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."
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.
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.
Individuals: Life of the author + 70 years ( 302(a))
Joint Works: Life of the last surviving author + 70 years ( 302(b))
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))
Anonymous or Pseudonymous Works (where identity is revealed by filing): Life of the author + 70 years or life of the last surviving author +70 years ( 302(c))
Taken from here.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Taken from a 1999 page, good idea.
Laura's always been the go to gal on this one...
WHEN U.S. WORKS PASS INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
anon cause i think i've whored this link b4..
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
Judges shouldn't legislate from the bench.
They don't. They make judgements based on their interpretation of the law. That's what they're hired for. The phrase "legislate from the bench" is just NewSpeak thrown about to gather support from various groups when they don't agree with a ruling.
Close, but no cigar. Art. 1, section 8: "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."
That clause gives Congress the power to legislate patents and copyrights, but it is limited by the phrases "to promote the progess of science and useful arts" and "for limited times." Therefore a copyright act that does more than that is unconstitutional, and congress does not have power to act unconstitutionally.
As I understand it, their argument on appeal are that the continuous extensions of the period of copyright protection violate the limited times clause, and - separately - that the current system impinges on First Amendment free speech.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
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
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:
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.
A 1999 page is completely accurate when it comes to copyright *duration*, as terms have not been altered since 1998.
In fact, mine has significantly more (correct, for the record) detail regarding anonymously created works. In addition, Lolly is incorrect - works published between 1951 and 1977 all receive the 28+67 extension, not 64-77 as she claims.
It's all in here. Which, if you had read it recently, you would know has not been amended since the Bono Act in 1998.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
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.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
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.
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.