Slashdot Mirror
Kahle v Ashcroft Appeal Filed
An anonymous reader writes "Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive has announced that the appeal of Kahle vs. Ashcroft has been filed.
Here is the appeal.
Kahle vs. Ashcroft concerns the constitutionality of changing from an opt-in copyright system (which existed for almost 200 years in the US) to the current opt-out system, where every doodle on a piece of paper is copyrighted for 95 years. Yes, they used the word doodle in their appeal.
Previous stories here, here, and here."
Sounds like what the judges will be doing while they hear the case :(
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
Since, you know, otherwise doodle copyrights would be life plus 75.
But I thought it was 70 years after the death of the author (as opposed to the cited 95) or is that just for literature?
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
What is really sad is THATS TRUE. When did this change?
You mean this comment is my own property for 95 years just because I wrote it...
Stay back fools and don't quote me. You'd better believe I'll protect my rights!
I'm sure that's how long it will take this case to get through the court system. If it manages to survive it's conception.
"Kahle vs. Ashcroft concerns the constitutionality of changing from an opt-in copyright system (which existed for almost 200 years in the US) to the current opt-out system, where every doodle on a piece of paper is copyrighted for 95 years. Yes, they used the word doodle in their appeal. Previous stories here, here, and here.""
Does the constitution really indicate a preference?
Maybe I should call my lawyer...
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
Rhino owns it, right?
BTW, saw the movie two weeks ago, laughed my a** off (This island earth). I bought volume 6 recently, nowhere near as entertaining. Anyone have a list of the good volumes and/or episodes?
I remember watching it when I was little and it was on PBS on sunday mornings, but then it wasn't near as funny.
I personally fail to see any reason to change mid-stride like this anyways. Was the old opt-in copyright law in some way broken?
If you want something copyrighted, you should be responsibile to take care of it. I don't give a shit about your Intellectual Property or otherwise if you can't be bothered to copyrighted.
This "transfer" of copyrights to a heir or something is stupid too, they didn't come up with the damn idea, why the hell should I pay THEM? Greedy brats.
Not to troll, but I noticed that this link had something to do with http://www.archive.org.. If you haven't been to this page before, you must go! It has been around for several years, and has some pretty kick ass archives of the internet.. yes.. the internet. You can get a look at snapshots of sites differet points in time. A must see.. I like looking at tech sales sites and lookin at the crazy prices :)
Boxing Equipment Reviews
This isn't a Constitutional issue. It's a Congressional issue. Congress has the Constitutional power to establish copyrights. In order to change that system, Congress simply needs to pass a new copyright act.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Before this whole discussion picks up steam.
http://www.nolo.com/
Is a plain english site for some legal issues. Type copyright into the search engine.
I hope they fixed that typo on page 7 before submitting it to court...
I doubt that opt-in copyright will be stricken from the records - the rest of the world uses it, it would create a legal nightmare for any company that spans US/international borders.
Perhaps the real thrust is to force a 'compromise' deal, either to get a hard and fast limit of 95 years agreed (for when Mickey Mouse needs extending) or even to try and reduce that period of time.
When you're shooting against the wind, you have to build in some compensation in order to hit the target...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
The law is blind, and unable to decide on merits.
I thought present copyright was supposed to last for 95 years after the death of the author. There is a big difference between that and what is written in the post. Anyone care to clarify this?
-GameMaster
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
I believe the current copyright law is
A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter
"So you write something and you get to keep it until you are 100? I call bullshit."
You're not planning to live to a hundred? I am. Can I get your stereo?
Your sig looks like you're saying you need help with your computer fag. Sorry, can't help ya there, pal.
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
I have no problem with automatic copyrights. It's the duration that's unreasonable. I think 40 years is more than fair.
Here's another idea. Let's have automatic copyrights that last for 10 years or so. Then the copyright holder can file for an extension every 10 years until they hit the 95 year mark. That would make many 'abandoned' works public domain very soon, but would allow more valuable works to be protected longer.
