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."
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 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.
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
Since when can the dead benefit from finacial gain? Heck, since when should someone have exlusive rights to work they release to the _public_ for their entire life? We live in sad, sad times. I would love to see copyright and patents drop down to 10 years or so. While I don't agree with software patents, I would have a _lot_ less to complain about if software patents dropped to 5 years or so.
Sadly, we will never see these days since our _whole_ government (both republican and democrat) are pretty much paid for by big business or special interest goups.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
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!
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!
Clearly copyright need to expire at sometime, having them extend to infinity is simply unrealistic. The Grandparent post merely feels that the current copyright term is too long and frankly I agree.
Clearly from your post you are one of those that thinks that copyright really is a right. You are wrong in this. It is not a natural right and it is not the same as owning real property. It is like owning air, a thought, or energy. It is not even possible. It is possible for the government to force society to restrict the ability to distribute works, and that is what happens. The goal of this is to give incentives to inventors/creators/writers so that these creations will lead to the progress of all of society. If there is too much protectionism, it can stifle creation. If there is too little protectionism then a market is created in which nobody wants to invest in works of creation. The key is to find the terms of protection which lead to the most progress for each type of intellectual property. I agree with the grandparent in that the current copyright term is far too long. However, I agree with you that 10 years is probably too short for copyrights on photographs.
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'm suprised more people have not pointed this out.
However the solution is to have a fairly short default copyright that you have to opt-out of. Not just for GPL but to get rid of the legal loophole that *anything* somebody writes is apparenty free for the taking until they manage to get the paperwork done. In a practical sense a short default copyright would stop a lot of unnecessary paperwork because the contributors could think about whether it is worth copyrighting or not, rather than being forced to submit it as fast as possible.
I'm not sure but a length of perhaps 5 years or so would be good. Even a five-year old copy of Linux is not much use so it may not matter for GPL code if nobody filed for the copyright. After that you have to opt-in, and you have to renew the opt-in every 10 years or so after that.
It may also help that the threat that your stuff will go into the public domain if you don't change it and you don't do the paperwork will get some of the authors to work a little more on their stuff and keep it up to date.
Actually, I am a fairly creative person, and yes, I want to leech off the works of others. Trying to create something great without relying on the works of others makes absolutely no sense at all. There is nothing wrong with leeching off of anothers work whether that means paying for use of it or if it has passed into public domain. And yes, protectionism can stifle innovation. Lack of protection can discourage the appeal of investing in innovation because it may lower the returns you get on that investment. Too much protectionism can also discourage investment because it can create a barrier to entry in the market. If competitors are holding defensive patents whether applicable or not, you now have to budget for things like legal expenses and you may also have to purchase rights to use certain technologies.
If complete protection is what is best for society than we should just extend all intellectual property to last forever. Luckily, even the talking heads in Washington realize that complete protectionism would be bad and limit the terms of protection. I merely advocate adjusting those terms of protection to ones that I feel would benefit society as a whole. Those who want to make protectionism vertially limitless are the extremists.