Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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
Carpe Diem
Of course he's right. It seems that the new era, money for lobbying gets you just the right laws if you can pull some wool over the right eyes. Piggyback it onto another bill, say it's to fight a certain crime, or just be one of the top supporters to the right Congressman and you got your bill on its way.
The only one the long copyrights really benefit are the large corporations. So why not just leave it that these corporations, who are making money off someone else's creative effort, have to pay to keep making money off this long after the creator's death? Makes sense, and it won't put items that need to be in the public domain because no one knows who rightfully owns the rights to it, into an unnecessary protection.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
The money should go towards enriching the public domain. The priveledge of extending copyright is at the public domain's expense, so that is the only thing that makes sense. I fear the money would just become part of the US military budget the way things are going.
Congress is really between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, the Constitution of our United States says copyright can't be forever. On the other hand, Disney is giving many members lots of cash and nubile young fluffers to make their jobs less dreary.
They have an obligation to pass laws for their paying constituents, but the highest law of the land (Constitution) says they can't do it.
So they have to play this game whereby they pretend they're doing something good for the people of the United States when in fact they're loser lawmakers taking bribes.
On top of all that, they have to maintain a thin sense of professionality so people won't just vote someone else in the next election.
You gotta really feel sorry for those guys. What a tough job. I could never be a bottom-feeding liar for a living, personally.
fifth sigma, inc.
All a solution like this would do is protect large companies like Disney which have the money to pay for copyright extention. Frankly, Disney can also afford to compete in the public domain, and I don't think they are the people copyright really needs to protect.
The folks I worry about with copyright are small artists who either themselves make a living off of their work, or who have living relatives who do so. These are the people that copyright needs to protect, and these are the same people who cannot afford to pay to extend that protection.
Law, in general, should help those who cannot help themselves. In my view, large corporations have the ability to compete successfully in a free, public domain market. Unless the sums required to extend copyright are tiny (and therefore useless), the people who need protection won't be able to get it. For the most part, Forbes' solution would just maintain the status quo.
Narrative
If we end up with this deal with the devil, at least we should try to have the monopoly-maintenance fee double on each round.
"[paying to maintain copyright extensions]"
it's already done. They call it 'lobbying'.
Fleur de Sel
Too bad it's not a good way to respond. Consolidated publishing will simply pass the cost of renewal to the reading public. Too large a body of information is owned by too few people for too long a time frame. They have the power, thanks to the DMCA, and now the technology to put us on the road to Tycho.
The only real solution is the original one, reasonably time limited protection of publication 14 to 28 years. The costs of publishing have only decreased since that original deal was made and so the incentives should have decreased since. How absolutly absurd it is that Einstine's orginal papers are still protected by copyright! What use are 100 year old technical publications beside historical research?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
...disallowing corporations from holding copyrights of anything. reserve copyright for individuals only. that would protect the small time artist, enrich public domain, and do many other things i cant think of right now. it is four in the morning.
philanthropists need to realize there is a need for philanthropy in the first place
IANAL, but here's a suggestion. Consider what happened in the software world. Lot of people wanted to share their code, but for things really took off only due to the ease of adopting the GPL. In a similar vein, perhaps we should have a well-defined legal framework for artists to release their work into the PD after 5 years, and work towards getting it acceptance among publishers? (Essentially, the legal and technical details should be worked out and implemented by someone else instead of forcing the individual artists to deal with it). Sure the *AA can be counted out, but I can imagine several book publishers and smaller music groups being not averse to the idea. If disney wants to keep the mouse, let them, forget it. Let's do the best we can to ensure that content that is yet to be produced comes with a less draconian copyright.
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
Steve Forbes takes a position I agree with.
I believe that charging a steadily INCREASING amount would be a better idea. That way there is increasing incentive to allow the copyright to revert to the public domain.
Recent changes to the timelines are clearly Faustian deals by politicians to sell out to copyright holders. In my mind the public clearly loses. The original idea of limiting the time one can claim intellectual property was sound and still has merit. The notion that ideas and information can permanently be surrounded by barbed wire and denied to all seems intuitively wrong. It should be clear that the institution of a fee to maintain the copyright amounts to another tax. So politicians would treat it as another endless source of funds to be milked to finance their pet projects. Perhaps you can see where this would lead.
