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

Sign of the impeding apocalpyse #768

[Watts Martin]

Steve Forbes takes a position I agree with.

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:The proposed payment for extension is good, but

[mrfrostee]

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.

Problems With Fee For Copyright

[Artagel]

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).

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?