I think he is right on for trying appeal it should be an opt-in system. The problem is that the climate in government these days is more restrictive and involved than ever before and sadly this will go nowhere.
In geek-terms, it resolves a race condition. Under the new system as soon as you create a work it gains copyright from the date of creation. If somebody steals your work and passes it off as their own and you can show proof of the date, they've violated your copyright.
Under the old system, somebody could steal your work by taking it and copyrighting it under their name. Even if you could prove you had the earlier work the other guy had a better chance of winning because he had actually applied for, and gotten, the copyright.
Johnny Carson recently died so 95 years from now i can copy/distribute/sell his stuff...oh wait ill be dead.
Well there's still GPL
MST3K isn't that old, so you're still "little".
And it was never on PBS. It was originally on the science channel and moved to the Comedy channel.
And the 2nd guy wasn't funny.
You mean this comment is my own property for 95 years just because I wrote it... Stay back fools and don't quote me. You'd better believe I'll protect my rights!
Before you all start freaking out about evil corporations, corrupt governments, and everything else (too late)...
Understand that this is not some change that happened overnight while you were asleep. We have not had an "opt-in" copyright law in the United States since January 1, 1978. And the law was changed even before that -- Congress actually elected to amend the old copyright law in 1976. So I'd be willing to bet that this is the way copyrights have worked since before many of you were born.
Breakfast served all day!
When you use modern technology to do the exact same thing as quotation, there is no protection for the action. That's a key place where modern copyright law has gone wrong, IMHO. If I copy a paragraph from a book and quote it in another book, nobody sweats it (in fact, it's expected). But if I quote a piece of a beat from a song in another song, or a segment of film or TV in a video art piece, I'm expected to get the permission of the copyright owner (and often to pay lots of $$$, if they agree to let me use it at all).
I won't argue that life +70 is too long etc, but the point that I wanted to make about opt-out verses opt-in copyright is that under the old system, a creative work was unprotected from plagiarism until the work was officially registered with the copyright office. Here in Canada, I mail myself a copy of my work to prove date of creation (left unopened) and I'm done. Maybe the current US copyright law went too far, but opt-out copyright as a system ain't all bad.
-- Cheers!
I do not see how this possibly could be construed to include offspring since thye are not the Author or Inventor.
That doesn't prove date of creation -- mail can easily make it through the postal system unsealed, at which point you could save it for years, later put some paper in there and claim you created it on the postmarked date. Try using a notary to have a more solid date of creation argument.
I think a fair solution would be unlimited opt-in. You need to register your copyright to begin with which gets you five or ten years, and then renew your copyright once every five years for a fee of, say, a dollar. You can renew for as long as you like (which would keep Mickey safe and sound) but if your copyright on a work isn't worth a few minutes (we could just have a web based renewal system) and a dollar once every five years, then let the public have at it. I think Lawrence Lessig promoted something similar to this in Free Culture.
kThis too, will end.
Now, your childhood paintings will be automatically copyright until 70 years after you die!
If a 5-year-old who grows up to be 90 made drawings today, they will still by copyright in 2160! Along with just about every other doodle, plaster handcast, home movie and blog entry every made.
If a researcher wanted to make a book of public domain children's drawings, they'd have to wait a really long time...
What would you say to something of a middle ground, like an opt-out system that lasts some short period of time (e.g. 10 yrs) and an opt-in system that lasts lifeOfAuthor+70? So, you can continue to just mail yourself copies of things to keep your rights safe, but if you want a longer period of protection, you have 10 years to secure it by registering the work. Then, abandonned works (like my worthless /. comments) fall into the public domain (relatively) quickly, but valuable works can be protected for a longer period if the author desires.
We apologize for the preceding message. All those responsible have been sacked.