Ultimately, I think the better idea is to put heavy pressure on congress to roll back the copyright protection period. Then we need some working campaign finance reform.
Why not make it a constantly increasing amount after 15 years. $1 the first year. $5 the second, and $25 the third. Keep up the multiples by 5 or whatever number you want and eventually everything passes into the public domain when its value is exceeded by the fees.
Sounds great, except why allow people other than the current rightholder to extend? For that matter, why allow anyone but the original author to extend?
The first U.S. copyright laws restricted renewals to the original author. Going back to that idea would remove some of the "property" connotations that have appeared since then.
Instead of paying lobbyists for copyright extension for everyone, Disney pays the government to only extend their own. This is stupid.
How about instead of having time limits, we have profit limits? The copyright expires once your work has turned a 1,000% profit or after 50 years, whichever is less.
The purpose of intellectual property protection should be to foster creativity, not maximize profit. Disney will still create the next Pocohantas movie if they 'only' expect a 10x return, as opposed to the drag-it-out-for-50-years -get-40x-return thing they've done with Snow White, and the consumers will be far better served.
Copyright should be viewed as the minimum incentive necessary to maintain a productive, creative environment, no more.
Yes, but doesn't this spawn yet another "industry" of professional copyright maintainers? Sort of like domain name squatters?
It wouldn't create freelance copyright squatters. If I were to pay the copyright fee on, for instance, Star Wars, that would not give me the right to the Star Wars copyright. It would merely extend George Lucas' copyright.
However, it most certainly would create copyright fee maintenance companies, which is a problem.
People would pay the initial copyright fee, but no one would want to run the risk of forgetting to renew a copyright on any non-trivial published work, so they would look to hire someone to do the job for them.
For instance, let's say that copyright renewal costs $100 every 20 years, and there's 4 renewal periods. (80 year max) I could easily go into the business of submitting copyright renewals, and I could do it for $100 per copyright for the duration of the copyright (plus my up-front fee)
I invest the $100 conservatively, and receive 5.75% interest, compounded annually. By the time 20 years rolls around, that $100 has become $205. Now I withdraw $100 of that, and pay the copyright fee to extend the copyright, leaving $105. Repeat every 20 years until the copyright reaches the statutory maximum.
In other words, the company that produced the work could be out of business, the copyright ownership could be impossible to determine, but so long as the original copyright holder made arrangement with such a copyright renewal processing company, the unknown copyright would continue to be renewed decade after decade.
The problem is that modern copyright terms are so incredibly long that even a large fee 80 or 100 years in the future translates to a small investment now. For instance, if the fee to renew a copyright will be $1,000 100 years from now, I can cover that now by investing $3.00 at 6%, compounded annually, and placing that investment in the hands of a corporation that contractually agrees to pay the copyright fee for me 100 years from now.
In other words, regular renewal requirements don't necessarily solve the problem.
>>>They[congress] have an obligation to pass laws for their paying constituents, but the highest law of the land (Constitution) says they can't do it.
WTF
Congress has no obligation to be corrupt and do what "paying constituents" want them to do. Their real obligation is to do what is right for the people of the USA.
We have this problem with IP law out of control because congress is being corrupt instead of doing what is right.
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
First, one of the nice things about copyright, for the little guy, is that you do not have to register to be entitled to some copyright protection. You author something, and there is some protection you are entitled to without registration. Copyright registrations are inexpensive, and can usually be done without the assistance of an attorney. Requring a registration after 5, 10, or even 20 years to have a continuing copyright could make good sense -- the author would have a fair chance to assess what needed protecting versus what was not going to be worth paying a fee.
Second, because of the Berne Convention, we cannot burden copyrights resulting from publications in foreign countries in certain ways. For example, you have to register a domestic work before you file a lawsuit in the U.S., but the foreign work does not have to file a U.S. registration prior to a lawsuit. If done in a way such that the effect were to be to force Disney and Hollywood to move to Canada or Mexico, I can't say it would be a victory.
