Slashdot Mirror
Congress Is Looking To Extend Copyright Protection Term To 144 Years (wired.com)
"Because it apparently isn't bad enough already, Congress is looking to extend the copyright term to 144 years," writes Slashdot reader llamalad. "Please write to your representatives and consider donating to the EFF." American attorney Lawrence Lessig writes via Wired: Almost exactly 20 years ago, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended the term of existing copyrights by 20 years. The Act was the 11th extension in the prior 40 years, timed perfectly to assure that certain famous works, including Mickey Mouse, would not pass into the public domain. Immediately after the law came into force, a digital publisher of public domain works, Eric Eldred, filed a lawsuit challenging the act [which the Supreme Court later rejected].
Twenty years later, the fight for term extension has begun anew. Buried in an otherwise harmless act, passed by the House and now being considered in the Senate, this new bill purports to create a new digital performance right -- basically the right to control copies of recordings on any digital platform (ever hear of the internet?) -- for musical recordings made before 1972. These recordings would now have a new right, protected until 2067, which, for some, means a total term of protection of 144 years. The beneficiaries of this monopoly need do nothing to get the benefit of this gift. They don't have to make the work available. Nor do they have to register their claims in advance.
Twenty years later, the fight for term extension has begun anew. Buried in an otherwise harmless act, passed by the House and now being considered in the Senate, this new bill purports to create a new digital performance right -- basically the right to control copies of recordings on any digital platform (ever hear of the internet?) -- for musical recordings made before 1972. These recordings would now have a new right, protected until 2067, which, for some, means a total term of protection of 144 years. The beneficiaries of this monopoly need do nothing to get the benefit of this gift. They don't have to make the work available. Nor do they have to register their claims in advance.
In other words, "Public Domain" doesn't exist anymore.
I was wondering when this was going to happen. They've got a Republican in the Whitehouse who'll sign anything so now's a good time. Not that I think Obama wouldn't have signed this crap, but it still pisses me off. The only politician who _might_ have told them to take a leap is Bernie, and even he might not have bothered. Christ, what a country, what a world.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I will be voting against any of my representatives who support this no matter what. I'm tired of the corruption.
Delaware. Land of the corporations. What a fucking surprise.
And notice he's Democratic. Supposedly the good guys, according to some. Proof that it's all about the money.
The solution is Property Tax. They want their Intellectual Property to be treated just like real estate, I suggest we oblige them. And the property tax should be payable in every country where the copyright is protected, with the revenue used to pay for copyright enforcement.
No retroactive extensions. Copyright for already-existing works stays at whatever the copyright term was when the work was created. Any extension only applies to works newly created after the extension is put into effect.
The purpose of copyright is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." You can only promote something which has yet to be created; you cannot promote something which has already been created. So retroactively extending copyright terms serves no Constitutional purpose.
This eliminates extending copyright duration for personal gain, and limits arguments about whether or not to extend it within the scope of encouraging new works, not profiteering off of existing works.
And I feel not one even the tiniest trace of guilt for that.
As much as we may love the products of the entertainment industry, most of that industry is seriously lacking a sense of social responsibility.
Even then, it defeats the purpose of copyright. It was designed to allow creators the exclusive right to benefit from their work, but it was for a limited time specifically to encourage them to create more instead of resting on their laurels, with society being the ultimate beneficiary once the copyright term expired. Lifelong (or longer) copyright doesn't offer that encouragement if they can rent-seek for the rest of their lives. I've yet to see a cogent, convincing argument as to why the 14+14 term was not sufficient, and why extended terms shouldn't be considered theft (the kind where something is taken and can't be used by the other party) from society. Also, why are artists, writers, etc. entitled to this ridiculous term, when inventors are getting by just fine on a 20-year patent term?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Uh they need revenue to protect all that new property on the copyright holder's behalf. Unless you want to get government out of it entirely and let them privately enforce their copyright and use none of the real property rights systems like police, courts, justice system etc.
If you don't want to pay government to protect your copyrights, then give them up and you won't be paying ebil gubmints a penny.