"To promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries."
The plaintiffs are corporations, associations, and individuals
who rely for their vocations or avocations upon works in the
public domain: a non-profit association that distributes over the
internet free electronic versions of books in the public domain;
a company that reprints rare, out-of-print books that have entered
the public domain; a vendor of sheet music and a choir director,
who respectively sell and purchase music that is relatively
inexpensive because it is in the public domain; and a company
that preserves and restores old films and insofar as such works
are not in the public domain, needs permission from their copyright
holders -- who are often hard to find -- in order to exploit them.
The CTEA is but the latest in a series of congressional
extensions of the copyright term, each of which has been
made applicable both prospectively and retrospectively. In 1790
copytight term was established at 42 years. In 1909 it was extended
to 56. Between 1962 and 1974 the Congress passed a series of
laws that incrementally extended subsisting copyrights. In 1976 the
term was drastically increased to the life of the author plus 50
years. The CTEA amends this scheme by adding 20 years to the term
of every copyright.
The preamble "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" does
seem to establish a guideline for how to limit copyright. But the
Schnapper ruling of 1981 rejected the argument "that the introductory
language of the Copyright Clause constitutes a limit on congressional
power." The plaintiffs did not dispute Schnapper. Therefore the court
can't consider the argument that the preamble limits Congress's powers.
Even if the court could, it would still rule the same way. The CTEA
is in line with the European Union, and that's "a powerful indication" that the CTEA is
necessary and proper, since we love ABBA. So what if the EU is not bound by the Copyright Clause of our Constitution? The court believes that extending copyrights actually preserves works because it gives copyright owners a motivation to preserve them, and thus "promotes Progress."
In sum, we hold that the CTEA is a proper exercise of the
Congress's power under the Copyright Clause. The plaintiffs' first amendment objection fails because they have no
recognizable first amendment interest in the copyrighted works
of others. Their objection that extending the term of a
subsisting copyright violates the requirement of originality
is stupid because something doesn't lose originality by being
out of copyright. Duh.
Whatever wisdom or folly the plaintiffs may see in the
particular "limited Times" for which the Congress has set the
duration of copyrights, that decision is subject to judicial
review only for rationality. This court is deferential to the
judgment of the Congress, and the courts shouldn't stick their
noses into it. This is no less true when the Congress modifies
the term of an existing copyright than when it sets the term
initially, and the plaintiffs -- as opposed to one of the amici
-- do not dispute that the CTEA satisfies the preamble.
Maybe if the plaintiffs actually argued this point --
which we think Schnapper indicates they'd lose -- before a full
court, they'd have a case. Till then, fuck off.
Dissent by Judge Sentelle
I just want to say that I probably would have ruled against the plaintiffs
too, but my fellow judges are nitwits, so I'm not going to agree with their
reasoning.
Even though the plaintiffs didn't dispute Schnapper, an amicus brief did.
When the other judges say they can't consider that argument, they're being
asses. In fact, it's what amici are for. (As long as it's not introducing
new issues, and merely arguing the same issues in a new way, it's fine.)
Also, I'm a strict constructionist (wassup, Dubya), and I don't think Congress can just
go around passing laws as it damn well pleases. And these copyright extensions
are effectively extending copyright indefinitely. The government has offered
no tenable theory as to how retrospective extension can promote the useful arts.
I don't even think Schnapper is applicable in this case, because
Schnapper dealt with limited questions related to the application of the copyright laws to works commissioned by the U.S. government. And what the
fuck does the European Union have to do with our copyright law? Goddammit.
This is very cool, but I wonder how long it will take for society to consider this an irresponsible act of space dumping, like dropping a jumbo jet into the Grand Canyon.
Or will NEAR be loved and cherished, like an ancient Bolo tank (cf. Keith Laumer)?
I wonder how safe the ISS will be from space junk. I know it's something NASA cares a lot about. I find it very humorous that the Cold War resources for tracking nuclear weapons now do a lot of space junk tracking.
They really should do this. It's a pity this hasn't been modded up enough. In reading the debate on the Constitution, we came very close to not having the Bill of Rights. Fortunately, we did. I guess about 200 years of freedom and civility was pretty good, but now it's time to give up and be forced to choose between tyranny and anarchy. Pity, that.
