Yeah, the Bill of Rights was supposed to quash things like the DMCA...
That didn't happen (yet).
It didn't happen because the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with copyright (with the possible minor exception of the first amendment). The DMCA is unconstitutional because it exceeds congress's power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. Until the courts rule on that point, the DMCA will remain in effect.
its called responsibility, debt is the persons own fault
There are countless reasons for a person to go bankrupt. They could encounter sudden medical problems, forcing them to take time off work, while also encuring huge medical expenses. Some kid could trip on their sidewalk and sue for 10 times the value of their insurance. Someone could steal their life savings just before they get laid off.
whats the problem with preventing people from just declaring bankruptcy
Bankruptcy is a last resort for many desperate people. If you eliminate bankruptcy, people will seek out crime as an alternative means to eliminate debt.
and last time i watched tv, those ads claiming "that congress is hurrying to get measures passed to prevent bankruptcy" but that ad has been on for the last decade so obviousely not much has changed.
The proposed bankruptcy bills have gotten more drastic over the past few years. furthermore, congress actually passed the bankruptcy bill, but Bill Clinton vetoed it after congress adjourned. Congress almost passed a bankruptcy bill last year, but it died after George Bush's favorite loophole was eliminated. The house and senate have both passed bankrupty bills this year (with the rich-person loophole intact), but a senator filibustered the joint bill just before congress adjourned in August. Congress is still trying to push that bill through before they adjourn for the election.
It would be very simple to allay congress' concerns. They don't need to outlaw the GPL. They simply need to make sure all government funded software projects are made available under the BSD, but also allow the developer to license it under any other terms they choose.
If someone gets a grant to change the Linux kernel, they can license their changes under both the BSD and the GPL. If a private company gets a grant to write a diet analysis program, they can license it under the BSD, and also integrate the code into their own product.
This is the right thing to do anyway. All government funded development should be made available to the public without restriction.
I want to see a website, lets call it SwellMusic, designed to bridge
the gap between independent artists and music fans. The RIAA's great value
is picking out good music from the junk. SwellMusic needs to do the same
thing.
This is how I see it working: an Artist posts one of their better songs
in the new music section, specifying which genres it fits into. Registered
hardcore music fans vote on how well they like the song. Bad songs
disappear. Good songs get posted for everyone to hear. Kuro5hin.org does
this with stories, and it seems to work quite well (get an account and
check out the moderation queue).
If the song is really good, the site should play it on the appropriate
radio station (one station for each genre). Better songs get played more
often. The site would also keep a chart of the most popular songs for the
day/week/month/year.
If a fan takes a liking to an artist's music, they could go to
SwellMusic to buy the song/CD, and download it in a lossless compression
format. Or for an added fee, they could have a CD custom made and
delivered through the mail. The non-profit SwellMusic would take a
commission on the sale to cover their costs. The artist would determine
exactly how much they charge and they would decide how to license their
sample songs (public domain, OAL, allow free distribution for a limited
time, etc). The artist would also decide if they will post Ogg Vorbis
files of all their music, or just some select samples.
SwellMusic could also let the artist donate money to charity. When
someone buys their CD, it would list where the money is going:
Great Band CD
$0.75 SwellMusic
$1.50 American Cancer Society
$4.00 Divided among the artists
- - - - -
$6.25 Total
SwellMusic would track all the donations to the American Cancer Society,
and send them a monthly check.
Each artist should have their own section on the website. They could
post comments, lyrics, decide if their fans can write comments, etc.
The site should also let artists post when and where they will play.
Fans would go to SwellMusic, punch in a date and zipcode, and get a listing
of all SwellMusic artists playing in the area on or around that day.
If the site generates extra money, they could use it to write open
source music software, create high-quality sound samples, build up an
endowment, etc.
SwellMusic would be a great source for finding independent music, and
it has far more potential than I've listed here. My question is, why
doesn't SwellMusic seem to exist? Why don't all the artists who
complain about the RIAA, get together and form SwellMusic?
They just want to receive money whenever "their" music is played.
This isn't about getting money whenever their music is played. It is about ensuring that only their music is played. If webcasting is cheap, you can play whatever music you want. If you have to pay to run an internet radio station, you have to get money from somewhere. The RIAA is all too happy to vicariously provide you with that money, as long as you play their songs. Independent artists don't have the capital to overcome that hurdle, so they have to sign on with a major music label.