What ever happened to the good old days where someone could make millions off the work of others and not pay them anything for it because those others never did something which only professionals do? *(See, he's not a professional, since his work was stolen. You need to be paid to be a professional)
Please note that all those Open Source programs which are protected only by copyright law are only being horded by you greedy bastards! Anyone who wants to should be able to use your code without your permission, close it up, sell it in their product without any source or even bothering to mention who made it. I mean it's not like you actually filed for copyright, you obviously meant "public domain" when you said "GPL"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
The difference between the opt-in and the opt-out is a matter of dealing with one of the properties of getting a copyright, authorship, which translates to prior art evidence.
The opt-out still doesn't enable opt-in in those cases it is used.
Its really quite simple, once a work is done and published, it creates prior art and this inherently prevents another from comming along and claiming ownership.
the fundamental difference between opt-in and opt-out is the default respect given to the authorship.
For Kyle and those like him creating an archive (ie google regarding usenet archives), which itself has public and historic value, there should be a copyright exception allowed, as it actually helps to establish and provide proof of prior art.
As such public archiving should be considered "fair use."
One of the big problems I see with the current system, is it essentially is a tax-free way of passing on an inheritance. The surviving family members get full rights to the work; which is essentially like receiving an investment portfolio without the inheritance tax! How is that fair?
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
What is fucking hilarious is that the DRM that is right now going into media players and monitors will make it virtually impossible to quote from original sources; want to include a clip from a movie or a news broadcast? Sorry, that's a violation of the DRM mechanism and you cannot do it.
The so-called "fair use" rights are poorly situated for legal protection at best, and are being eliminated systematically while complacent twits such as yourself look the other way.
Yet although economics is at the core of copyright's purpose, only a tiny proportion of creative work is produced for economic gain in a manner that depends upon this exclusive right. And only a tiny proportion of the work that depends upon this exclusive right continues to have any commercial life after a very short time. The economic incentive produced by an exclusive right may well be central to the purpose of copyright, but it is an exception in the world of creative work.
For most of our history, copyright law took account of these undeniable facts.
how about a little support for these "undeniable facts"? I believe they are true, but i mean, come on, it's lame to say it's true and not provide ANY supporting statistics.
Opt-out is not an entirely bad thing. For one thing, it makes it much easier to protect small-time authors like all of the people on slashdot (it protects everyone who posts something substantial enough to warrant protection, but it also protects things more useful like blogs they might have, etc.).
Anyway, I like not having to send in a copyright registration form everytime I write three paragraphs on my blog. (Well, okay, I am pretty much a communist, so I guess that doesn't really help me a whole lot, since I would generally be willing to give it away anyway, but not everybody is a communist.)
The downside is that there might be some important thing that is written never even intending that it be copyrighted, and no one can use it since the author neglected to release it. Sometimes this causes problems (er, I think - I can't think of any examples right now), but a lot of this probably has to do with the ridiculous lengths of copyrights.
The much bigger issue is the lengths of copyrights. Fix that and I think for the most part opt-out would be hard to sell as a problem.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. A company doesn't invent things, people do. Just as a company can't apply for a patent - patents are only issued to individuals. "Assignment" to a company is a completely different matter.
...
As written, "... by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" tends to indicate that the period of exclusivity ends with the author's death. I think that's a fair deal. At a minimum, I'd like the moving target crap to end. The Mouse has to fall into the public domain at some point
I'll re-state what I've said before: extension of copyright periods, especially the retroactive ones, is a criminal act. The People have established a contract with the content creators -
1. offer: force-of-law in exchange for incentive toward creativity and acceptance of financial risk
2. acceptance: putting the (c) on your document
3. consideration: court-recognized limited monopoly
By extending the copyright period, Congress has effectively stolen works from the public. Many works should have reverted into the public trust by now. When the contract was established, the period of exclusivity was defined. "Extending" copyright shouldn't apply to works prior to the extension date. We, The People, have a contract.
If I have a contract with a plumber, and he decided to raise his rates, my original contract is still binding. He can charge more for new contracts, but he can't ammend my original contract by claiming a retroactive rate increase. That'd get laughed out of court.
