|
What's So Eminent About Public Domain? The copyright lobby makes a dubious case...
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
October 31, 2005
What's So Eminent About Public Domain?
The copyright lobby makes a dubious case for IP protection
Tim Lee
Pop Quiz: What do these two stories have in common?
- A large pharmaceutical company announces plans to build a facility in Connecticut. In return, the city agrees to raze several dozen homes and businesses in an adjacent working-class neighborhood for redevelopment into high-rise condos, a five-star hotel, and private office buildings. When some of the residents don't want to sell, the city uses its power of eminent domain to force them out, citing increased tax revenues as a justification for the taking.
- A computer science professor purchases a DVD at Best Buy. When he brings it home, he discovers that his computer, which runs the Linux operating system, isn't able to play it because Linux DVD-playing software isn't available in the United States. Fortunately, the software is available from a Hungarian website. He downloads it and watches his movie.
Stumped?
According to James V. DeLong, senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation (and a Reason contributing editor), that DVD player isn't just a piece of software. It's a "code cracking tool" that might make it possible (although not legal, of course) to engage in piracy. And allowing consumers to have such dangerous tools is akin to allowing local governments to seize their constituents' homes and businesses for the benefit of private developers.
That's what DeLong told Congress earlier this month at a hearing on the implications of the Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London decision, which allowed an eminent domain taking along the lines described above.
DeLong is not the only one exploiting the backlash against the Kelo decision to promote a dubious intellectual property agenda.
Consider the case of Google Print, an ambitious effort to create a full-text search engine of every book ever published. Google launched the project late last year with much fanfare. The project has the potential to replace yellowing card-catalogs and clumsy keyword-based library searches with a book search product as powerful and comprehensive as Google's search engine for the web.
But the publishing industry filed suit on October 19, claiming that the project amounts to theft of their property. In a letter published recently in The New York Times, Authors' Guild president Nick Taylor contended that Google is "exercising a renegade notion of eminent domain" when it scans publishers' books without their permission.
Or consider the newly formed Property Rights Alliance (a project of Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform) which sponsored a panel at last month's State Policy Network meeting in which lobbyists from the movie and recording industries shared the podium with grassroots activists fighting eminent domain abuse. The Alliance's founding press release lamented that "recent Supreme Court decisions gutting physical and intellectual property rights have left little choice but to unify and organize."
That's strange, because there haven't been any recent Supreme Court decisions "gutting" intellectual property rights. Intellectual property holders scored a whopping 9-0 victory in MGM v. Grokster, which ruled the Grokster file-sharing service illegal. And copyright holders prevailed by a vote of 7-2 in the 2001 decision of New York Times v. Tasini, which dealt with the use of copyrighted material in online databases.
Or consider the 2003 case of Eldred v. Ashcroft, which asked whether Congress may retroactively lengthen copyright terms. In that case, such notorious socialists as Milton Friedman and Ronald Coase signed an amicus brief urging the court to strike down the extensions. And pinko rags such as The Wall Street Journal and The Economist criticized the extensions. But the Supreme Court still sided with copyright holders in a 7-2 decision.
Copyright holders have been batting a thousand at the Supreme Court over the last decade. So why the complaints? The PRA and its allies know the real copyright debate isn't about whether intellectual property should be protected (virtually everyone agrees that it should) but over recent attempts to expand copyright far beyond its traditional boundaries. Those expansions are hard to defend, so copyright hawks are doing their best to change the subject.
The Eldred decision is a good example. Until 1909, an author could receive copyright protection for no more than 56 years, after which the work would fall into the public domain. But thanks to industry lobbying, Congress extended the terms in 1976, and again in 1998. As a result, no copyrights have fallen into the public domain since the 1970s unless their owners chose not to renew them. There's every reason to think Congress will grant another extension around 2018, when the current terms begin to expire. Despite the Constitutional requirement that copyrights be "for limited times," Congress has effectively made them perpetual, one extension at a time.
The 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which DeLong defends in his testimony, was another expansion of copyright powers. It prohibits any device that "circumvents" a copy-protection scheme, regardless of whether the circumvention violates anyone's copyright. Linux DVD players are just one example of devices rendered illegal under the act. It's also illegal to transfer legally purchased music from the iTunes Music Store to a non-Apple MP3 player without Apple's permission. And it is illegal to sell software that "circumvents" the copy-protection scheme in Adobe's eBook format, even for an entirely legitimate purpose, such as allowing a blind person to use screen-reading software.
