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."
Copyright protection that lasts until 2112 for works that are ALREADY 45 years old "solves the problem for everyone"?
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.
No. Robin Thicke didn't lose because his song "felt" like Got To Give It Up. He lost because his song WAS Got To Give It Up. He copied the Marvin Gaye song.
Now, we should discuss whether the copyright on Got To Give It Up should have expired a decade ago. I would say that yes, it should have expired. But as long as the copyright was in effect, what Robin Thicke did was a straight-up violation.
You are welcome on my lawn.
he answer is simple.
STOP consuming copyrighted works. STOP going to movies, STOP steaming music, STOP going to concerts, STOP the support of these 'artists'.
That is, I am afraid, the only solution at this point.
The social contract of copyright has been violated so completely that it should now be seen as void, however as the force of state will still uphold it,
the only other choice is to avoid it altogether. Violate as you want and at your own risk, but stop giving money to these companies.
Society does not need THESE 'arts', they are not contributing.
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)
they're not Progressives. Being a Progressive doesn't just mean you're tolerant of gays and abortion. Those are social issues. The folks you're referring to are Hollywood, and to a man they're economically right wing.
The Democratic party is being run by economically right wing and socially moderate (the Hillary wing didn't support Gay Marriage until forced to by the base) conservatives. Being Progressive means being _economically_ progressive too. That means these things:
1. Medicare for all.
2. Living Wage.
3. College for all.
4. New New Deal (google it).
5. End the Wars.
Disney, the most Hollywood of Hollywood definitely opposes #1-#4 and I'm guessing if forced to answer would oppose #5 (their board of directors owns stock in the defense industry along with everybody else at the top).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"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
Suppose some of my buddies and I pooled our money together and bought the U.S. Congress for one billion dollars. We then pay congress to enact a law which transfers a 100 billion dollars from the U.S. Treasury to us. We would earn 100 times what we invested, which is an excellent return, so this would be a fantastic business plan.
Would it work? Probably not. It is too overt and brazen, just intolerably offensive. Judges would find some law which disallowed it or, if none actually existed, would detect some applicable penumbras and emanations. Also, the public would be outraged, and nothing terrifies incumbent politicians more than the prospect of not being re-elected. Futhermore, the fact that this is not known to have ever actually occurred suggests that it is not feasible.
But suppose we tweak the plan just slightly. Under the previous plan, Congress would confiscate currency from the public and transfer it to me. Under the new plan, Congress instead confiscates property from the public, in the form of extended intellectual property rights, and transfers it to me.
Would that work? Certainly. Why? Because people are idiots; They are easily befuddled by a direct transfer of wealth from the public to a small group who has paid to influence Congress, if the form of the wealth transferred is any more abstract than cash.
Generally, with any scheme where corporations make monetary contributions to politicians in exchange for those politicians using the coercive powers of government to transfer wealth from the public to the corporations, the form of that wealth must be abstract and represent a sacred political cause. For example, allegedly to protect the environment, Congress enacted law governing ethanol mandates and agriculture price supports instead directly handing taxpayer cash over to agribusiness. Targeted tax breaks are the stand-by when executives and lobbyists are too uncreative to finesse a compelling custom rationale.
Politicians of both major political parties are in the same business, accepting money from special interests in exchange for giving them larger sums of taxpayer money. The only difference between the parties are their justifications. Whereas right-wing taxpayers like to hear things like "We gave these millionaires and billionaires your money to help the economy", left-wing taxpayer prefer rationales such as, "We gave these millionaires and billionaires your money to save the environment."
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
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.