Hence the "left unopened" statement the parent poster used.. It's hard to put a new document inside a sealed envelope (and if you did that would void the purpose).
Could someone please mod the parent down since it's simply incorrect, uninformed or deliberately wrong propagandistic bullshit.
The traditional contours of copyright have been warped in a much worse way than the opt-in/opt-out division. Until the 20th century, the only way to infringe copyright was by unauthorized publication of a copyrighted work. Making a private, personal copy of something only became an infringement under the 1909 copyright act revision. If we went back to the traditional contours, all the MPAA bullshit lawsuits would have to go away at once.
However, there is no way that Kahle could seriously litigate the above. He instead goes after opt-in/opt-out, but will get nowhere, because the same media conglomerates who stopped Eldred will stop this. They do not want a public domain to exist. They opposed the Eldred bill which tried to get abandoned works back for the public domain, by requiring a copyright renewal with a fee of one dollar after 56 years! Lessig explains:
The Kahle lawsuit is an interesting intellectual exercise, but we need to treat this as a war, not a parlor game. We need better tactics to raise real political awareness, rather than filing these silly lawsuits without having the awareness wide enough.Thanks Europe! The Slashdotters on this board love to bash the U.S. and Japan for introducing "Software patents", or the idea of using algorithms to accomplish useful activities. Now, the U.S. has adopted, per the Paris convention and European thought, the idea of the opt-out system where everything is copyrighted without express assertion of copyright.
What is even scarier is the idea of "author's rights". Hey, maybe the U.S. system isn't entirely wrong?
---
I'm not a hater of "Slashdot" ideas, but I am an IP (soon-to-be) attorney who wants people to understand where some of these ideas originate.
Crow
If it is never sealed when you initially mailed it (try it -- the post office will still send an envelope that isn't sealed) you can then LATER put in papers and seal it. It will then have the prior postmark date along with only having been sealed once and never "opened". It's simply not proof of date of creation. Think about it.
Does this mean we can sue timothy for posting countless dupe stories?
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
That's the problem, isn't it? Get any five randomly-selected people in a room and ask them this questions and see if everyone agrees:
Does the Constitution guarantee that I have the right to bear arms up to and including automatic weapons whether I'm in a militia or otherwise?
What's obvious to me isn't obvious to you, and vice versa.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Opt-out copyright has the very important benefit of providing coverage to all individual creators without requiring registration or meaningless copyright notices. Contrast this to the patent system, where only corporate entities can regularly handle the legal hassle and expense of registration. If we go back to an opt-in system, expect to see corporations claiming ownership of every scrap of paper they produce on the one hand while on the other ripping off any material they can find that isn't legally nailed down.
If you want fair use exemptions for archiving, fight for that. If you want shorter copyright terms, fight for that. Don't push for a change toward a system that pollutes the world with even more useless copyright filings and notices than we have already while punishing those who don't have a legal department to handle the issue.
I has been long since copyright was an issue only of one country, now most countries recognize copyrights of each other and promise to keep their copyright laws consistent. So in fact even if that change would be recognized unconsitutional, it would not change anything in practice because there're international treaties that have priority. At least until US will renounce all that treaties as well and opt-out from the world copyright system (all these DVDs for free - imagine! - how said american cinema s... well, I'll stop here).
Although I admit times and circumstances change the applications of the fundamentals *slightly*, our US (and EU) "IP" systems are so seriously broken now. If we do not get it together, somewhere out there, in So America, Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia or the oceans, is our future successor... Western Europe? still going in reverse but an interesting place to visit.
The difference between closed and open source is that for closed source, you ONLY get the copright on the binary (which is damn near useless).
How about, since the source code is the useful expressive part (especially when there are patents on processes created by software), you get short copyright on binaries and long copyright on source code.
GPL binaries are covered because you need to give out the source code with the binary, and that is covered still by copyright.
MS can keep Windows copyright only if they also stipulate that the source code must be given with the binaries (though they may allow read-only access).
