4 ms·

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution spells out the Enumerated Powers of Congress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers http://en.wikipedia.

by 300bps 13y ago

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution spells out the Enumerated Powers of Congress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers Therein lies the Copyright Clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Which states: 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 key phrase here is "securing for limited Times". Limited. For all intents and purposes, we have made copyright unlimited. If you disagree, ask yourself... when Mickey Mouse is up for the public domain again in 6 years do you really believe it won't be extended again? As the article states, the original copyright term was 14 years in the Copyright Act of 1790 unless the copyright holder was still alive after 14 years in which case they could renew for another 14 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 As it stands now, it's until the life of the author + 70 years. Although it's hard to say that with a straight face since anytime Mickey Mouse has been up for public domain it has gotten extended and will likely continue to be extended. Biggest irony? Many of Disney's biggest works are based on public domain works. Some of them would not have been in the public domain had copyright been as long as Disney has made it to protect their own characters from going into the public domain.

Afforess 13y ago
I disagree. The real key phrase is To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts Copyrights don't exist for the benefit of the owner, they exist to benefit society. Today's laws are a perverse misinterpretation of copyright's original intent.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- austenallred 13y ago
  Yes, the goal is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." But the means to that end is to incentivize creators by granting them exclusive rights to the things that they create for a certain period of time.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
warfangle 13y ago
Unfortunately, the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 has already been upheld as constitutional by the SCOTUS. Lawrence Lessig writes about this battle (and reasons he thinks he lost) in Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. ( http://www.amazon.com/Free-Culture-Nature-Creativity-ebook/dp/B000OCXHM2/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1375289391&sr=8-4&keywords=lawrence+lessig http://www.amazon.com/Free-Culture-Nature-Creativity-ebook/d... - non-affiliate link)
dredmorbius 13y ago
> The key phrase There are several key phrases there. "To promote the Progress" "for limited Times" "to Authors and Inventors" and of course "the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" But you omitted the operative language from the enumerated powers clause itself: "The Congress shall have Power to". That's a grant of power, but not an obligation to act on that power. Which is to say: I've heard people claim that Congress must enact copyright and patent laws. No, Congress has at its discretion the ability to do so. That those laws be to promote science (writing) and arts (technology). Which would seem to render any _retrospective* extension of the acts as unconstitutional, as well as any execution of the powers (say, by overly-broad grants of low-quality patents). And that the grants be restricted to authors and inventors. Not the employers of authors and inventors, not entities which can buy, for the remainder of the protection period, the rights. Narrowly read, an Author or Inventor would retain exclusive rights and would only be allowed to grant a temporary and nonexclusive grant of that right to others. Patent and copyright were an interesting experiment at an interesting time (the US Revolution occurred on the eve of the Industrial Revolution, and ended a period of over 1000 years in which technological and economic change had proceeded at an absolutely glacial pace). The experiment appears to be failing in significant ways.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Narrowly read, an Author or Inventor would retain exclusive rights and would only be allowed to grant a temporary and nonexclusive grant of that right to others. An excellent argument. Likewise, when the standard copyright term exceeds the median human lifetime, the 'limited time' effectively becomes 'forever.' One of the few things I like about the patent system is that the term is 20 years, which is a reasonable period of exclusivity for a genuinely patentable idea (vs. the abusive attempt to patent the obvious or prior art for litigation purposes).
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    > when the standard copyright term exceeds the median human lifetime, the 'limited time' effectively becomes 'forever.' The Supreme Court has, unfortunately, ruled otherwise. Lessig, in his retrospective on the Eldred case (term limits extension suit that went to SCOTUS) feels he should have focused on the promotion rather than limited terms clause. Coulda shoulda woulda. Thanks for trying anyway, Larry.
Buttons840 13y ago
I kind of like the "right to their respective Writing and Discoveries" part. When I create something from my own creativity, is it not my discovery and invention? If someone I've never heard of who lives 2,000 miles away has created someone similar, then apparently it's not my idea. Who could have guessed? "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." -- John Carmack
mynameishere 13y ago
The copyright laws are obviously a result of corporate lobbying, but there is simply no way to argue that extending the copyright on Mickey Mouse has reduced the quantity or quality of literary or other artistic work. It has only made it more expensive to (legally) watch old movies or read old books.
tracker1 13y ago
I think it would be interesting to have an auto-copyright that we have now, but limited to 20 years.. after which you have to pay $10000 to re-register for the next five years, and every 5 years the price to register doubles. No limit on how many times you can re-register... period. All re-registration of works before 1960 would be $160000 as a first 5-year (re)registration... works from 1960-1990 will be $40000, and after 1990 will be $10000 due in 5 years from signing.

