Subject: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: Genie Date: 08 Oct 02 - 01:13 PM Tomorrow the Supreme Court Of The United States will hear legal challenges to the Sonny Bono extension [ad infinitum?] of copyright for works created/published in the US. The issues being brought up in the challenges are discussed in the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension thread, but I started this one to draw attention to the court's timetable. I have heard discussions of the issues recently on PBS, and maybe there will be more public airing of them in the next few days. Genie |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: Genie Date: 08 Oct 02 - 05:43 PM From: Law School in a Nutshell, Part 1 Posted by James Grimmelmann on Monday, September 30 @ 21:54:07 EDT The Eldred v. Ashcroft... case... is scheduled for argument on October 9 ... Eric Eldred et al., petitioners: [are] asking the Supreme Court to overrule the lower court's decision and rule that retroactive copyright extensions are unconstitutional. ... [Main question] : does Congress have the power to extend copyright effectively forever, and doesn't the First Amendment have something to say on the topic? "Well, actually, the Copyright Term Extension Act's blanket retroactive extension of existing copyright terms exceeds Congress's power under the Copyright Clause." If they challenge you ... you can...tell them that "retroactively extended copyright terms are not 'limited'" and that "retroactively extended copyright terms do not 'promote the progress of science.'" ... Of course, the unconstitutionality that Eldred is concerned with is, to be honest, slightly subtle, so it's not wholly surprising that the district judge on the bottom of the totem pole wasn't going to stick his neck out in getting to the constitutional queston on which the whole case hinges. ... The entire case in Eldred is that a) the Copyright Clause doesn't let Congress extend copyright retroactively, and b) the First Amendment doesn't let Congress extend copyright retroactively. And now you have, right in front of you, the Copyright Clause, the relevant piece of the First Amendment, and a citation to the Sonny Bono act. ... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Why do I have the gnawing apprehension that this particular SCOTUS will come down, maybe 5-4, in favor of big business at the expense of the general population? (Yes, many authors, artists, etc., are "little guys," but it is primarily the big business movie, TV, and recording industry folks who care about copyrights being extended for 90 years after the death of the original artist or copyright holder and long after that artist expected the copyright protection to last when s/he created the work-- in essence meaning nothing can be in public domain until most people no longer care about it --?) Patents have much more limited duration, and "Eldred" will argue that the constitutional provisions were intended to limit copyrights similarly, rather than have them extended retroactively and, thus, potentially indefinitely. In case you want to read a bit more about the case without going through the whole previous thread, href=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2002/09/26/bonoact.DTL"> click here/ |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird) Date: 08 Oct 02 - 10:18 PM Good information can be found by following links from here. News articles, which are coming relatively thick and fast, can be found by going to http://www.news.google.com and doing searches for "Eldred v. Ashcroft" and "Eldred vs. Ashcroft". That's right, some people write "v." and some write "vs.", so if you use only one of the styles, you might miss articles that employ the other. T. |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: Genie Date: 08 Oct 02 - 11:10 PM Looks like my cut and paste left out part of the HTML code for that clicky. click here Thanks for those links, OkieM. |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: Genie Date: 08 Oct 02 - 11:11 PM Er ... click here |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: Genie Date: 08 Oct 02 - 11:20 PM Since this link does not seem to be working, here is the article I was trying to steer you to. Genie Free Mickey Hal Plotkin, Special to SF Gate Opening arguments are set to begin early next At issue is the constitutionality of the Sonny Bono Opponents -- which include dozens of the nation's To heighten public awareness of the importance of Tens of thousands of additional books would have The U.S. Constitution states: "The Congress shall have power to promote the So when Congress passed, and President Clinton It's this long overdue question that is about to get a Eldred operates the Eldritch Press, which offers free The public derives obvious benefits from sites such To be sure, writers and artists need and deserve What's really happened, they say, is that The original decision made more than 200 years ago Take, for example, the invention of the wheel. It led Little if any of the creative and economic activity So then, if the public domain is such a good thing, In two words: Mickey Mouse. In the late 1990s The Disney Corporation was What makes this sorry tale even more ironic is that Unfortunately, when it comes to copyrights, In 1790, when copyrights were first enacted, they Based on actuarial tables, that means a new work What's even more mind-boggling is to think about To take it a step further, just imagine if the idea was The argument that professor Lessig will be making Regrettably, Congress has repeatedly shown that it is Now, it's up to the Supreme Court. Let's hope that |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: Genie Date: 09 Oct 02 - 12:00 AM Or try this one (from OkieM's link, but more direct): U.S. Supreme Court to hear copyright challenge
|
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: GUEST Date: 09 Oct 02 - 12:22 PM Lawmeme has a preliminary report of the oral argument. |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: Genie Date: 09 Oct 02 - 01:10 PM Thanks, guest. Sounds like it may come out just the way I had expected -- unfortunately. BTW, in an article I posted above it says "In the late 1990s The Disney Corporation was panicked because the copyright on its famous rodent was about to expire." Lest folks tend to side with the Copyright Extension folks on the grounds that Mickey should not pass into the public domain, please note that Mickey Mouse has Trademark protection, which does not expire. The expiration of a copyright on, say, the old cartoons, would probably mean that folks could make and distribute copies without paying royalties. It would not mean that other folks could create new works using Mickey's (trademarked) image. |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Oct 02 - 01:37 PM Could someone explain how copyright works internationally? I mean, if some country, such as San Marino or the USA passes a law saying that copyright lasts for 75 years, 500 years, do people in any