In any case, with the financial lifetime of creative works being very much shorter in these days, there is a LOT to be said for the Berne convention to be shortened. 30 years TOPS for aristic works, 10 years TOPS for non-expressive (binary code, etc).
Why make the change? Can't think of any good points.
Well, maybe students can now sue if they are accused of plagerism.
It will up the price of education. State and Federal Government will be whacked with claims.
Plagiarism is a different matter entirely. It's ethical and academic. Copyright infringement is legal. It is possible to plagiarise without including anything but an idea, whereas that is perfectly legal for copyright purposes; if you properly cite your source, you are probably not plagiarising, but you could still be infringing on someone's copyright.
Look out!
Sounds like a banana.
You can quote the entire text of "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" in your book -- if you quote it one paragraph at a time and suceed each "original book" paragraph with three to five paragraphs of comments, criticism and explanations about said paragraph.
I have some case law stashed somewhere in here.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I helped develop and design it.
Unless your name is Joel Hodgson and you originally developed it for Channel 23 -- the Kitten -- in Minneapolis/St. Paul, you're a lying sack of shit. Joel delivered it as a finished product to cable television.
It was done by my 4 year old nephew and an etch a sketch!
if any of these lines appear in missiles, airoplanes, or cars, big bucks!
yeah I know patens and ocpyright are sep, but paptent portfolio sounded good!
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
I don't know enough about the old opt-in system to answer this, so I figured I'd post the question. How does having to register copyright affect works that are subject to constant revision, or collaborative works of the public? Granted, I can't imagine there was a lot of this going on pre-1950s, but it's certainly an issue today.
/. the other day.
Consider software code, since that's what I'm most familiar with. Would copyright be registered say with each formal release? How would the incremental changes between releases be protected? Would making a commit to a publicly available repository count as publication? Would going to a more closed development model (not exclusionary, but opt-in development groups, private repositories, only releasing registered builds to the public, etc) provide any protection?
This doesn't apply only to code either. I'm thinking about collaborative literary works, or that graphical quilt posted on
Something to chew on..
Opt-in/out-out? As long as I've known about copyright, some 20+ years, anything you express in a tangible media is copyrighted automatically. If you were to draw a doodle on a piece of paper, it is copyrighted. It is not a REGISTERED copyright though. While you can fight over an unregistered copyright, you must have documentation of when and how you created the work and the other person just needs to show they made theirs first. This makes a standard copyright nearly unenforceable. The registered copyright is a mechanism for the creator to document the time of the work's creation such that the copyright can be protected or nullified more reliably.
Personally I have a beef with the internet archive. They are copyright thieves in my opinion. They take someone else's works, store them and republish them in a new format without the creator's express permission.
The archive argues they do nothing more than libraries do, but libraries have special authority under law, and frequently operate with the copyright holder's permission. Further, a library will usually no display a work unless it is complete and unaltered, and the library makes no attempt to change the format of, or republish a work. The IA takes works (web pages) without the creator's knowledge, frequently strips content from them, displays them out of context, and does this in spite of any copyright notices on the pages, terms of use, and without any special powers granted by the government; ie: they are not exempt from copyright law.
I think what the IA does is questionable at best, most likely illegal, and quite possibly criminal. I hope they loose this case and are shut down.
If you think the IA is a good idea, then perhaps you also will like the idea of recording everything everyone says outside their own home, in public, and allowing the world free, in both senses, access to the catalog.
Who's doesn't like IA? Try searching for the major companies on the site, you'll see most have "opted out" of the archive. If push comes to shove, they'll probably back closing the archive down. Even whitehouse.gov seems to have opted out.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Since quoting is allowed by copyright law, what's to prevent me from (let's pretend I was an MS employee) "quoting" chunks of Microsoft source code on a blog, say? I mean, as long as I attribute it, and do not post the whole work, that *should* be legal, right?
