*short moment of silence for our shared cultural heritage*

*long moment of rage for Disney etc*

It will be interesting to read the decision, but it is clear now: The legal process will not trump the legislative process in this matter. If we are going to get change it will have to be thru legislative education by way of lobbies, letters and the polls. It is your sacred duty to work against the re-election of any congressperson, no matter how odious other candidates may be; the status quo is doing no one any good.

re: black page
Ah, It's about the Mouse then.

The first thing I thought when I saw the white-on-black was, "yup, they've already heard the news."

Dying to hear the justice's comments on their decision. At least one better include the phrase "to enhance shareholder value."

Opinions are up:

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/01-618o.pdf (majority)
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/01-618d.pdf (Stevens' dissent)
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/01-618d1.pdf (Breyer's dissent)

I feel like it is time for a little civil disobedience. Every P2P network should have perfectly digitized copies of the works whose copyright should have expired.

What a Mickey Mouse Supreme Court.

How can one find out how the original vote (for the 20yr extention) went? Anyone have a link?

Edited by author 01-15-2003 12:10 PM
I really didn't like the way the AP framed the story:
"The Supreme Court decided that people who wanted to rip off the large corporations by not paying royalties, can't."

Typical. So typical...
*sigh*

The NYT headline at least points out that the law is designed to protect profits for corporations, not to protect the rights of people.

eventi: it passed by voice vote. (You can get this info by digging around starting at http://www.senate.gov/; there's a good FAQ on finding out how votes went.)

Edited by author 01-16-2003 02:26 AM
the Congress shall have power . . . 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. - U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

From a non-legal, analytical viewpoint, it would seem that any legislative changes to copyright law would be constitutional if
1)they does not violate any other part of the constitution
2)they do not grant the copyright holder exclusive rights in perpetuity

I have not read every supreme court case that touches upon copyright issues, so there may be a lot of precedent that I'm not aware of. However, a casual reading does not raise any red flags for me.

OFF TOPIC

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. - U.S. Constitution, Amendment II

The Congress shall have power ... 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; - U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

A lot of people want to strike down or ignore the second amendment because, in their opinion, the right to bear arms is only valid in a militia context. But, what would this line of reasoning say about patents and copyrights that are not serving "to promote the progress of science and useful arts"? In both cases you have a blurb laying out the author's reasoning, and then a declarative statement. If the author's reasoning conflicts with reality, or the current situation, do we deny people the legal rights granted by the declarative statement?

How about a constitutional amendment?

It's something to get worked up about, yes, but in the grand scheme of things compared to the other civil liberties being scorched to a crisp by the Bush administration, it's small potatoes. It's akin to getting all atwitter over the Germans for banning jazz when all hell is breaking lose around.

It's a sad loss but things should be put in perspective.

Festivus, this touches on both points you say it doesn't:

1)they does not violate any other part of the constitution
2)they do not grant the copyright holder exclusive rights in perpetuity

For #1, congress grants itself an uncircumscribed power because it implicitly gives itself the ability to do #2. We're actually arguing about this on a different thread:

http://www.quicktopic.com/boing/H/QfwNhUanHSWM

I disagree. The fact that congress is working against the spirit of the original authors by constantly increasing the length of a copyright, does not in my opinion reflect on the legality of the law in question. Perhaps you can say that the goals of the legislature are unconstitutional, but the laws that they are passing do not, by themselves, seem to violate the constitution. Because the law explicitly states a limited length for the copyright(assuming the copyright owner is not immortal), it is in compliance with the limited time-frame provision in constitution.

The letter of the law does not conflict with the constitution, but the intent of the legislature conflicts with the intent of the founding fathers. I think that it is more appropriate for this issue to be addressed in the legislature than in the courts.