many of you are misguided about what Lessig plans to get out of the Eldred Act. He's given up on Mickey, and rightfully so. There is no way he can fight the money and power that is Disney. He is prepared to ceed the 2% of economically worthwhile copyrights that remain after the current term inorder to get access to the 98% that no longer have any protector. He's decided to compromise and accept the orphans, and that's what the Eldred Act gives him.

Lessig's motivation has always been the flourishing of the commons, and while a win in Eldred v. Ashcroft would have give him 100% of what he wanted, passing the Eldred Act will still give him 98%...and that's close enough.

-R

The Constitution Is a Rule, Not a Guideline

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Mr. Forbes at least has a very public forum and it is a pleasure to see him using it to set the horrible patent/trademark situation a bit more aright. But, there are two errors.

Firstly, Congress has no authority to change the US Constitution. (Even if that does seem to be legislative fashion these days ... pass a law and wait to the cowering American sheep to summon the courage to strike it down in the courts.) Hence, it is silly to see him suggest that the Congress should declare trademarks to be eternal.

Secondly, Lessig's compromise also violates the US Constitution. According to this link, the document says in Article I Section 8:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Note it says "for limited Times". Allowing patent, copyright and trademark holders to retain their works as long as they pay for them, is not limited time.

The only two fixes that are moral and legal are to either amend the Constitution to allow for unlimited works rights, or to never again extend such rights. In fact, the time limits should be reduced ... since life+70 years or 95 years is a long fucking time. I am 35 right now, and if I want to make use of the trademark or copyright of what a 20-year-old neighbor made, I'd have to wait until I was about 35+55+70=160 years old until I could use it legally. It can't be done. Hence, works rights that extend well beyond the Human lifetime seem unreasonable when faced with the word "limited".

The remaining fix is to lob mortar shells at the US Capitol building until the Congresspeople begin to see the light. Myself, I prefer this option. The US Constitution is a body of rules, not guidelines, but the use of opinion and lassitude are making it a piece of paper. Is there any mystery as to why the populace has so little regard for the rule of law?