other country have to take a blind bit of notice of it? Unless they are exporting the publications in question into San Marino or the USA? And how does all this apply to putting things on the net which some country has decided shouldn't be in public domain? Legal for the rest of us to put them up, but not legal for you to read them in San Marino or the USA? |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: Bo Vandenberg Date: 09 Oct 02 - 01:48 PM Respecting each other's copyright laws are one of the basic level treaty things between countries. Typically developed countries have their own laws but there is great pressure to toe the line with the most extream ie.. the US. Most of the laws matter most in the markets that pay the most, with the possible exception of the internet which is so amorphous. Because businesses tend to work with an international mind set the US has very high influence. sigurd |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: GUEST Date: 09 Oct 02 - 02:01 PM The trademark on Mickey Mouse doesn't necessarily mean that no one will be able to make new Mickey Mouse cartoons. The traditional rationale for trademark law is to prevent "passing off". Uses of Mickey that didn't create confusion as to source might squeak by. Trademark law has somewhat evolved from its origins in preventing marketplace confusion. Some states have "dilution" laws that are seem to go beyond this, and the federal law has the Lanham Act. But it's not obvious beforehand (at least not to a non-lawyer like me) that making new Mickey Mouse comics, (using, not the evolved Mickey, but the 1920's Mickey after the copyrights in such early works as Plane Crazy and Steamboat Willy expire) would be trademark infringement in every single case. |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: GUEST Date: 10 Oct 02 - 01:03 PM A Canadian source with an interesting perspective. (Canada still has life+50). |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Oct 02 - 07:03 PM "Respecting each other's copyright laws are one of the basic level treaty things between countries." But does that apply when a country changes the law that applied when the treaty was signed, and decides to extend copyright law for some ridiculously lengthy timescale? |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: toadfrog Date: 10 Oct 02 - 08:58 PM Interesting point, McGrath. How long do English copyrights run? The above Canadian site states that the purpose of the Bono law was to bring U.S. copyrights into line with European ones? Is there something I am missing here? Not that I necessarily agree with the Law, but why is it so out of line for the U.S. to conform its statute to yours? |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: Genie Date: 10 Oct 02 - 10:37 PM If Canada's law is "life + 50," then the "Bono" extension added 20 years beyond Canada's. Genie |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: Hrothgar Date: 11 Oct 02 - 04:51 AM Australian law was life plus 50 years last time I looked. |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: GUEST Date: 11 Oct 02 - 09:57 AM toadfrog asks, "why is it so out of line for the U.S. to conform its statute to [Europe's]" The CTEA is out of line because (1) the European extension was itself a spoils-grab by powerful interests, (click here) using the Patricia case as a pretext. The problem of parallel imports into Germany could have been solved by other means than extending a perfectly reasonable life+50 copyright term. The German extension had been justified as a way to recover from wartime losses. This means, or should have meant, that it was always intended as a temporary departure from the Berne norm of life+50. (2) the CTEA doesn't bring U.S. law in line with Europe's; authors of post-1978 works now get life+70 in the U.S. and throughout Europe. The terms are "harmonized" to this extent. But U.S. authors already had life+70 in Germany, due to an old treaty between the U.S. and Germany. And many important works are "works for hire" under U.S. law, a category that doesn't exist in Europe. There is no clear "harmonization" there. In some European countries, sound recordings aren't covered by copyright at all, but by "neighboring rights" which last for 50 years. The U.S. copyright on sound recordings was already 75 years. The CTEA has now extended it to 95, nearly twice as long as Europe's. (For more data on "harmonization", click here). (3) the 95-year term for pre-1978 works, which were originally promised to the public after 56 years, a term that was then extended to 75 years, and has now been extended again to 95 years, is unreasonable on its face. Even if some other country had such a ridiculously long term, it wouldn't make it less ridiculous for the U.S. to adopt it. |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: GUEST Date: 11 Oct 02 - 10:00 AM "authors of post-1978 works now get life+70 in the U.S. and throughout Europe". I should have said, "The E.U." Switzerland, I believe, still has life+50. Some Eastern European countries may have switched to life+70 (since they hope to join the E.U.) but others may not have. |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: GUEST Date: 11 Oct 02 - 10:02 AM "Authors of post-1978 works now get life+70 in the U.S. and throughout Europe". Oops. That should be post-1977 works. |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: toadfrog Date: 11 Oct 02 - 11:41 AM Thanks, guest. All sounds correct. And of course, long copyrights on software could be an even bigger problem, although right now it's hard to imagine software not becoming obsolete in 5 years. |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird) Date: 13 Oct 02 - 09:55 PM Lawrence Lessig's own thoughts on last Wednesday's oral argument can be found here. |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: Genie Date: 13 Oct 02 - 11:58 PM toadfrog, as I understand it, the 'monkeywrench' that extended copyrights present is that copyright protection means not only can you not reproduce or sell someone's work without permission (and fees), but you cannnot produce works that are derivative of that work without similar permission and fees. I'm told that if patents had been similarly protected in such a long-range fashion in the early part of the 20th C., we would not have TV, automobiles, computers, telephones, and many of the inventions we now take for granted. Even in the drun industry, for God's sake, patents expire after about 20 years. Imagine if you not only could not make aspirin but could not make other drugs that took aspirin as their impetus? |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: GUEST Date: 14 Oct 02 - 11:34 PM I take it you meant to say "drug industry," Genie? |
Subject: RE: Copyright Extens.Case @ SCOTUS 10/9/02 From: Genie Date: 15 Jan 03 - 04:06 PM Looks like SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Mouse. Rats! Genie |
Share Thread: |
Subject: | Help |
From: | |
Preview Automatic Linebreaks Make a link ("blue clicky") |