Now is the time for some serious Samizdat.

This is the kind of matter which is entirely within the appropriate jurisdiction of the legislature. The Congress is the voice of the people. If people really cared about copyright (most people, I mean, not just some a few net activists), they'd vote for Congressmen who would limit copyright terms.

If you want the policy changed, convince your fellow man of the wisdom of your ideas. It's a slower course than trying to get the Supreme Court to make the law for you, but ultimately it will produce a more stable and long-lasting solution.

I disagree that this is totally under the jurisdiction of the legislature. Our Constitution has now been violated. Again.

Key word 'totally.'

The argument is that this is NOT under their jurisdiction. It's a matter of common sense. The key phrase is "for a limited time". By allowing repeated limited time extensions, congress has given itself unlimited power in this area. A constant succession of limited times (added every time a company like Disney is in danger of losing control over a key asset) is by definition unlimited.

This "limited time" attack really doesn't work. At best it would only apply after an infinite amount of time in the future. If Congress existed forever, and extended copyright forever, then that would violate the "limited time" rule (supposing that it rises to the level of a rule). But suppose that 10,000 years from now, Congress stops extending the copyright on Mickey Mouse? Then the protection will have lasted for a limited time after all.

In claiming that the recent extension is unconstitutional, you are in effect saying that possible future actions by Congress could make their current action illegal. That is both unfair and illogical.

Edited by author 01-16-2003 02:25 PM
It would seem to me that 95 years - longer than the average person's lifespan - is not a "limited" time.

But yes, I agree that the neccessary course here is changing Congress.

I disagree. It is illogical to have an uncircumscribed power and say that it is limited because I have not yet extended that power.

If I have the power to, at any time, extend the duration of copyright law, I have in effect unlimited power. It is not unfair or illogical to say that the ability to make this change is therefore unlimited. That is the logical conclusion.

The historical record shows that since 1899, every time copyright is about to expire, the law is extended. If we have to wait for future events before we can argue that this power congress has given itself is uncircumscribed, then we are forever locked into the cycle that has occurred since the turn of the century - uncircumscribed power. THAT is illogical.

The true solution is nearly impossible: modify the copyright clause of the constitution to explicitly state what is reasonable and circumscribed. Then again, this is the purpose of our legal system's continual refinement and modification of laws. You can't legislate every single position. Eventual outcome is obvious: a legal system with so much case law it becomes overburdened and common sense is trumped by prior legal precendents, as it is with copyright law.

Which leads to the same conclusion: the proper place for change is congress. It's also the court system, which is ever more corporate friendly and citizen unfriendly.