At 5% interest, $150 per month over 40 years comes to $228,903.02. Just a tad short of a million (to get a million dollars, the savings bonds would have to exceed 10% interest). Adjusting for 2% inflation, it will be worth $103,667.98 in today's dollars.
Imagine how much sooner if you invested the money in stocks returning %15+ and put in $400 a month?
But people would rather lease a car for $400 a month than retire in 10 years or so.
$400 per month for ten years at 15% interest comes to $110,086.82. Which will be worth $90,309.54 in today's dollars. I suppose you could retire to a wooden shack in the Montana wilderness...
SEC's budget last year: $438 million
Budget under new law: $776 million
Budget after Bush cut: $568 million
So my question is, what does the SEC need so much money for?
Two months ago, the commission received an increase of $30 million over its $438 million budget from last year, which was widely considered inadequate, to begin hiring another 100 staff members to join its 3,100 current employees.
$30 million / 100 new employees = $300,000 per new employee.
$438 million / 3,100 employees = $141,000 per employee.
The law calls for $102 million for raises and $108 million for better computer systems and financing for restoring the agency after the Sept. 11 attacks that destroyed its New York offices.
$102 million / 3,100 employees = $33,000 raise per employee
$108 million / 3,100 employees = $35,000 per employee for computers and 'financing' to restore the agency after losing its New York offices.
I am arguing that the grant of power is the first part, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Left at that, congress could, for example, build research facilities and give them away with the hope that the benefactors would use them for research. Or mandate that all citizens volunteer for medical research trials at least twice every year. But the clause goes on to specify and constrain how congress may "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Disney, et al argue that the grant of power is the second part, "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". They argue that the first part is a meaningless preamble, and that copyright is a goal unto itself.
What's the difference, you ask? If the second part is a limitation, congress can not go off and legislate DRM systems, since the clause specifically restricts congress to granting copyrights to writers (for their own works) and patents to inventors (for their own discoveries).
If copyright were a goal unto itself, congress could use clause 18 to give the DVD-CCA the exclusive right to distribute DeCSS, even though they didn't write it. That's exactly what congress did. If you want to legally acquire DeCSS, you have to get permission from the DVD-CCA. You might notice the link up above points to an amici brief from the 2600 case. The court simply said, "arguments presented to us only in a footnote are not entitled to appellate consideration."
Ashcroft's position in Eldred v. Ashcroft is that the words "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" are a mere preamble that imposes no material limitation on the powers of Congress.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations...
.
.
.
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
.
.
.
All 18 of those enumerated powers start with "To <verb>..." The government argues that the eighth enumerated power is unique in that it has a meaningless preample (which looks just like all the other enumerated powers), Lessig says it is unique in that it includes a limitation.
If the government were right, the constitution should read, "The Congress shall have Power...To secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". If that's what our forefathers meant, why have a preamble at all?
As the article says, congress shall have power to:
Promote the progress of science and useful art
Many people get this confused and think, congress has the power to grant copyrights. Copyright is a limitation of congress' power, not a power unto itself. If a copyright fails to "promote the progress of science and useful art", then congress is exercising a power it was never granted.
And no, code has not been ruled as free speech according to the courts.
In Bernstein, a US Appeals court ruled that code is speech. In 2600 Magazine, the court ruled that code is both speech and a device. Could you cite a single case where a US court has ruled that code is not speech? Note that the Johansen case was in Norway, well outside US jurisdiction.
Not being able, however, to create a derivative work of, oh, "Steamboat Willie" doesn't really hurt anybody
Wouldn't everyone benefit if someone were to make derivative works of Steamboat Willie? Doesn't prohibiting derivative works impede progress?
Besides, the issue involves a lot more than derivative works. Everyone would benefit if we could freely distribute scientific journals, historical news reports, and video of presidential speeches.
During the Iran-Contra hearings, Oliver North made reference to Osama bin Laden. I would like to see it for myself, but unfortunately, it is illegal for anyone but the copyright holders to distribute a recording of that hearing.
With online message boards, people frequently reference literary works. It would sure be nice if they could post a link to that literary work so I could read it for myself.
People often quote famous books. It would be nice if I could take a quick look at that book and read the quote in its original context.
I occasionaly reference scientific articles. People would be more likely to believe me, if they could read the articles for themselves.
In every case, copyright gets in the way of educating the public. The whole point of copyright is to encourage people to create artistic works that will eventually expand the public domain. When you argue that keeping something under copyright doesn't harm anyone, you are basically saying the public domain is worthless.