Third, is used in a way like present fee systems, the fees would not distinguish between big money works that pay for themselves in a year, and the rest is gravy, versus the smaller circulation works that need 10 or 20 years to gather a good income. In some ways a tax would work better -- it could be proportional to the financial value.
I think that copyright should be easy and cheap for short periods, cost money to maintain for long periods (although shorter than the current limits), be consistent internationally, and have an easy way for the public to figure out what is or is not copyrighted (E.g. not having to figure out when Joe Obscure Author kicked the bucket).
Didn't you hear about the Disney amendment? Congress sold^H^H^H^H passed it last year!
"Amendment 28: Article one, Section eight shall be amended to read as follows: To promote the profits of corporations, and to fight the evils of terrorism, the exclusive right of authors and inventors to their respective writings, recordings, video and audio discs, and discoveries shall be guaranteed in perpetuity.
Additionally, article three, section three shall be amended as follows: " Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, being a terrorist or drug dealer, or by violating the patents and copyrights of any corporation. No person shall be convicted of treason except upon the secret testimony of the Attorney General or his deputies."
0 1 - just my two bits
Firstly, Congress has no authority to change the US Constitution. (Even if that does seem to be legislative fashion these days
Secondly, Lessig's compromise also violates the US Constitution. According to this link, the document says in Article I Section 8:
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
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?
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
The purpose of intellectual property laws should be to encourage innovation, not to protect intellectual property forever. The Mickey Mouse character has been lots of fun for a long time. Disney has earned lots of money from the character. Disney should now create something new rather than trying to protect Mickey forever.
What would happen to Disney without copyright protection continuing for Mickey? Would someone else start using a mouse character to promote a theme park? I doubt it. Would someone try to make some knock-off cartoons? Maybe, but would Disney suffer? I don't think Disney would lose much.
20 years is a nice duration for a copyright. An author or artist could live off a creation for about 1/3 of a long adult life-span. During that time the artist could create some more copyrighted material and have a productive life.
Our country has gone overboard with copyrights and patents. Extending patents and awarding patents for software do not encourage creativity. Instead they encourage defensive copyright/patent claims and litigation. We need to create an environment which encourages creativity rather than stifling it.
Ray Seyfarth, ray.seyfarth@gmail.com, http://rayseyfarth.blogspot.com
As another AC pointed out, you missed that Forbes was showing some sarcasm, and it was nice to see Forbes Magazine, The Capitalist Tool come out and speak the truth about Disney and the Congress that falls over itself for them.
But I didn't post to say "me too", I posted because you've mentioned something I personally think should have been the grounds for throwing out not just the DMCA, but most of the extensions.
The notion that a "limited time" can exceed the human lifespan is a wild, baseless leap the Supreme Court should have not tolerated. It defies reason and common sense. If the founders intended copyright to span many decades (soon to be centuries), they would not have used the word "limited".
By allowing this unconstitutional abuse to continue, the Supreme Court has disgracefully failed to fulfill it's obligations. Precedent set, is almost never undone.
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.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Hm. Suddenly, the fact that Steve Forbes, of all people, supports more limited copyright laws makes me suspect that I might be wrong about my advocacy of Lessig's ideas.
:)
Kind of like how knowing that Pat Buchanan is against the war in Iraq makes me wonder whether it might actually be a good idea, after all.
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
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.
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
--or just perhaps, you have noticed that the old left/right paradigm is really a too-generic description to be used for automatic "I agree with such and such because they are left wing" or right wing, and etc? Perhaps ideas are inherently more "human" than a direction or geographical area and those pre conceived constructs are not relevant any longer? Like right and wrong might be a better way to look at things than right and left.
I know you got a funny mod on it and it was funny, but it's funny because it's true. I frequently find myself agreeing with a point some pol made, after which I don't agree much with them, and it goes across the political spectrum.
As I get older I am less enamored of labels-applied, as I am of consistenency and results and logic and reason as pertains individuals. I guess that means removing one's self from the herd more and being more independent in thinking, using the right tool rather than some clique's currently "popular" tool. Something like that anyway.