Wow, that's some bad moderation...Golias's post marked as flamebait?
Fortunately, the show is basically about using actual junkyard parts to make stuff, even with the seeding. But there certainly is the potential for this to get out of hand if they keep on making episodes, and the challenges become more unrealistic without basically having the parts and the bluprints laid out in front of the contestants.
I for one would be happy watching simpler challenges (like the classic build-a-wrecking-machine) that don't require as much seeding.
But seeing cool complicated contraptions is fun too. I hope they manage to strike a reasonable balance.
An interesting link.
I like how Pfizer sidesteps the entire issue of life-saving drugs. The article celebrates the salutory effects of generics but Pfizer of course continues to lobby for the extension and strengthening of patent laws and against generic drugs.
As the NYT article points out, drug companies will use any patent they can to prevent the genericizing of drugs (the example given was that one company got a patent on the coating drug for the pill of an AIDS drug that wasn't protected by patent in Thailand). And generic drugs, which as the Pfizer article effectively admits are the only downward price pressure on drugs, are prevented from entering the US marketplace for at least 20 years, which can mean a lot of lives.
First off, you should probably say "socialist" instead of "communist".
A good response, but if you read the article, you'd see that there are mechanisms by which the government can "buy out" a company's IP rights. In fact, there are multiple mechanisms, including compulsory licensing or the more drastic seizing of the rights (for a price, of course).
The law actually has the flexibility. The fault lies in the execution of it; for a time the Clinton administration was guilty of pandering only to the pharma industry's interests, but they did slowly and halfheartedly.
Misapplication and misuse of IP laws is certainly not new; there have been patent lawyers and companies working to exploit the law for profit rather than for societal benefit since the laws began. But as the US laws become the world laws, the exploitation is spreading across the globe.
You can bet what tack the Bush administration will take. Hooray for pharma stock!
Of the 1st-world countries, it is the US that by far needs to take responsibility on this issue.
That argument is simply bullshit. Most AIDS research is funded in whole or in part by governmental (aka OUR) money. The only reason these companies can charge that much for drugs is because governments act as their muscle.
The thrust of the article wasn't that companies shouldn't be allowed to turn a profit; it was that they shouldn't be allowed to turn an obscene profit. As people have repeatedly pointed out, drug companies are not charging high prices just to cover R&D. Most of their profits go into advertising and paying their executives.
As a good post-modernist, I try to avoid taking moral stands; neither the article nor most of the Slashdot readership has called the companies 'evil'. However, it's difficult not to find something wrong with people, governments, and companies placing a higher priority on milking profit than saving millions upon millions of lives.
In a purely free market, there wouldn't be any IP protection; it's an artificial governmental restraint. Intellectual property law is supposed to be in service of society; and I hope that most of society doesn't believe that allowing companies to charge $21000 a year for drugs that cost $700, drugs which mean the difference between a slow, painful, debilitating death, and a healthy, productive life, is in the service of society.
Don't take a moral stand; just decide whether you'd rather the continent of Africa to collapse into complete anarchy, and much of east Asia, and perhaps Latin America too (oh no! where will we get our cheap processors and jeans?).
There are many other entities at fault in this equation. India, for example, is the number one producer of generic copycat drugs, but refuses to provide free AIDS treatment to its teeming masses. The only reason that I am attacking the drug companies so vociferously is that fools like you defend them.
The above is a highly informative and interesting post. Apple needs to do something again w/the handheld market, and their positioning is right for it, but who knows if they can afford to do anything? Ah well, at least Apple has gotten a lot from owning ARM stock.
Right, so what you're saying is that over five years ago, when Apple was beginning its major decline in market share and profitability, its retailing sucked. What you said doesn't necessarily have any bearing on its current situation.
Can't you realize that government regulation got rid of the AT&T monopoly? If it were not for government regulation (requiring open access to the phone network), there wouldn't be the competitive market of ISPs which you like so much. People are foolish to think that if you eliminate all regulatory power that companies won't use their unbridled power to favor their friends and hurt their enemies.
The worst part is that MP3.com is going to sell all the user info they can from this. The quoted example was an e-mail list of millions of Madonna users.
