In 1999 I wrote a series of articles ruminating on the repercussions of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, a bill which extended the term of copyright by additional 20 years.
A Question of Copyright
|
||
| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 |
Since then an onslaught of copyright issues has been brought center stage: the flurry, nay blizzard, of internet file sharing activity and the resultant action of corporate copyright holders, including the crushing of Napster, AudioGalaxy, and others, the passage of Public Law 105-304 (aka The Digital Millenium Copyright Act [DMCA]) which "prohibits the act of circumventing technological measures that control access to a copyrighted work in all but a narrow set of circumstances," and etc.
We're about to see what may be the big magilla of all these. Attorney and law professor Lawrence Lessig has taken the lead in jockeying the Eldred v. Ashcroft through the courts (in my previous articles the case was referred to as Eldred v. Reno; the name change is for obvious reasons). The suit, the first time a copyright case has reached the Supreme Court, challenges the constitutionality of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. At issue is the fact that the original language regarding copyright in the US Constitution suggested that copyright be granted for "limited times" in order to help "promote the progress of science and the useful arts," i.e., to encourage the creation of new work. In those days "limited time" was felt to be 14 years.The arguments begin before the Supreme Court on October 9, 2002.
Although it is not clearly stated whose creation the site is, Eldred.cc is the apparently official site for support of the plaintiffs in the case. It's also the best resource for current news about the status of the hearings.
There are, of course, many sides to this issue. Below you'll find links to a number of articles on the subject.
Steven Levy's article in Wired Magazine gives some good background to the case, with a focus on Larry Lessig himself.
To Lessig [Eldred v. Ashcroft] is both an opportunity to make up for losing the prize that was snatched from him some four years ago [as Special Master in the Microsoft case], and a giant step in his crusade to stop a trend he fears may be inevitable: big-media dinosaurs controlling the Internet. That's why the law professor has declared war on Mickey Mouse.
A number of articles about the case appear in the Financial Times' site. A lead article by Lawrence Lessig appears there, with responses from Thomas Hazlett, Richard Epstein, Edward Welbourne and Frank Walker (the responses appear on the page below Lessig's article).
[T]he striking feature of the argument was that in spite of 600 pages of filings in support of the Sonny Bono law, it was clear that the justices did not believe the extension had anything to do with the constitutional aim of promoting progress. Rather, they expressed an impatient contempt for what Congress had done. The question they were struggling with (rightly) was whether they had the power to do anything about it.
An article in the LA Times also gives an excellent overview, with details on both sides of the issue. (Requires registration.)
Lessig doesn't merely want to free the past. He wants to free the future as well. That's something else that the entertainment companies want to lock up. The laws they are proposing and the technologies they are developing, he says, will make creativity on the Internet a wholly owned subsidiary of the Recording Industry Assn. of America and the Motion Picture Assn. of America.
A series of four articles by Dan Kohn, published in TidBITs (a free email and Web publication covering the Macintosh Internet community), offers a unique analysis of the situation and goes a long way towards suggesting alternatives to the current copyright compensation models.
Put simply, in a world where there are essentially no costs to replicate content and it is effectively impossible to stop anyone from doing so at will, the current economic model underpinning content creation will be dead.
An interesting follow-up, and one that ties in more directly and references Lessig's Supreme court case, is an article by TidBITs publisher, Adam C. Engst, which stems, he says, from an attempt to explain to his three-year old the need to share toys .
It may be nearly impossible to create something new without reference or influence from a work of the past.
From these the links expand exponentially, spirally ever outward. See the above articles for an seemingly endless supply of links to additional news, commentary, call and responses. Here are a few examples:
Kazaa Taunts Record Biz: Catch Us
The Kazaa file-trading network, reportedly 120 million strong, is establishing worldwide reach -- and offices around the globe. For now, there's little U.S. media companies can do about it.
Rep. Howard Berman insists his new bill -- which could exempt copyright owners from computer-fraud laws if they disrupt peer-to-peer networks -- is "self-help technology," not vigilantism.
Special thanks to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website for providing links used in researching this article.
Next up: Back to the links!
Originally published at Suite101.com Theatre, 11/5/02
| <---Previous article |