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."

Comments

Re:Different question

[k98sven]

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.

Well, changing the system isn't the issue here (although it's undoubtedly the goal). The issue here is whether the change from opt-in to opt-out was constitutional.

Looking at the constitution, you'd hardly think it's an issue:

The Congress shall have Power [...] 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

But there's of course more to the constitution than just the text itself. It's how the Supreme Court interprets that text which is important.

In Eldred vs. Ashcroft, which is very much the predecessor to this case (Larry Lessig being involved with both), the Supreme Court basically said that the Sonny Bono copyright extension act was OK, since it didn't alter "the traditional contours of copyright protection".

So, what they're arguing here is basically a follow-up on that: "Well, what about the opt-in system? Didn't that change the contours of traditional copyright?"

I'd say it's a long shot. But I'm thankful for them trying.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[PyroMosh]

It could be lowered back down again to life of the author + 50 years, but would be inpractical to lower it further.

The reason for this is the Berne Convention, which states that all signed parties had to provide at least a minimum of lifetime + 50. Any nation can provide more but not less.

The U.S. would not only have to pass legislation to change it. But they would have to back out of the Berne convention. Backing out of the Berne convention would (I think) have the side effect of getting the plantifs what they want, and returning the U.S. to an opt-in copyright system.

IANAL, so I very well may be wrong about that, but even if I am, it would at least remove one major hurdle to getting the U.S. back to an opt-in system.