Simpler, party labels or identifying as a political "side" or "wing" are forced and artificial, and usually promoted from places that have an agenda that is primarily designed to keep people in general from unifying around their common ground. For instance, the "left wing" lately is becoming alarmed over the first amendment, some strict traditional right wing have long been alarmed over the second and the 4th, both wings are alarmed over the 5th, both should be alarmed over the 10th and 13th, so there exists enough common ground to stop and for both sides to look around and see if perhaps there is a commonality of agreement to see where these threats come from,and to note that the "other side" has had a valid point all along,that a lot of the supposed differences were induced rather than naturally occuring, and maybe it's time to cooperate instead of squabble.
What I like to term "the goons", those of whom really control the planet and adhere to no particular bloc or wing outside of power and profit outside of their virtual congame labels, love to continue the charade game of "divide and conquer" because it is so immensely profitable for them, and because it is so easy for them to perpetuate this congame.
That "game" is why they have been so successful. Now, that means, the more people who can admit to a certain amount of personal fake-out,just accept it and deal with it rationally, and who can then step outside the box and stop playing that game with "the goons", the better off all of us who are being exploited will be, no matter language, race, nationality, etc.
Just my O there, hope it makes some sense.
So, the cons of a flat tax. First of all, there's a good reason that the flat tax makes sense on paper. In fact, it would've made great sense in practice about 160 years ago, when we were still an agrarian republic. All of the problems with the flat tax are mired in the fact that the distribution of income in this country is exponential, not linear. Let me explain the difference.
A good way to think of a linear income distribution is as follows. To simplify things, let's just consider 4-person families with one working parent. Let's assume all such families have different incomes, and that the poorest makes $20,000/year. Now, if the distribution were linear, there would be a family making $20,010, one making $20,020, one making $20,030, and so in in even $10 increments, all the way up to, say, $1,000,000.
But we don't live in a society with a linear income distribtion. Instead, the distribution of income is much more like a curve -- an essentially exponential bell curve. This means that there are exponentially more people clustered around lower and middle-income levels than there are around the $1,000,000 mark. Fortunately for us, however, the biggest cluster (top of the bell) is around the middle (not the bottom), and has been steadily rising since the turn of the century (though less in recent years).
Okay, so back to the flat tax. Because of the exponential distribution of income, a flat tax places what is often called the "burden of taxation" on the middle class. This means that while the middle class might make up 60% of the population, they will pay more than 60% of total tax revenue. I won't go into the math (which is often disputed by proponents of the flat tax and constantly proven by leading economists, conservatives and liberals alike).
There's also the idea of economic hardship. Let's say there's a 10% flat tax. That 10% is much harder on a guy earning 20,000 a year than on a guy earning 1,000,000 a year. Flat taxes also do away with most tax "incentives" (in an attept to simplify the tax code). Tax incentives can either be good or bad, depending on where you stand philisophically.
In all honesty, that's primarily what it comes down to -- philosophy. The proponents of flat tax often say that a flat tax will "help the economy." Like the idea today that the tax rebate will help the economy, it simply isn't true. Anybody who has taken a basic college course in econonomics understands that -- in fact, almost all economists understand that (nearly all the ones who originally supported the Bush tax cuts have since backed off). Most economists feel the same way about the flat tax -- it doesn't really help the economy at all. The propaganda sounds good, but it's really propaganda.
The truth about the tax debate is that, from an apolitical standpoint anyway, the flat tax doesn't have any pros -- but neither does the progressive tax. It's all philosophy: where do you want the tax burden? Should the top 2% of wage earners pay more than 2% of all taxes? Is it important for the rich to contribute a greater percentage of their income than the poor?
I would be happy to answer this question in much more detail, with a run-down of the impact, on all economic classes of people, of each of the tax schemes (please respond to this post with your e-mail if you so desire). However, a good essay on it (not be me, but found through google) can be found here: http://www.wordwiz72.com/flattax.html
I will add one last thing. The progressive tax is often mislabled, because only the "aggregate" percentage -- it is important to remember that, under today's progressive tax, somebody earning 200,000 pays the same percentage of the first 25,000 of their income as somebody earning only 25,000 -- it's only higher amount of income that is taxed at a higher percentage.
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.