But I don't really blame MP3.com -- they just got screwed by the courts and RIAA, having to pay per-play royalties on all of this music. MP3.com is made up mostly of engineers, a lot of whom jumped ship from Netscape when NS got munched by AOL. They've been trying to do cool things, but the global-corporate-legal infrastructure is stifling them.
The best thing for us to do is to write to our congress(wo)men and explain that the current copyright/patent/trademark intellectual property situation is seriously flawed.
Thank you for writing this. I hope it gets modded up. It's neat to know that (logically) per curiam decisions have less precedental value. I'm now starting to get annoyed with the real media sources which call this a unanimous decision.
It's pretty safe to bet that there was some major dissent within SCOTUS but they knew that they couldn't afford to issue a split decision, so they fell back on the slightly cute per curiam dodge saying "we're confused".
What they mean is "we're arguing, rewrite your decision so we can stop arguing".
Here's the ruling. (The decision is in the last few lines.)
First off, I think you put this in the wrong category--I'm pretty sure this isn't an Internet issue. (Okay, I see you fixed that while I wrote this. Good.)
Second, the Supreme Court did not overturn the Florida Supreme Court. They remanded the decision. The proper headline is "SCOTUS Sends Case Back to SCOF" (since/. should be using wonkish acronyms, don't you think?)
Third, as others have pointed out, it wasn't a "unanimous ruling", it was an unsigned ruling.
Fourth, "meaning that Bush is the winner" is misleading and vague, particularly since it doesn't say what he is the winner of. And he didn't really win anything, except more PR fodder.
Fifth, you should present some justification for your conclusion about the transference of power; I expect you can't, particularly since the news about this decision is vague and incomplete. Even if SCOTUS had ruled against the Florida Supreme Court, that wouldn't have transferred power away from the states to the federal govt., it would have transferred power away from the people and the courts to the legislative and executive branches.
However, I want to say that I don't particularly blame CmdrTaco for being so misleading, since the coverage has been confused--as the story first came out on the Net, the one-line reports were changing. General media coverage has been confusing, but they're starting to fix their sites and get the story right--I hope CmdrTaco will correct his post as well.
Finally, I want to say that I am very thankful that CmdrTaco posted this, because for anyone who cares about the long-term health of the republic and believes in the ideals of democracy this election is of utmost concern.
Aw, this is nothing. Scientists back in the 80's hooked up a gorilla brain to a voice synthesizer and various sensory apparatus and created MOFO the Psychic Gorilla. People have been discussing the amazing psychic powers of MOFO the Psychic Gorilla for years on the IRC channel #Mofo (and before that on the Mofo BBS).
Stupid monkey-brain-controlled robotic arm. I've seen a gorilla-brain-controlled voice synthesizer with amazing psychic powers, and a dry, sarcastic wit.
Exactly. When I started reading Katz's post, I thought he was talking about Slashdot, until I got to the bottom of his post.
When/. staff use the argument that the rest of media are hypocrites to defend themselves, they're hiding behind a straw man. Even if the rest of media is corrupt, it's no excuse to not be honest about/.'s flaws, which are legion.
So are its good qualities, but/. should try to hold itself to a high standard. Katz shouldn't try to subvert the issue, even if he is personally frustrated by how mediocre the media establishment is.
Wow, that's some bad moderation. Who was Carbonite trolling? The large contingent of people who thought Titan AE had a good plot? The movie was pretty, even beautiful, but certainly not well-plotted.
It doesn't. To run OS X Beta you have to disable the second processor through Open Firmware. The reason given ran something like "some problems with caching".
What do you mean by clone? The Desktop uses the NeXT Workspace Manager code, mostlike. Jobs came back to Apple when Apple bought NeXT. OS X is child of NeXT way more than it's the child of Apple code. (Though NeXT is clearly at least philosophically the child of Mac.)
But you probably know that. I gues I'm just harping on the phrase "the program he tries to clone." I'd have used "the program before he tried to make it act enough like the Mac Desktop to be acceptable to Mac owners"
Sadly, ObjC is being pretty aggressively phased out by Apple in favor of Java. The next rev of WebObjects, I believe, won't support ObjC, for example. At a minimum Java will be the default.
