Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted for Review bySCOTUS

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

> I think the logic is this.  
> 
> (a) No creative community can thrive without a strong public domain

Unfortunately, this is exactly what has gotten lost in every change to the 
copyright laws starting in 1976. WIth good reason the USA Did NOTsign the 
Berne convention when they had a chance to do so in 1909 (and why was it 
signed in 1976....a couple of generations of legal scholars died away and 
were replaced with those predesposed and preprogrammed to not ask 
questions). NObody spoke up for the public domain until the point that the 
CTEA has increased it to the level that the anyone outside the legal or 
political professions (present readers excepted) considers it ridiculous. This 
is something that I fear has been forgotten

Add to this that the Berne convention creates a copyright system that can 
NEVER be administered to in an efficient objective fashion. Copyright 
expiration cannot SIMPLY be determined (date of publication versus date of 
authors death.). No notice of copyright must be given (OK...how can one tell 
what's in and not in the public domain.) The Berne convention is antipodal 
to having a public domain and so contradicts the requirement for limited 
times (one can't have a limted time if one cannot objectively or simply 
determine just what that is)

> (b) a strong public domain requires inclusion of meaningful contemporary
> content

Contemporary? somewhere betwen 28 and 50 yrs old but not not more. I 
would argue that the terms for copyright protection should be 
commenserate with their lifetimes but certainly no more than what is needed 
to administer to ALL copyrights granted. Literaly works are deserving of long 
periods because their worth may not be appreciated early one and they are 
less functional than other copyright items. Computer masks, software. I 
don't even think 14 yrs is short enough! The question is not how long but 
how short!

> (c) the long terms have locked up all contemporary content
> (d) the internet is a creative community
> (e) long terms are adversely affecting the development of the internet
> 


(f) - Copyright is a social contract codified as a set of laws. When the laws 
are such that they violate the spirit and even the letter of that contract. The 
contract has been breached by continued additions without consideration, 
violations of the constitution for limited terms and rights to authors, the 
extension of rights to publishers without consideration to authors and 
creators. MOst fundamentally, it has been breached that works have not 
been entering the public domain in a timely fashion whereby they could be 
used to promote progress. 

Date sent:      	Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:27:46 -0700
From:           	"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted for 
Review
	bySCOTUS
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> I think the logic is this.  
> 
> (a) No creative community can thrive without a strong public domain
> (b) a strong public domain requires inclusion of meaningful contemporary
> content
> (c) the long terms have locked up all contemporary content
> (d) the internet is a creative community
> (e) long terms are adversely affecting the development of the internet
> 
> The NII report warned that there could be no progress of digital media
> and the internet without strong copyright controls -- and failed to
> understand that there could be no progress of the internet without a
> rich public domain. 

The NII report is clearly false. THe majority of content on the Internet now 
does not have strong copyright protection and is clearly digital media. 
Noone is forcing the content media producers to use digital content. Let 
them go back to VHS and vinyl. Clearly the progress of digital media and 
the internet is linked to the availablity of free material - THE PUBLIC 
DOMAIN!!!

> CTEA (and those before it) and the DMCA abandon all
> appearance of a balance of interests.  They work to protect the status
> quo (extant publishing business) and quench all progress (the deployment
> of new technology which could have leveraged a strong public domain).
> 
> Actually, I believe long terms and the dot-bomb of internet companies
> are highly linked.  Where it not for long terms much compelling content
> requiring broadband (and always on) connections would be in the public
> domain.  In seeming contradiction, people will pay for access to free
> content  (i.e. buy broadband) but will not pay the double-whammy of both
> a broadband plus overpriced/usage restricted pay content**.  As many
> pre-dot-bomb business depended on the greater deployment and increasing
> eye-ball hours of the internet or on the rapid uptake of broadband --
> the 33kpbs and holding internet undercut investor confidence and the
> whole house of cards fell.  Now -- the long terms were in place before
> the dot-bomb, and the fail business should have understood copyright as
> a tremendous barrier to entry and reduction of the broadband value
> proposition a priori -- duh!
> 
> 

True enough in part but there were other problems with dot.coms. The ones 
that are surviving are also producing mostly. THe ones that were just 
middlemen got squeezed because they provide no real service that the 
producer can't if they are smart...or rather not greedy. Just because list 
prices for CDs are $XX and cheap.com sells them for 25% off doesn't mean 
that the producer can't as well (Well let's not go into the RIAA prixe fixing)

> ** Compare this to modern theme parks.  When Disneyland was *it* you
> paid to get it, you paid for ride tickets.  At the knee of the theme
> park explosion Six Flag corp. decided to break from that model, forcing
> Disney to follow suit.  What followed has been unprecedented growth in
> that industry.  I believe that with the elimination of per-ride costs,
> the average stay is longer (yielding higher concessions sales) and the
> perceived value (and thus market price) of the admission ticket is
> increased.
> 
> For the economists in the crowd, yes I *do* know that the lines for "key
> attractions" are a tragedy-of-the-commons issue -- and customers now pay
> for rides in terms of opportunity not monetary costs.  These market
> inefficiencies are now being attacked with scheduling technologies. 
> Bring your ID and schedule a 15 min window for your ride.  As parks will
> need to limit scheduling more than one ride of a given type -- expect a
> black market in ID's to obtain additional ride slots.  (and then an
> escalation to park "passports" with photo ID's and eventually biometrics
> -- I doubt highly a Gattaca style marketplace will develop to defeat
> that)
> 
> Roy Murphy wrote:
> > 
> > 'Twas brillig when Jeremy Erwin scrobe:
> > > What's with the headline: "Supreme Court to Intervene in Internet
> > > Copyright Dispute"? Eldred may publish on the Internet, but the legal
> > > questions have nothing to do with the internet.
> > 
> > That's just a stupid AP spin to the story.  I guess Copyright Term Extensions
> > just dosn't make for a sexy enough story.
> > 
> > --
> > Roy Murphy      \ CSpice -- A mailing list for Clergy Spouses
> > murphy@panix.com \  http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html
>