Cory Doctorow on DRM on the BBC website

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by etienne66

Copyright is constitutional. The constitution says congress has the right to specify a copyright for a limited time. But I have to ask you with respect to the lifetime of a person, what is limited about life plus 70 years? Will this encourage an author who is dead to right new works when he has been in the ground for 20 years?

No. But it does make his work more valuable than a shorter period would.

What if Jane Austen had been dead for only 20 years and whoever inherited the copyright didn't like the idea of "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?" No one could publish it for another 50 years.

No great loss. Although I think it unlikely that someone would have written P&P&Z in 1817. Plus, anyone can play that game - what if Jane Austen had just written P&P and she didn't like the idea of P&P&Z?

How many other great stories don't see the light of day for the same reason. What great movies haven't been filmed because someone could not determine the copyright holder or the copyright holder just didn't like the idea?

Why don't you tell us?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by etienne66

Copyright is constitutional. The constitution says congress has the right to specify a copyright for a limited time.

That book No Law talks about turning the first amendment into a structural power, not seeing the first amendment as a protection for individuals but as a limitation of government.

It's weird that the copyright clause was added to the constitution before the first amendment, and some have said that we should not read the constitution absolutely because of this fact.

The First amendment trumps copyright.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

That book No Law talks about turning the first amendment into a structural power, not seeing the first amendment as a protection for individuals but as a limitation of government.

It's weird that the copyright clause was added to the constitution before the first amendment, and some have said that we should not read the constitution absolutely because of this fact.

The First amendment trumps copyright.

Of course it does.

[doreenjoy]

Huh. I never knew my first amendment rights meant that I can sell others' creations for profit to myself. Gotta get back to constitutional law class...

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by etienne66

Copyright is constitutional. The constitution says congress has the right to specify a copyright for a limited time.

Only "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Now, I'm not arguing (as Lange and Jefferson Powell seem to) that congress has overstepped those boundaries, but they clearly don't have carte blanche here. I suppose it could be argued that the current regime isn't needed to that end.

... what is limited about life plus 70 years?

It's still "limited", of course.

[Horemheb]

Nice article from Doctorow. Too bad that no decision maker will listen to him (at least not at the big fishes).

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Only "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Now, I'm not arguing (as Lange and Jefferson Powell seem to) that congress has overstepped those boundaries, but they clearly don't have carte blanche here. I suppose it could be argued that the current regime isn't needed to that end.

The book describes the jurisprudence of first amendment law. It's pretty interesting, basically the first amendment has been interpreted and then reinterpreted and then interpreted many times over.

Copyright is a restriction upon expression and is therefore unconstitutional. And yes there are many other systems that could be put into place to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and these systems will most likely promote the arts and science far more effectively than copyright ever has. This isn't going to happen overnight of course, but it is already happening. What we can do is move it along as rapidly as we can.

[DiapDealer]

Copyright is a restriction upon expression and is therefore unconstitutional.

Talk about the chicken or the egg! Isn't that like saying the constitution is unconstitutional? My head hurts.

[rogue_librarian]

Their argument is this:

We propose accordingly that the First Amendment be read absolutely, in keeping with its first and most obvious meaning: that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press by conferring monopolies in expression that otherwise would belong to the universe of discourses in which all are free to share and share alike. In at least this sense, "no law" should mean no law.

... including, it would seem, any Copyright Act. I don't buy it.

[Shimarenda]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

In the future we will be able to sell anything we want, including things that others create.

I have this bridge in Manhattan you might be interested in.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

Huh. I never knew my first amendment rights meant that I can sell others' creations for profit to myself. Gotta get back to constitutional law class...

Not specifically that, no--but "to promote science and the useful arts," you might argue you should be able to:

Take 2 chapters from each of 5 different nonfiction books, combine them into 1 book, and put a brief essay between the chapters explaining the relevance and contrasts between them.

Reprint a book that's out of print to share it with a new audience.

Collect photographs of a hundred weddings to place in a book about photography styles.

Take someone's entire dissertation, and go through it line-by-line analyzing and critiquing its findings.

Republish movies in digital form, charging enough for the download to cover the bandwidth & conversion costs.

Collect "favorite songs of teens at [x] high school" onto a cd, capturing a particular moment of cultural interest.

... and so on. There's plenty of reasons why use of someone else's materials can be a free speech issue, whether or not profit is involved. Requiring licensing or permission for these is an infringement of free speech rights. (IMHO, mostly a reasonable one. Free speech isn't an absolute right, just something that has to be carefully considered when assigning other rights & restrictions.)

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Am I right in thinking that creative commons licenses are just an abstraction layer above copyright itself?

Kind of like an honor system? I like the honor system.

As I understand it, the Creative Commons license is actually exercise of copyright.

Owning copyright gives you the ability to give PERMISSION to copy under any conditions you stipulate (which is all a Creative Commons license is).

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

The book describes the jurisprudence of first amendment law.....

Whoever wrote it, presumably ignored pretty much all of the case law relating to copyright in the US. There is absolutely no doubt that a) copyright is constitutional, b) the First Amendment was not in any way, shape or form intended to outlaw copyright, and 3) copyright does not "restrict expression" in any except the most broad possible definition of the phrase.

Fun fact: The preambulatory phrase about "promoting arts and sciences" is no longer seen as binding, much in the same way the courts no longer view membership in a militia as a prerequisite for gun ownership. IIRC the claim wasn't even presented in Eldred v Ashcroft, which did try (and failed) to assert that adding time to an existing copyright duration violated the First Amendment.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Whoever wrote it, presumably ignored pretty much all of the case law relating to copyright in the US.

They're both tenured professors at Duke and constitutional scholars. It's safe to assume they know what they're talking about. It's an interesting read, actually, if you like that sort of thing.

[jgaiser]

I think, like Kali Yuga, their contrarians.