No person shall...traffic in any technology...that -
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
According to judge Kaplan, linking to DeCSS constitutes trafficking in a circumvention technology.
News.com is a news organization and is reporting the news as they see fit.
2600 Magazine was a news organization reporting the news as it saw fit. The court did not care.
If the DVD-CCA decides to bring suit against News.com and got a judgement forcing them to to stop linking, then they would have to remove the links.
If the DVD-CCA brought suit against News.com and won, the court could order News.com to pay the DVD-CCA's legal expenses and pay for any losses the plantiffs incurred due to piracy resulting from News.com's distribution of DeCSS.
This is the same reason slashdot doesn't get raided by some government agency everytime a poster puts a link to DeCSS in a comment.
Slashdot is not liable for its users' copyright infringment. They are registered with the copyright office as a Service Provider. If Slashdot receives a complaint, their only obligation is to take down the infringing material.
A typical DVD is 4GB. One million DVDs is 3.4x10^16 bits. One day has 24x60x60=86,400 seconds. So, you would need a 397Gb/s pipe, assuming no overhead.
This is fun, let's do some more math. A typical DVD costs $20. One million DVDs costs $20 million. If you did that every day, you could steal $7.3 billion from the movie industry every year. If 50 million people did it, the nation could collectively steal $365,000 trillion from the movie industry.
Wow! The movie industry is potentially worth 3500 times the nation's gross domestic product! Bush should tap into this to solve our current economic crisis.
Wow! Lessig sheds new light on the Constitution
on
Eldred vs. Ashcroft
·
· Score: 2
I've read most of the briefs in this case, but Lessig's reply brief really changed my interpretation of the intellectual property clause. According to Article I, section 8:
The Congress shall have Power
To lay and collect Taxes...
To borrow Money...
.
.
.
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
I always interpreted it as the power to grant copyrights and patents, while promoting progress was a restriction on that right. This is backwards. Copyrights and patents are merely the means by which congress may exercise its power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
The distinction has major ramifications for the DMCA. Copyright is not a power for congress to tweak with digital rights management. Copyright is the means and limit of congress' power.
Regulating circumvention devices must be an exercise of congress' power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The clause then goes on to restrict how congress may apply this power, "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". A circumvention device is certainly not the author's "writing", and it is not the inventor's "discovery".
I know the same argument was made in the DeCSS case (an argument that the court ignored), but the distinction of what power congress is exercising really clarifies things.
There was no extension in 1978
on
Eldred vs. Ashcroft
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Look at this brief from the Eldred v. Reno case (start at paragraph 61). In 1961, copyright lasted 28 years and could be renewed for another 28 years (56 years total). So works published in 1905 entered the public domain in 1961. From 1962 to 1976, congress enacted ten copyright extensions. Every one of those extensions applied retroactively. At all times during those 14 years, copyright extended back to 1906. In 1976, copyright lasted 75 years (or the life of the author plus 50 years). So works published in 1906 began appearing in the public domain in 1981.
On top of that, despite personal opinions, it is probably provable in a court of law that copyright does indeed foster invention and discovery.
Everyone agrees that copyright promotes the arts. The question is weather or not the retroactive extention of copyright promotes the arts. We will never know if it can be proven in court. That would take place in the district court, and the district court ruled on summary judgement. There was no trial.
Promoting progress through copyright extension
on
Eldred vs. Ashcroft
·
· Score: 5, Informative
According to the government, if they can come up with just one reason that retroactive copyright extension promotes progress, the law is constitutional. They also argue that the constitution does not restrict congress at all. Here are some arguments taken from the defendants legal briefs:
By extending copyrights, congress is allowing large copyright holders to continue generating revenue from old works. The copyright holders then invest that revenue in new marginal and high risk works.
Historical practice confirms that "Limited Times" does not mean a
single, inalterable, limited time. Every single copyright extension has
extended the copyright of existing works.
The CTEA's application to existing works increases incentives for
copyright holders to restore and disseminate their works.
The CTEA's impact on international trade promotes progress in the United
States.
The CTEA is not part of a string of infinite expansions, but rather a
means to harmonize copyright with the European Union. "In an era of
multinational publishers and instantaneous electronic transmission,
harmonization in this regard has obvious practical benefits"
If the CTEA is limited in regards to future works, it must necessarily
be limited as it applies to existing works as well.
Thomas Jefferson signed the 1808 and 1809 patent term extensions into
law, and James Madison signed the 1815 patent term extension into law.
