Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Cutback Proposed As RIAA Solution
An anonymous reader writes "InfoWeek blogger Alex Wolfe proposes a novel solution to the ongoing spate of RIAA lawsuits over alleged music copying. He suggests legislation which cuts back corporate copyrights from 120 years to 5 years. 'We should do what we do to children who misbehave,' he writes. 'Take away their privileges.' Wolfe says this is regardless of the misunderstanding surrounding the latest case, which apparently isn't about ripping CDs to one's own computer. As to those who say copyrights are a right: "That's simply a misunderstanding of their purpose. Copyrights, like patents, weren't implemented to protect their owners in perpetuity. They are part of a dance which attempts to balance off societal benefits against incentives for writers and inventors. You want to incentivize people to push the state of the creative and technical arts, but you don't want give those folks such overbearing protections that future advances by other innovators are stifled." What do you think; is it time to cut off the record industry?"
Traditionally, copyright was for the life of the author + some reasonably large number. The optimal lifetime has been studied under economic maximization theory. The result was ~ 14 years, which is rather closer to the 20 year patent life time than the proposed 5 years. The link is: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070712-research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years.html
I just read the wikipedia article on the Takings clause of the Constitution and don't see how it applies, since it seems to be limitted to real property?
However, I note that somehow it doesn't seem to be illegal to extend copyrights every time some special interest, like Disney wants them extended. How is it that copyright owners get to have their cake and eat it too?
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
The 120 years only applies to corporate works created more than 25 years prior to first publication.
An example might be a movie that was made but not published until a generation later.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
However, the USSC has held that the takings clause applies to anything of value, such as water rights, income streams, etc. Copyright is, IIRC, one specific example explicitly addressed.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Traditionally, copyright was for the life of the author + some reasonably large number.
The only tradition associated with copyright terms is the practice of extending them beyond the previous limit. Copyright started out at 14 years[1] with an optional 7 year extension. Actually, I guess there is also a second tradition, that of abusing the monopoly granted to copyright holders regardless of the term.
yp.
[1]http://download.nowis.com/index.cfm?phile=FreeCulture.html&tipe=text/html#2_2_1
Sure could. But they've got to be awfully nice to those animators or they'll walk and take their copyright with them.
Photojournalists won themselves a similar deal through labor action. They own all their photos. News agencies are not allowed to purchase the copyright, only license the use of the photo. The photojournalist benefits because he controls his photo and there's competition. We benefit because he can sell to many organizations. That's how those top 100 pictures of the year/decade/century books get published?
Rather than legislating it, artists could form a proper union or professional society I guess.
"So what? Answer me this: In America, who has sovereignty? We the actual citizens, or foreigners?"
Neither, large multi-national corporations do. And they like the 120 year stance, so let's all get used to it... there are too many "critical thought impaired" citizens with voting cards in the country. Sorry.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
Lessing argued EXACTLY that before the Supreme Court. That unrestricted additions to copyright length for free, constituted "takings" from the pubic interest. The Supreme Court ruled the public had no case as the Constitution granted the term limits to Congress to do with as they pleased.
So taking back copyright is perfectly legal, and the argument has ALREADY been argued in court!!! We just have to get Congress to vote to change it!!
Disney wouldn't lose ownership of Mickey Mouse. Mickey's distinctive likeness is under trademark, completely different area of law. What they'd lose is copyright on a single very old cartoon "Steamboat Willy" which was the first appearance of a rat that'd eventually morph into Mickey years later. And Disney knows this. Their use of the "We'd lost ownership of Mickey." argument is a smokescreen. What they really want is simple: a one-way door. They want to be able to use older works (Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Treasure Island, etc.) as the basis for their works without any strings attached, but they don't want anybody using their works the same way without paying them handsomely for the privilege. That, after all, maximizes profits (for them, at least).
So what? Answer me this: In America, who has sovereignty? We the actual citizens, or foreigners?
Who the hell do you think wrote those agreements in the first place!?The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an international agreement administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that sets down minimum standards for many forms of intellectual property (IP) regulation. It was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994. Its inclusion was the culmination of a program of intense lobbying by the United States.