Slashdot Mirror
The plaintiffs are corporations, associations, and individuals who rely for their vocations or avocations upon works in the public domain: a non-profit association that distributes over the internet free electronic versions of books in the public domain; a company that reprints rare, out-of-print books that have entered the public domain; a vendor of sheet music and a choir director, who respectively sell and purchase music that is relatively inexpensive because it is in the public domain; and a company that preserves and restores old films and insofar as such works are not in the public domain, needs permission from their copyright holders -- who are often hard to find -- in order to exploit them.
The CTEA is but the latest in a series of congressional extensions of the copyright term, each of which has been made applicable both prospectively and retrospectively. In 1790 copytight term was established at 42 years. In 1909 it was extended to 56. Between 1962 and 1974 the Congress passed a series of laws that incrementally extended subsisting copyrights. In 1976 the term was drastically increased to the life of the author plus 50 years. The CTEA amends this scheme by adding 20 years to the term of every copyright.
The preamble "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" does seem to establish a guideline for how to limit copyright. But the Schnapper ruling of 1981 rejected the argument "that the introductory language of the Copyright Clause constitutes a limit on congressional power." The plaintiffs did not dispute Schnapper. Therefore the court can't consider the argument that the preamble limits Congress's powers.
Even if the court could, it would still rule the same way. The CTEA is in line with the European Union, and that's "a powerful indication" that the CTEA is necessary and proper, since we love ABBA. So what if the EU is not bound by the Copyright Clause of our Constitution? The court believes that extending copyrights actually preserves works because it gives copyright owners a motivation to preserve them, and thus "promotes Progress."
In sum, we hold that the CTEA is a proper exercise of the Congress's power under the Copyright Clause. The plaintiffs' first amendment objection fails because they have no recognizable first amendment interest in the copyrighted works of others. Their objection that extending the term of a subsisting copyright violates the requirement of originality is stupid because something doesn't lose originality by being out of copyright. Duh.
Whatever wisdom or folly the plaintiffs may see in the particular "limited Times" for which the Congress has set the duration of copyrights, that decision is subject to judicial review only for rationality. This court is deferential to the judgment of the Congress, and the courts shouldn't stick their noses into it. This is no less true when the Congress modifies the term of an existing copyright than when it sets the term initially, and the plaintiffs -- as opposed to one of the amici -- do not dispute that the CTEA satisfies the preamble. Maybe if the plaintiffs actually argued this point -- which we think Schnapper indicates they'd lose -- before a full court, they'd have a case. Till then, fuck off.
Dissent by Judge Sentelle
I just want to say that I probably would have ruled against the plaintiffs too, but my fellow judges are nitwits, so I'm not going to agree with their reasoning.
Even though the plaintiffs didn't dispute Schnapper, an amicus brief did. When the other judges say they can't consider that argument, they're being asses. In fact, it's what amici are for. (As long as it's not introducing new issues, and merely arguing the same issues in a new way, it's fine.)
Also, I'm a strict constructionist (wassup, Dubya), and I don't think Congress can just go around passing laws as it damn well pleases. And these copyright extensions are effectively extending copyright indefinitely. The government has offered no tenable theory as to how retrospective extension can promote the useful arts.
I don't even think Schnapper is applicable in this case, because Schnapper dealt with limited questions related to the application of the copyright laws to works commissioned by the U.S. government. And what the fuck does the European Union have to do with our copyright law? Goddammit.
--
--
Or will NEAR be loved and cherished, like an ancient Bolo tank (cf. Keith Laumer)?
I wonder how safe the ISS will be from space junk. I know it's something NASA cares a lot about. I find it very humorous that the Cold War resources for tracking nuclear weapons now do a lot of space junk tracking.
--
--
Wow, that's some bad moderation...Golias's post marked as flamebait?
Fortunately, the show is basically about using actual junkyard parts to make stuff, even with the seeding. But there certainly is the potential for this to get out of hand if they keep on making episodes, and the challenges become more unrealistic without basically having the parts and the bluprints laid out in front of the contestants.
I for one would be happy watching simpler challenges (like the classic build-a-wrecking-machine) that don't require as much seeding.
But seeing cool complicated contraptions is fun too. I hope they manage to strike a reasonable balance.
An interesting link.
I like how Pfizer sidesteps the entire issue of life-saving drugs. The article celebrates the salutory effects of generics but Pfizer of course continues to lobby for the extension and strengthening of patent laws and against generic drugs.
