Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Extending Copyrights

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the future-of-copyrights dept.

AMK writes "An Open Source Books campaign has been started, which aims to fight the recent extension of US copyrights to 95 years after the author's death, instead of 75. This doesn't benefit the authors, who are dead, after all, but does damage efforts like Project Gutenberg. See this Wired story for more information, and add the "Open Source Books" icon to your Web page. "

5 of 30 comments (clear)

  1. Great News by Aaron+M.+Renn · · Score: 2

    This is great news. The copyright extension act (passed at the behest of Disney and the Gershwin heirs, who cynically manipulated the death of Sonny Bono to their own ends) was a bad law. What's more, I think it is an unconstitutional laws. Whatever you think of copyright, the law in the US is clear. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution provides Congress the power to grant copyright solely for the public benefit. It is part of what has been called the "copyright bargain". The public gives up for limited times the freedom to copy the work, in return for the production of new works as a result of the exclusive copying incentive. Retro-actively extending existing copyrights by definition cannot encourage the production of new works, which is a major justification for copyright law. (The companies will surely argue in friend of the court briefs that giving them additional copyright time will cause them to keep old works in distribution, which is a public benefit. We'll have to see how this plays out).

    Companies like Disney don't need gov't subsidies. The Gershwin heirs should go get jobs. Authors already had life+50 years protection before the new law. How much more can you want?

    I hope the Supreme Court slaps this one hard.

  2. Why do patents expire after 20 years? by root · · Score: 2

    So that innovation can be freely shared and built upon to improve technology in general after it's inventor has cashed in on his own genius.

    Should this not be how it works for copyright law too?

    Also, software ages at an incredible rate and its copyright should expire after no more than 20 years. Who benefits today from Atari 2600 Combat beinf officially locked for all practical eternity by current copyright law?

  3. Wired Story is Wrong by butlerm · · Score: 2

    According the to actual text of the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov, these new extensions only apply to works created on or after Janurary 1, 1978, with an exception for phonorecordings. All published works created before 1978 still expire a maxiumum of 75 years after the work's *creation*. That means the recent bill will not have any effect on Project Gutenberg until 2053.

  4. Copyright laws fail the common sense test by Olorin · · Score: 2

    I respectfully disagree with your statement about books not having a source. By the popular definition of source, or source code, you are correct.
    Like software, the source or inspiration of a book lay within the mind of the author. I've stopped referring to software as a "program" anymore for just this reason - the program is abstract, in the mind of the creator. The implementation is what we find as C, C++, etc. code.
    Copyright laws make no sense from a philosophical perspective, which leads me to believe that the free software movement is philosophically grounded rather than based on a rebellion against corporate America or hate for authority in general. Think of it this way: As I write this comment, the "sources" for it are my thoughts. My thoughts are free, and it's perfectly acceptable that someone else may have a similar inspiration and write a similar comment.
    Copyright laws, as currently enforced, attempt to protect the inspiration for something, whether a book or software. To me, this is nonsensical. What they _should_ protect is simply the implementation of ideas, not the inspiration behind the implementation (which could strike another person as well).
    If I design a software implementation of an algorithm to digital encode audio from my own thoughts, without pirating someone else's implementation, why should I have to fear a lawsuit from a foreign company who also designed a means to encode audio? The copyright laws are tipsy-turvey, and ultimately only serve to protect the jobs of corporate lawyers and line the pockets of pointy-hair types.

  5. Lifespan of copyright holder of no importance by Shabby · · Score: 2

    AMK wrote that extending copyright protection past the holder's lifespan is useless because the holder receives no benefit from his work after death.

    I disagree. The economic value of a copyright is a function of its longevity. Let's say, for example, that I write the Great American Novel. I decide that I want to sell/license the copyright forever and use the money to buy a jet. Any potential buyer will base his offer for my work on the basis of how much profit he can make from selling it. Since my novel will be read in English classes for generations, the length of the copyright is significant in this computation (I know, the present value of those payments will be low, but still significant). Thus, there is value for the holder in extending the current copyright length.

    I am NOT arguing that the concept of intellectal property is valid/ethical/moral. I only state that an extension of the copyright length is rational.

    Shabby