The United States strategy of linking trade policy to intellectual property standards can be traced back to the entrepreneurship of senior management at Pfizer in the early 1980s, who mobilized corporations in the United States and made maximizing intellectual property privileges the number one priority of trade policy in the United States (Braithwaite and Drahos, 2000, Chapter 7).
You can't take the sky from me...
Realistically I don't care too much for the current situation. Copyright should be the original 7+7 (14 years total w/ renewal). The concept of "works for hire" should go by the wayside. Example: Disney can continue to own Mickey Mouse, but only if they create new Mickey Mouse cartoons. Steamboat Willie, or anything else not made in the last 14 years would go into public domain. However, Disney could prevent anyone else from creating new Mickey cartoons merely by creating new one's themselves. Their ownership of Mickey would therein rest on them creating new material to continue the copyright. Simple, effective, and fair.
We've come down too far on the protection side. As someone whom has copyrighted material myself, I don't want to fall too far down the other. Nobody should be arguing that copyright should exist for perpetuity (or 75 years after the death of the originator). That was not the intent of copyright. Copyright was intended to allow the author limited-time ownership to make a profit, so they could create new works. Don't create new works? Don't get anymore income.
This sucks for low volume people, like me, but deal with it.
Thomas Jefferson was right.
An individual who is trying to market it without the help of a corporation will likely need to rely heavily on word-of-mouth advertising, which will be slower than a nationwide advertising campaign.
Maybe word of mouth used to be slower, but it doesn't take that long for a new hot clip to rise to the top of the YouTube charts. Try a few weeks. "The Blair Witch Project" is one of the few independent hits it recent history and it didn't take them more than five years from idea to millionaire. Any "artist" who is still trying to hawk 5 year old goods isn't gonna make it anyhow. Yes they might have to try for more than five years to get their break, but if they aren't producing new and better works regularly then their art will never become a livelihood.
We are all just people.
If you can't make a profit within a short time, it is referred to as a hobby, not a business
Actually, U.S. tax law does not say that. It says that to take business deductions, you have to be trying to make a profit; and it says that if you make a profit in a short time, that is considered conclusive proof that you are trying to make a profit. If you don't turn a profit, the IRS has the right to question whether you're truly "in business", but failing to make a profit is not conclusive proof that what you're doing is a hobby.
Now, it is true that you don't want to have your tax status depend on the vauge, arguably subjective criteria that the IRS will apply to decide if you're "trying" to make a profit, so (at least from the standpoint of the small business owner) your best bet is to make a profit often enough that the IRS can't raise the question, but the law does allow that you could be a business and yet never turn a profit.
Actually, I suspect you're wrong on that.
In the UK, we had the Gowers Review, a government review of the general framework for copyright and other types of IP, conducted a couple of years ago. Needless to say, Big Media were lobbying aggressively for, amongst other things, increases in copyright terms (and retroactively, too). Their efforts were supported by the likes of Sir Cliff Richard. And yet, if you read the submissions from members of the public (which you can do from the Review's web site if you like; just look it up on a search engine) the overwhelming majority of those stating a view on that question opposed the extension of the copyright term.
The Review came down pretty clearly on the side of the public on that one, or at least, on the side of the public who could be bothered to comment.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I could have sworn that in Ashcroft vs Eldred, the Supremes said that though the Constitution said, "temporary," Congress had such sweeping control that they could in essence define it as "eternity minus 1 day."
Again, the Constitution says 'for limited times,' not 'temporary.' As for how long the term can last, that wasn't the question being discussed in Eldred. The question had been whether or not retroactive extensions (of any length) were constitutional. Indeed, this is made very clear as soon as the second paragraph of the opinion.
But they DID say that Congress could yank works out of the Public Domain and put them back under copyright.
That also wasn't discussed. What you should be looking for, if you're interested in that, are cases related to 17 USC 104A, which does indeed take public domain works and makes them copyrighted. See e.g. Luck's Music Library v. Ashcroft; Alameda Films v. AARC.
Predictably, this is yet another thing that we're being forced to do because we've entered into treaties that mandate this. So once again, let me say Berna delenda est.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.