(I'm sure I'm wrong, but I dunno on what legal basis)
As someone who, after writing this post, is planning on going in to work and write an appellate brief, I would never use a word such as "doodle" in my brief. More than anything, an appellate brief is what the judges will rely upon to make a decision about your case. You want to appear professional and intelligent; you don't want to use colloquies or cute phrases.
I assure you, the Government's brief will not have the word "doodle" in it.
Walt's dead, but the corporate machines has fought for and won everything you're complaining about there.
Frankly I like the "opt out" format. People should own whatever creative works they create. It should be up to those individuals whether or not they want their works to be public domain, or freely distributed. At least the protection is there if they need it.
Also consider that there is still the burden of proof if any litigation arises over certain works.
Just thinking out loud here...don't kill me.
What if the term of a copyright was the longer of (a) the life of the author, or last living author for a collective work; or (b) 70 years. With no protection lasting beyond 70 years under any circumstances, even if it was a corporate asset.
If you ask me, and you didn't, but I'm gonna tell you anyways, a company is still reliant on a patent or copyright after 70 years they need a new idea or two: they're little better than a squatter at that point. Let's give a kick in the rear to innovation.
Woo, the air is hot in here.
Whoever said you can copyright IDEAS? You are saying it, but you're wrong. Patents can protect ideas. And patents are opt-in only (you pay for the protection).
Copyright is exactly what it sounds like, the RIGHT to COPY. And it involves WORKS, not ideas.
I can paint a landscape. The work belongs to me automatically, and so it should! If you want to photograph it and sell t-shirts with my painting on it, YOU CAN'T, nor should you, unless you have my express permission. Me, the author of that painting. Me, the copyright-holder. I shouldn't have to run to the copyright office and pay $75 for a certificate just to prove the painting *I* PAINTED is mine.
If intellectual property is property, why not make it subject to property tax? Paid annually. Like I have to do with the property I own.
A small note from my notes.
"Not all ideas are equal.
I could have the idea that flapping my arms will get me to the moon. An idea certainly, but not a good idea.
Scarcity is a matter of perspective.
There are over a billion humans on planet earth. From that perspective, we're not scarce. However there's only one of me out there. making me scarce amongst humans.
Likewise in the domain of Intellectual Property, there are quite a few who have ideas, but much fewer (a natural scarcity) that can move an idea from it's domain to a useful form that can subsequently be disseminated and reproduced.
I think the founding fathers recognized that in it's "promotion of the science and arts" decree. There's no scarcity of ideas, but there is of people who can (and will) translate those ideas into a physical form that all can enjoy.
"
I'll save the rest for latter.
How can anyone benefit from something for 70 years after their death?
Here's how. I create a cartoon character, or a movie, or write a book. I want to get rich by selling all rights to Disney. I think I can secure a higher price from Disney if they knew the copyright would last them another, oh, 120 years or so.
"Opt-out" is appropriate for copyright: I have the right to control copies of my unique expressions, but I can give up those rights with an express statement to that effect. "Opt-in" means a central registry is required for the default state, a huge overhead on all copying transactions for clearance; more prone to errors of omission (rather than the less common error of incorrect inclusion). An opt-out registry would be smaller and more manageable for everyone.
The real problem is the length of copyright. The original term of 17 years should never have been extended. If anything, it should be much shorter, now that the time to generously compensate creators for their work is so much shorter in our vast, rapid mediasphere. Something like 5 years, with an option to renew only if no income has been received, to get another chance at compensation for an idea ahead of its time. FWIW, the Internet Archive (which I love) would be a great place to host the opt-out registry, along with MD5 hashes of their free media objects.
--
make install -not war
I think many people mistake the intent of the big media companies here. You are right that they do not want the public domain to exist. You are wrong to think that this suit is about whether or not the public domain will exist. This is largely about whether or not they will have to pay a piddling fee to keep it from existing, or whether it will be free for them. A fee would help for companies that disappear, but none of the major media corps. will fail to pay, if for no other reason than to stop their old works from competing with their new works.
Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works (where identity is not revealed) and Works Made for Hire: 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first ( 302(c))
Let's be realistic. Disney is going to buy another extension on Mickey Mouse in 2023 - copyright on works make by a corporation are de-facto infinite. 'Limited times' is hereby dead.
Only a revolution in the campaign financing system could change this and we're not headed in the right direction. Kudos on the effort McCain and Feingold.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Maybe the current US copyright law went too far, but opt-out copyright as a system ain't all bad.
It isn't all good either. There are thousands of works, probably millions or billions that are copyrighted because no one opted-out. The owners of these copyrights don't know they are owners, or there is no legal owner. All these works are lost, unpublishable, erased from the view of society. Some are fun old video games, some are poems, some are novels, and some are home movies. At least one is probably one of the greatest works of art ever made. And no one will ever see it.
Opt in is stealing our rightful heritage. We'd stand on the shoulders of these giants except most of them have been buried, and the rest have a toll bridge put up. It would be better to have no copyright at all then to have our current system in the U.S.
As Lessig points out, during the era when there was such a thing as copyright renewal (originally after 14 years, eventually after 28 years), only 10-15% of copyrights were ever renewed.
He was a creative amateur architect and a inventor of small gadgets. But he had no understanding or sympathu with the Industrial Revolution and a profound distaste for the Hamiltonian world of trade and commerce. Like many Virginian planters, Jefferson had an insatiable taste for luxury and was utterly incapable of keeping his own financial house in order.
Jefferson's thoughts on intellectual property rights can't be entirely divorced from the reality that he was a slaveholder wholly dependent for his livelihood on the forced labor of others who could own nothing , ever, and part of a society that distrusted innovation of any sort. The cotton gin is invented by a born-and-bred New Englander, not a southen planter.
only 10-15% of copyrights were ever renewed
...and there are a number of reasons why this would be higher today. First consolidation of the media companies has left a small number of major companies with a huge number of works. These companies would be unlikely to ever let the copyright on a work lapse. It makes no business sense for them to do so.
Second, automation is greatly improved. 70 years ago big companies could hire someone to renew all their copyrighted works. Today anyone with a PC can automate the task.
It is true that a large number of works would never be renewed, but as I have said three times now, this does not stop companies from hoarding important works of film, music, and literature that are a forgotten part of our heritage. I'm firmly of the opinion that if a work is copyrighted, it needs to be available for purchase at a reasonable rate. Exceptions can be made for trade secrets, but if MGM owns a film it put out in 1962 and wants it to be copyrighted, they should be required to sell me a copy on demand. Anything else is not acceptable.
I believe in the opt out system, because in the opt in system, everyone with any creative work had to register to get any sort of protection whatsoever. This means that big well-financed companies and rich people got to protect their work, and the poor starving artist on the New York sidewalk did not. That's not copyright, and that's not democracy; that's money propagating money and it's very reminiscent of Soviet-style oligarchy.
Now for the limit of copyright. Any copyright that extends past the lifetime of the author is null and void. Period. The constitution very specifically says that copyright is to give someone exclusive rights for a limited time. If the rights are extended past the creator's life, his rights were not limited, just those of his progeny. I don't care what any court or politician says about this, they're wrong if they think that post mortem protection is legal.
The whole point is to encourage individual progress that aids society. If there is too much protectionism, society gets the shaft. Remember that ideas cannot and do not develop in a vacuum. There's a reason the French (who are predominantly Roman Catholic and who have better familial and social support structures than Americans) are almost incapable of writing a good anguished-emotion rock song (with the exception perhaps of Noir Desir) and totally unable to comprehend the abandonment leitmotiv of Emo. All of our cultural baggage contributes to our artistic creations, and as such, they all eventually should belong to the culture. Waiting a century, by which time the culture will probably have undergone several major changes, at least in the States, before the works go into the public domain is not giving back to the culture from which the works came.