Slashdot Mirror
Lawrence Lessig Criticizes Proposed 140-Year Copyright Protections (techcrunch.com)
EqualCitizens.US reports on growing opposition to the CLASSICS Act proposed by the U.S. Congress, which grants blanket copyright protection to all audio works created before 1972, leaving some of them copyrighted until 2067.
Importantly, the Act doesn't require artists or the rights holder to register for the copyright. Rather, any and all pre-1972 sound recordings would be copyrighted, greatly limiting the public's access to these works. Various organizations and scholars have responded. Equal Citizens along with a coalition of internet freedom and democracy reform organizations, is sending this letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee to urge its members to reject this Act in its entirety, or at a minimum, at least require registration of pre-1972 works. Otherwise, if the Act passes as is, famous artists and wealthy corporations will benefit greatly while the public will get absolutely nothing in return, as Professor Lawrence Lessig notes in Wired....
This act will limit access to past works and stifle creativity for new works. It would effectively remove many existing works, including some popular documentaries, podcasts, etc., from the public arena. The Coalition recommends adding a registration requirement to secure the extended copyright term, such that works that nobody claimed could be allowed to enter the public domain. As this TechCrunch report on the coalition letter explains:
By having artists and rights owners register, it solves the problem for everyone. Anyone who wants to have their pre-1972 works brought into the new scheme can easily achieve that, but orphan works will enter the public domain as they ought to.
"Either way," Lessig writes, "it is finally clear that the Supreme Court's prediction that the copyright owners would be satisfied with the copyright protection provided by the Sonny Bono Act turns out not to be true."
This act will limit access to past works and stifle creativity for new works. It would effectively remove many existing works, including some popular documentaries, podcasts, etc., from the public arena. The Coalition recommends adding a registration requirement to secure the extended copyright term, such that works that nobody claimed could be allowed to enter the public domain. As this TechCrunch report on the coalition letter explains:
By having artists and rights owners register, it solves the problem for everyone. Anyone who wants to have their pre-1972 works brought into the new scheme can easily achieve that, but orphan works will enter the public domain as they ought to.
"Either way," Lessig writes, "it is finally clear that the Supreme Court's prediction that the copyright owners would be satisfied with the copyright protection provided by the Sonny Bono Act turns out not to be true."
ROTFL.
Did you fail to notice who the Dems ran last time? Really? Was that all just a bad dream to you? You didnt notice their huge corporate support?
Oh Dear.
It works if the owner of the copyrighted material lives 140 years. For everybody else it doesn't "work" at all.
Your logic is odd, to say the least. Nearly everybody that this 140 year protection would benefit are Democrats or Progressives. If anything, electing more Democrats might result in copyright protection for an even longer time.
How many Democrat front-runners are running on copyright reform?
Were Democrats standing up against SOPA and PIPA? Or the TPP?
I'm not suggesting Republicans are doing any better unless by accident, but this is not divided like you say it is. Heck, there was this: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/16481921080/house-republicans-copyright-law-destroys-markets-its-time-real-reform.shtml
Lawrence Lessig, like the rest of us, is merely a citizen and therefore has the same amount of influence as you or me.
Which is to say, none whatsoever.
Your trite little comment seems to have opened up the can of worms. I disagree. Even if I saw a mod point to give, no mod point for you [GlennC].
Let me start with the logical fallacy. The Koch brothers are citizens, too, just like "you or me" and Lawrence Lessig, too, but they have LOTS of influence. The difference is the money, at least until they die with the most toys, at which point the TRULY influential entities, the giant corporate cancers they ostensibly "own", will have to get new human placeholders. The underlying FAKE problem of insufficient profits will never be solved because there is always a bigger number for the next profit report.
The abuse of copyright and patent law are merely symptoms of the underlying problems. The original goal was to ENCOURAGE creativity and innovation for society, but the current goal is to MAXIMIZE profits for YUGE corporate cancers. Actually, the corporate cancers at the top always fear new ideas and innovation. Change from the top tends to be downward, which threatens the growth of profit.
Solution approaches to the problems of corporate cancerism exist, but for now ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
When everything is copyrighted until Oblivion, you might as well just violate the law and copy the shit out of it. Fuck em. If they shut you down, you move and start up again.
Hollywood does not run this country. Fight back or become their slave.
1-The lifetime of the author should not be in the law. It should be a fixed (non extendible) term. 2-Government spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year protecting copyright, I think the copyright holders should pay that. Levy propery taxes on Intellectual Property, just like we charge taxes on houses to pay for schools and other improvements that increase the value of houses.
Copyright is supposed to be for a LIMITED time. As understood by the Framers of the Constitution, over 100 years is not limited.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Fuck copyright, restrict it to 14 years from authorship, no extensions. It needs to be reset, people have been brain-washed in to thinking all copying is bad (except when they're doing it of course).
(C)opyright MrL0G1C 2018 until at least 2158 ~
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
No, the deal made between Disney and the People are the terms as established in 1928 or whatever.
The Government and Disney can't keep renegotiating the deal while the People are a party to it.
If they don't want the monopoly grant terms they don't have to participate.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit."
- The Judge, "Life-Line"
Robert A. Heinlein, 1939 Astounding Magazine
And this is one of the best reasons for the 96% of the worlds population who do NOT live in the USA NOT to have a trade agreement with the USA.
140 years is roughly 6 generations.
If a work was copyrighted the day you were born, you would die halfway through the copyright period, having never been able to use that IP.
You children would die, having never been able to use that IP.
Your the majority of your grandchildren would die, having never been able to use that IP.
Your great grandchildren - born 80-90 years after the copyright was granted - would be able to the use IP during the end of their working lives.
Only your great-great grandchildren would be able to use the IP during the prime of their working careers.
Considering that three entire generations would be born, live, and die before it expires - to them, what's the difference between a copyright 140 years and forever?
Incidentally, by the same tables, the author will be dead for roughly a century before the copyright expires.
The author's children will be dead.
The author's grandchildren will mostly be dead.
There is no justification for making these extensions retroactive. The purpose of copyright is to promote the creation of new works. You cannot encourage the creation of something which has already been created. So there is absolutely zero benefit to extending the copyright term of existing works. Since the only rationale given in the Constitution for copyright is the promotion of the creation of new works, extending the copyright term for existing works is unconstitutional.
If Congress wants to make copyright last 140 years, fine. But the lengthened term should only apply to works created after the term is changed. Those are the only works whose creation could have been encouraged by a lengthened copyright term, and thus fall under the justification outlined in the Constitution.
Why, why should relatives benefit from work they didn't do. Inheritance is another thing I don't like and I'm saying this as someone who stands to inherit a lot in property.
So lets call it 20 years from publication and if it's not published then tough. And what the hell is corporate authorship, and what's this 45 years crap, no, lets call that 20 years too. 14 years was good enough when copyright started, 20 years is plenty, 45 years is getting obscenely long already.
Copyright laws were created to encourage people to create when copying would lead to them getting next to nothing for their works. Long copyright laws do not encourage people to create, they encourage massive long lasting IPs, not constant new material.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.