Thus the nation's founders never meant "limited times" to mean "unalterable
limited times".
The EFF is not a lobbying organization. Under federal law, it is illegal for certain non-profits (the same type as the EFF) to lobby congress. The EFF instead spends its money defending the constitution in court and educating the public.
There has been talk of creating a Political Action Committee for technology issues, but so far, nothing has come of it.
First of all, this would be a prime example of Fair Use, so legally they couldn't do a damn thing about it.
The Hollywood hacking bill would give Hollywood the right to attack you based on suspicion. So based on that suspicion, they legally have the right to attack you.
If they attack you, the bill leaves you will little legal recourse. In order to sue them, you must get written permission from the U.S. Attorney General and you must prove that they caused significant damages (over $500 IIRC).
It is illegal for public institutions to directly compete with private industry... ie the university can't allow these organizations to point.com domain names at their servers since they are taking potential business away from the private sector
Would you care to provide a single shred of evidence to back that up? You're making this stuff up. Public Universities themselves compete with private non-profit and for-profit schools. Student fund-raisers compete with private businesses. Public libraries compete with private libraries, book stores, and publishers. Public roads compete with private toll roads (and have driven virtually all private toll roads out of business). Public transportation competes with private cab companies and auto dealers. Legal Aid competes with private law firms. SE Linux competes with private Linux distros.
Since Universities are not allowed to compete with ISPs, they make things easier to monitor by only allowing their domain name to be pointed at their servers. Hence, no outside domain names are supposed to be pointed at their servers. This prevents cheap grad students from starting a business in their office or cheap undergrads in dorms from starting a server farm.
The public university I attended is a partial owner of a local broadband provider. They have thousands of customers. Before that ISP existed, the school used to function as an ISP itself. Furthermore, the school can not stop someone from registering a.com domain and pointing at the school's servers. I could register pricegougers.com and point it at 160.94.23.13. Such an action would not instantly make the University of Minnesota a law-breaker.
Slashdot Mirror
That didn't happen (yet).
It didn't happen because the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with copyright (with the possible minor exception of the first amendment). The DMCA is unconstitutional because it exceeds congress's power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. Until the courts rule on that point, the DMCA will remain in effect.
There are countless reasons for a person to go bankrupt. They could encounter sudden medical problems, forcing them to take time off work, while also encuring huge medical expenses. Some kid could trip on their sidewalk and sue for 10 times the value of their insurance. Someone could steal their life savings just before they get laid off.
whats the problem with preventing people from just declaring bankruptcy
Bankruptcy is a last resort for many desperate people. If you eliminate bankruptcy, people will seek out crime as an alternative means to eliminate debt.
and last time i watched tv, those ads claiming "that congress is hurrying to get measures passed to prevent bankruptcy" but that ad has been on for the last decade so obviousely not much has changed.
The proposed bankruptcy bills have gotten more drastic over the past few years. furthermore, congress actually passed the bankruptcy bill, but Bill Clinton vetoed it after congress adjourned. Congress almost passed a bankruptcy bill last year, but it died after George Bush's favorite loophole was eliminated. The house and senate have both passed bankrupty bills this year (with the rich-person loophole intact), but a senator filibustered the joint bill just before congress adjourned in August. Congress is still trying to push that bill through before they adjourn for the election.
If someone gets a grant to change the Linux kernel, they can license their changes under both the BSD and the GPL. If a private company gets a grant to write a diet analysis program, they can license it under the BSD, and also integrate the code into their own product.
This is the right thing to do anyway. All government funded development should be made available to the public without restriction.
Huh? Was that supposed to be a joke? $150/month at 5% simple interest comes to $144,150 after 40 years. Do the math. I didn't forget it at all.
I want to see a website, lets call it SwellMusic, designed to bridge the gap between independent artists and music fans. The RIAA's great value is picking out good music from the junk. SwellMusic needs to do the same thing.
This is how I see it working: an Artist posts one of their better songs in the new music section, specifying which genres it fits into. Registered hardcore music fans vote on how well they like the song. Bad songs disappear. Good songs get posted for everyone to hear. Kuro5hin.org does this with stories, and it seems to work quite well (get an account and check out the moderation queue).
If the song is really good, the site should play it on the appropriate radio station (one station for each genre). Better songs get played more often. The site would also keep a chart of the most popular songs for the day/week/month/year.