As the NYT article points out, drug companies will use any patent they can to prevent the genericizing of drugs (the example given was that one company got a patent on the coating drug for the pill of an AIDS drug that wasn't protected by patent in Thailand). And generic drugs, which as the Pfizer article effectively admits are the only downward price pressure on drugs, are prevented from entering the US marketplace for at least 20 years, which can mean a lot of lives.
First off, you should probably say "socialist" instead of "communist".
A good response, but if you read the article, you'd see that there are mechanisms by which the government can "buy out" a company's IP rights. In fact, there are multiple mechanisms, including compulsory licensing or the more drastic seizing of the rights (for a price, of course).
The law actually has the flexibility. The fault lies in the execution of it; for a time the Clinton administration was guilty of pandering only to the pharma industry's interests, but they did slowly and halfheartedly.
Misapplication and misuse of IP laws is certainly not new; there have been patent lawyers and companies working to exploit the law for profit rather than for societal benefit since the laws began. But as the US laws become the world laws, the exploitation is spreading across the globe.
You can bet what tack the Bush administration will take. Hooray for pharma stock!
Of the 1st-world countries, it is the US that by far needs to take responsibility on this issue.
That argument is simply bullshit. Most AIDS research is funded in whole or in part by governmental (aka OUR) money. The only reason these companies can charge that much for drugs is because governments act as their muscle.
The thrust of the article wasn't that companies shouldn't be allowed to turn a profit; it was that they shouldn't be allowed to turn an obscene profit. As people have repeatedly pointed out, drug companies are not charging high prices just to cover R&D. Most of their profits go into advertising and paying their executives.
As a good post-modernist, I try to avoid taking moral stands; neither the article nor most of the Slashdot readership has called the companies 'evil'. However, it's difficult not to find something wrong with people, governments, and companies placing a higher priority on milking profit than saving millions upon millions of lives.
In a purely free market, there wouldn't be any IP protection; it's an artificial governmental restraint. Intellectual property law is supposed to be in service of society; and I hope that most of society doesn't believe that allowing companies to charge $21000 a year for drugs that cost $700, drugs which mean the difference between a slow, painful, debilitating death, and a healthy, productive life, is in the service of society.
Don't take a moral stand; just decide whether you'd rather the continent of Africa to collapse into complete anarchy, and much of east Asia, and perhaps Latin America too (oh no! where will we get our cheap processors and jeans?).
There are many other entities at fault in this equation. India, for example, is the number one producer of generic copycat drugs, but refuses to provide free AIDS treatment to its teeming masses. The only reason that I am attacking the drug companies so vociferously is that fools like you defend them.
The above is a highly informative and interesting post. Apple needs to do something again w/the handheld market, and their positioning is right for it, but who knows if they can afford to do anything? Ah well, at least Apple has gotten a lot from owning ARM stock.
Right, so what you're saying is that over five years ago, when Apple was beginning its major decline in market share and profitability, its retailing sucked. What you said doesn't necessarily have any bearing on its current situation.
Can't you realize that government regulation got rid of the AT&T monopoly? If it were not for government regulation (requiring open access to the phone network), there wouldn't be the competitive market of ISPs which you like so much. People are foolish to think that if you eliminate all regulatory power that companies won't use their unbridled power to favor their friends and hurt their enemies.
The worst part is that MP3.com is going to sell all the user info they can from this. The quoted example was an e-mail list of millions of Madonna users.
But I don't really blame MP3.com -- they just got screwed by the courts and RIAA, having to pay per-play royalties on all of this music. MP3.com is made up mostly of engineers, a lot of whom jumped ship from Netscape when NS got munched by AOL. They've been trying to do cool things, but the global-corporate-legal infrastructure is stifling them.
The best thing for us to do is to write to our congress(wo)men and explain that the current copyright/patent/trademark intellectual property situation is seriously flawed.
Thank you for writing this. I hope it gets modded up. It's neat to know that (logically) per curiam decisions have less precedental value. I'm now starting to get annoyed with the real media sources which call this a unanimous decision.
I hope your post gets modded up.
It should be made clear that SCOTUS did not assert in its ruling that Point II is in fact the case.
Point II above is the point of contention--SCOTUS can't tell if FL Supreme Court declared that FL state law is bad or if FL state law is confusing.