by 300bps 13y ago

Afforess 13y ago

I disagree. The real key phrase is To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts Copyrights don't exist for the benefit of the owner, they exist to benefit society. Today's laws are a perverse misinterpretation of copyright's original intent.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
austenallred 13y ago
Yes, the goal is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." But the means to that end is to incentivize creators by granting them exclusive rights to the things that they create for a certain period of time.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

warfangle 13y ago

Unfortunately, the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 has already been upheld as constitutional by the SCOTUS. Lawrence Lessig writes about this battle (and reasons he thinks he lost) in Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. ( http://www.amazon.com/Free-Culture-Nature-Creativity-ebook/dp/B000OCXHM2/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1375289391&sr=8-4&keywords=lawrence+lessig http://www.amazon.com/Free-Culture-Nature-Creativity-ebook/d... - non-affiliate link)

dredmorbius 13y ago

> The key phrase There are several key phrases there. "To promote the Progress" "for limited Times" "to Authors and Inventors" and of course "the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" But you omitted the operative language from the enumerated powers clause itself: "The Congress shall have Power to". That's a grant of power, but not an obligation to act on that power. Which is to say: I've heard people claim that Congress must enact copyright and patent laws. No, Congress has at its discretion the ability to do so. That those laws be to promote science (writing) and arts (technology). Which would seem to render any _retrospective* extension of the acts as unconstitutional, as well as any execution of the powers (say, by overly-broad grants of low-quality patents). And that the grants be restricted to authors and inventors. Not the employers of authors and inventors, not entities which can buy, for the remainder of the protection period, the rights. Narrowly read, an Author or Inventor would retain exclusive rights and would only be allowed to grant a temporary and nonexclusive grant of that right to others. Patent and copyright were an interesting experiment at an interesting time (the US Revolution occurred on the eve of the Industrial Revolution, and ended a period of over 1000 years in which technological and economic change had proceeded at an absolutely glacial pace). The experiment appears to be failing in significant ways.

anigbrowl 13y ago
Narrowly read, an Author or Inventor would retain exclusive rights and would only be allowed to grant a temporary and nonexclusive grant of that right to others. An excellent argument. Likewise, when the standard copyright term exceeds the median human lifetime, the 'limited time' effectively becomes 'forever.' One of the few things I like about the patent system is that the term is 20 years, which is a reasonable period of exclusivity for a genuinely patentable idea (vs. the abusive attempt to patent the obvious or prior art for litigation purposes).
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  > when the standard copyright term exceeds the median human lifetime, the 'limited time' effectively becomes 'forever.' The Supreme Court has, unfortunately, ruled otherwise. Lessig, in his retrospective on the Eldred case (term limits extension suit that went to SCOTUS) feels he should have focused on the promotion rather than limited terms clause. Coulda shoulda woulda. Thanks for trying anyway, Larry.

Buttons840 13y ago

I kind of like the "right to their respective Writing and Discoveries" part. When I create something from my own creativity, is it not my discovery and invention? If someone I've never heard of who lives 2,000 miles away has created someone similar, then apparently it's not my idea. Who could have guessed? "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." -- John Carmack

mynameishere 13y ago

The copyright laws are obviously a result of corporate lobbying, but there is simply no way to argue that extending the copyright on Mickey Mouse has reduced the quantity or quality of literary or other artistic work. It has only made it more expensive to (legally) watch old movies or read old books.

tracker1 13y ago

I think it would be interesting to have an auto-copyright that we have now, but limited to 20 years.. after which you have to pay $10000 to re-register for the next five years, and every 5 years the price to register doubles. No limit on how many times you can re-register... period. All re-registration of works before 1960 would be $160000 as a first 5-year (re)registration... works from 1960-1990 will be $40000, and after 1990 will be $10000 due in 5 years from signing.