If a fan takes a liking to an artist's music, they could go to SwellMusic to buy the song/CD, and download it in a lossless compression format. Or for an added fee, they could have a CD custom made and delivered through the mail. The non-profit SwellMusic would take a commission on the sale to cover their costs. The artist would determine exactly how much they charge and they would decide how to license their sample songs (public domain, OAL, allow free distribution for a limited time, etc). The artist would also decide if they will post Ogg Vorbis files of all their music, or just some select samples.
SwellMusic could also let the artist donate money to charity. When someone buys their CD, it would list where the money is going:
Great Band CD
- - - - -
SwellMusic would track all the donations to the American Cancer Society, and send them a monthly check.
Each artist should have their own section on the website. They could post comments, lyrics, decide if their fans can write comments, etc.
The site should also let artists post when and where they will play. Fans would go to SwellMusic, punch in a date and zipcode, and get a listing of all SwellMusic artists playing in the area on or around that day.
If the site generates extra money, they could use it to write open source music software, create high-quality sound samples, build up an endowment, etc.
SwellMusic would be a great source for finding independent music, and it has far more potential than I've listed here. My question is, why doesn't SwellMusic seem to exist? Why don't all the artists who complain about the RIAA, get together and form SwellMusic?
This isn't about getting money whenever their music is played. It is about ensuring that only their music is played. If webcasting is cheap, you can play whatever music you want. If you have to pay to run an internet radio station, you have to get money from somewhere. The RIAA is all too happy to vicariously provide you with that money, as long as you play their songs. Independent artists don't have the capital to overcome that hurdle, so they have to sign on with a major music label.
$400 per month for ten years at 15% interest comes to $110,086.82. Which will be worth $90,309.54 in today's dollars. I suppose you could retire to a wooden shack in the Montana wilderness...
SEC's budget last year: $438 million
Budget under new law: $776 million
Budget after Bush cut: $568 million
So my question is, what does the SEC need so much money for?
$30 million / 100 new employees = $300,000 per new employee.
$438 million / 3,100 employees = $141,000 per employee.
$102 million / 3,100 employees = $33,000 raise per employee
$108 million / 3,100 employees = $35,000 per employee for computers and 'financing' to restore the agency after losing its New York offices.
Where is all of the SEC's money going?
I am arguing that the grant of power is the first part, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Left at that, congress could, for example, build research facilities and give them away with the hope that the benefactors would use them for research. Or mandate that all citizens volunteer for medical research trials at least twice every year. But the clause goes on to specify and constrain how congress may "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Disney, et al argue that the grant of power is the second part, "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". They argue that the first part is a meaningless preamble, and that copyright is a goal unto itself.
What's the difference, you ask? If the second part is a limitation, congress can not go off and legislate DRM systems, since the clause specifically restricts congress to granting copyrights to writers (for their own works) and patents to inventors (for their own discoveries).
If copyright were a goal unto itself, congress could use clause 18 to give the DVD-CCA the exclusive right to distribute DeCSS, even though they didn't write it. That's exactly what congress did. If you want to legally acquire DeCSS, you have to get permission from the DVD-CCA. You might notice the link up above points to an amici brief from the 2600 case. The court simply said, "arguments presented to us only in a footnote are not entitled to appellate consideration."
Let's put it in context. The contitution says:
All 18 of those enumerated powers start with "To <verb>..." The government argues that the eighth enumerated power is unique in that it has a meaningless preample (which looks just like all the other enumerated powers), Lessig says it is unique in that it includes a limitation.
If the government were right, the constitution should read, "The Congress shall have Power...To secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". If that's what our forefathers meant, why have a preamble at all?
Many people get this confused and think, congress has the power to grant copyrights. Copyright is a limitation of congress' power, not a power unto itself. If a copyright fails to "promote the progress of science and useful art", then congress is exercising a power it was never granted.
In Bernstein, a US Appeals court ruled that code is speech. In 2600 Magazine, the court ruled that code is both speech and a device. Could you cite a single case where a US court has ruled that code is not speech? Note that the Johansen case was in Norway, well outside US jurisdiction.
Wouldn't everyone benefit if someone were to make derivative works of Steamboat Willie? Doesn't prohibiting derivative works impede progress?
Besides, the issue involves a lot more than derivative works. Everyone would benefit if we could freely distribute scientific journals, historical news reports, and video of presidential speeches.