If the FL Supreme Court admits that Point II is true (and you can bet they won't!!) then your conclusion (true) will be relevant to this case.
I'm listening to NPR right now and I'm annoyed that the local station is using the term "overturned," which is clearly wrong.
Reuters is wrong.
The ruling was per curiam .
It's pretty safe to bet that there was some major dissent within SCOTUS but they knew that they couldn't afford to issue a split decision, so they fell back on the slightly cute per curiam dodge saying "we're confused".
What they mean is "we're arguing, rewrite your decision so we can stop arguing".
Here's the ruling. (The decision is in the last few lines.)
/. should be using wonkish acronyms, don't you think?)
First off, I think you put this in the wrong category--I'm pretty sure this isn't an Internet issue. (Okay, I see you fixed that while I wrote this. Good.)
Second, the Supreme Court did not overturn the Florida Supreme Court. They remanded the decision. The proper headline is "SCOTUS Sends Case Back to SCOF" (since
Third, as others have pointed out, it wasn't a "unanimous ruling", it was an unsigned ruling.
Fourth, "meaning that Bush is the winner" is misleading and vague, particularly since it doesn't say what he is the winner of. And he didn't really win anything, except more PR fodder.
Fifth, you should present some justification for your conclusion about the transference of power; I expect you can't, particularly since the news about this decision is vague and incomplete. Even if SCOTUS had ruled against the Florida Supreme Court, that wouldn't have transferred power away from the states to the federal govt., it would have transferred power away from the people and the courts to the legislative and executive branches.
However, I want to say that I don't particularly blame CmdrTaco for being so misleading, since the coverage has been confused--as the story first came out on the Net, the one-line reports were changing. General media coverage has been confusing, but they're starting to fix their sites and get the story right--I hope CmdrTaco will correct his post as well.
Finally, I want to say that I am very thankful that CmdrTaco posted this, because for anyone who cares about the long-term health of the republic and believes in the ideals of democracy this election is of utmost concern.
So, thank you, but get your facts straight.
Aw, this is nothing. Scientists back in the 80's hooked up a gorilla brain to a voice synthesizer and various sensory apparatus and created MOFO the Psychic Gorilla. People have been discussing the amazing psychic powers of MOFO the Psychic Gorilla for years on the IRC channel #Mofo (and before that on the Mofo BBS).
Stupid monkey-brain-controlled robotic arm. I've seen a gorilla-brain-controlled voice synthesizer with amazing psychic powers, and a dry, sarcastic wit.
I voted Nader w/ Gore trading...just hoping that my Nader supporter in Minnesota will remember to cast that ballot for Gore!
Umm, it's pretty hard for a tv news program to print anything, let alone a retraction.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Exactly. When I started reading Katz's post, I thought he was talking about Slashdot, until I got to the bottom of his post.
/. staff use the argument that the rest of media are hypocrites to defend themselves, they're hiding behind a straw man. Even if the rest of media is corrupt, it's no excuse to not be honest about /.'s flaws, which are legion.
/. should try to hold itself to a high standard. Katz shouldn't try to subvert the issue, even if he is personally frustrated by how mediocre the media establishment is.
When
So are its good qualities, but
Wow, that's some bad moderation. Who was Carbonite trolling? The large contingent of people who thought Titan AE had a good plot? The movie was pretty, even beautiful, but certainly not well-plotted.
Wait a sec...when you say "he" do you mean "it"?
Have you tried using the proper Torx screwdriver to fix it?
It doesn't. To run OS X Beta you have to disable the second processor through Open Firmware. The reason given ran something like "some problems with caching".
What do you mean by clone? The Desktop uses the NeXT Workspace Manager code, mostlike. Jobs came back to Apple when Apple bought NeXT. OS X is child of NeXT way more than it's the child of Apple code. (Though NeXT is clearly at least philosophically the child of Mac.)
But you probably know that. I gues I'm just harping on the phrase "the program he tries to clone." I'd have used "the program before he tried to make it act enough like the Mac Desktop to be acceptable to Mac owners"
Sadly, ObjC is being pretty aggressively phased out by Apple in favor of Java. The next rev of WebObjects, I believe, won't support ObjC, for example. At a minimum Java will be the default.