In every case, copyright gets in the way of educating the public. The whole point of copyright is to encourage people to create artistic works that will eventually expand the public domain. When you argue that keeping something under copyright doesn't harm anyone, you are basically saying the public domain is worthless.
17 USC 1201(a)(2) says:
According to judge Kaplan, linking to DeCSS constitutes trafficking in a circumvention technology.
News.com is a news organization and is reporting the news as they see fit.
2600 Magazine was a news organization reporting the news as it saw fit. The court did not care.
If the DVD-CCA decides to bring suit against News.com and got a judgement forcing them to to stop linking, then they would have to remove the links.
If the DVD-CCA brought suit against News.com and won, the court could order News.com to pay the DVD-CCA's legal expenses and pay for any losses the plantiffs incurred due to piracy resulting from News.com's distribution of DeCSS.
This is the same reason slashdot doesn't get raided by some government agency everytime a poster puts a link to DeCSS in a comment.
Slashdot is not liable for its users' copyright infringment. They are registered with the copyright office as a Service Provider. If Slashdot receives a complaint, their only obligation is to take down the infringing material.
This is fun, let's do some more math. A typical DVD costs $20. One million DVDs costs $20 million. If you did that every day, you could steal $7.3 billion from the movie industry every year. If 50 million people did it, the nation could collectively steal $365,000 trillion from the movie industry.
Wow! The movie industry is potentially worth 3500 times the nation's gross domestic product! Bush should tap into this to solve our current economic crisis.
The Congress shall have Power
.
.
.
I always interpreted it as the power to grant copyrights and patents, while promoting progress was a restriction on that right. This is backwards. Copyrights and patents are merely the means by which congress may exercise its power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
The distinction has major ramifications for the DMCA. Copyright is not a power for congress to tweak with digital rights management. Copyright is the means and limit of congress' power.
Regulating circumvention devices must be an exercise of congress' power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The clause then goes on to restrict how congress may apply this power, "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". A circumvention device is certainly not the author's "writing", and it is not the inventor's "discovery".
I know the same argument was made in the DeCSS case (an argument that the court ignored), but the distinction of what power congress is exercising really clarifies things.
Look at this brief from the Eldred v. Reno case (start at paragraph 61). In 1961, copyright lasted 28 years and could be renewed for another 28 years (56 years total). So works published in 1905 entered the public domain in 1961. From 1962 to 1976, congress enacted ten copyright extensions. Every one of those extensions applied retroactively. At all times during those 14 years, copyright extended back to 1906. In 1976, copyright lasted 75 years (or the life of the author plus 50 years). So works published in 1906 began appearing in the public domain in 1981.
Actually, works published from 1906 to 1922 entered the public domain from 1981 to 1997.
Actually, I was think more along the lines of protesting outside the courthouse. People do it in other high-profile cases.
Everyone agrees that copyright promotes the arts. The question is weather or not the retroactive extention of copyright promotes the arts. We will never know if it can be proven in court. That would take place in the district court, and the district court ruled on summary judgement. There was no trial.
Is anyone planning to go to the Supreme Court on October 9 to let the Justices know their opinion?
There has been talk of creating a Political Action Committee for technology issues, but so far, nothing has come of it.
The Hollywood hacking bill would give Hollywood the right to attack you based on suspicion. So based on that suspicion, they legally have the right to attack you.
If they attack you, the bill leaves you will little legal recourse. In order to sue them, you must get written permission from the U.S. Attorney General and you must prove that they caused significant damages (over $500 IIRC).
Would you care to provide a single shred of evidence to back that up? You're making this stuff up. Public Universities themselves compete with private non-profit and for-profit schools. Student fund-raisers compete with private businesses. Public libraries compete with private libraries, book stores, and publishers. Public roads compete with private toll roads (and have driven virtually all private toll roads out of business). Public transportation competes with private cab companies and auto dealers. Legal Aid competes with private law firms. SE Linux competes with private Linux distros.
Since Universities are not allowed to compete with ISPs, they make things easier to monitor by only allowing their domain name to be pointed at their servers. Hence, no outside domain names are supposed to be pointed at their servers. This prevents cheap grad students from starting a business in their office or cheap undergrads in dorms from starting a server farm.
The public university I attended is a partial owner of a local broadband provider. They have thousands of customers. Before that ISP existed, the school used to function as an ISP itself. Furthermore, the school can not stop someone from registering a .com domain and pointing at the school's servers. I could register pricegougers.com and point it at 160.94.23.13. Such an action would not instantly make the University of Minnesota a law-breaker.