Maybe giving copyright holders control over the technology platforms that play their content is the only way to combat piracy. But DMCA supporters don't seem very interested in making that argument. Instead, they pile on hyperbole and overheated rhetoric. In a recent article, DeLong sarcastically accused DMCA opponents of seeking to "abolish intellectual property rights in favor of some mystical commune wherein all IP is free as the air and creators are compensated by government." Needless to say, the DMCA-reform legislation he was criticizing does no such thing. It merely loosens the anti-circumvention rule created by the DMCA, essentially returning us to the copyright environment of the mid-1990s. That was hardly an era of IP anarchy.
The Google Print controversy fits the same pattern. The Authors' Guild claims that Google Print "seizes private property." Yet in reality, the excerpts of copyrighted books shown by the service would be far too short to be of use to anyone looking for a free copy. And under copyright law, the use of short excerpts has traditionally qualified as fair use. If the Authors' Guild prevails, it will leave copyright owners with much greater control over how their content is used than they have traditionally enjoyed in the pre-Internet world. And even if they lose, readers will still have to purchase the full book if they want to read more than a few sentences.
By lumping together the very real threat of the government taking people's land with an imaginary threat of IP anarchists abolishing intellectual property, the copyright industry and its allies hope to portray themselves as defenders of traditional property rights. The problem is that their own copyright agenda is a radical departure from America's copyright traditions. If there really is a good case for expanding the rights of copyright holders, they should be able to make it without misleading analogies to the Kelo decision.
Tim Lee is an editor at the Show Me Institute, based in St. Louis.
http://www.reason.com/hod/tl103105.shtml |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Great article Trancer-X!
Definately an arduous arguement when creating a fabricated senario of being a victim.
Will be interesting to see how this case goes... |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Or consider the 2003 case of Eldred v. Ashcroft, which asked whether Congress may retroactively lengthen copyright terms. In that case, such notorious socialists as Milton Friedman and Ronald Coase signed an amicus brief urging the court to strike down the extensions. And pinko rags such as The Wall Street Journal and The Economist criticized the extensions. But the Supreme Court still sided with copyright holders in a 7-2 decision.
|
Excuse me for a minute while I ponder this....
What. The. . Is. This. ?
Friedman a socialist? a notorious one at that?!? WSJ a pinko rag? Am I missing some attempt at humor or irony by the author? Or is this just more garbage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
| quote: | Milton Friedman (born July 31, 1912) is a U.S. economist, known primarily for his work on macroeconomics and for his advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism. In 1976 he was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics "for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.".....
Friedman visited Chile in 1975 during the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. Invited by a private foundation, he gave a series of lectures on economics. Several professors from the University of Chicago became advisors to the Chilean government and several Ph.D. graduates from the same university – known as "the Chicago boys" – served in Chilean ministries. Friedman met with Pinochet during his visit to Chile, but he did not serve as advisor to the Chilean government or maintain personal contact with Pinochet. Nevertheless, he was accused of supporting a regime whose policies included torture and the killing of political opponents. A number of protesters demonstrated against Friedman during the 1976 Nobel Prize ceremony. (See Miracle of Chile)
Critics have remarked that Chile's dictatorship used its power to implement free-market policies, thus contradicting the relationship that Friedman claims exists between free markets and political freedom. Friedman defends his role in Chile on the grounds that the move towards open market policies not only improved the economic situation in Chile but also contributed to the softening of Pinochet's rule and to its eventual replacement by a democratic government in 1990. He also stresses that the lectures he gave in Chile in 1975 were the same lectures he later gave without incident in China and other Socialist states.
Friedman visited China during the beginning of the Chinese economic reform. His works had been studied secretly by many young Chinese students, and his ideas played an important role in the transformation of the Chinese economy from a strict socialist economy based on the Soviet model to a more open limited market economy.
In the 1970s, Friedman argued against the trade and diplomatic embargoes that many Western nations had imposed on the white minority governments of South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), claiming that the embargoes played into the hands of anti-Western, Communist insurgencies in those countries, that far more repressive regimes in Africa and elsewhere were not being similarly punished, and that progress towards racial equality and freedom in South Africa and Rhodesia might be better pursued through a policy of engagement with their governments. Friedman was criticized for visiting those countries in 1976 and meeting with members of pro-Apartheid government without publicly calling for repealing the racist electoral laws that were then in place.
In 2005, Friedman and more than 500 other economists, called for the legalization of marijuana in an open letter to the President, Congress, Governors, and State Legislatures of the United States. |
Sure you didn't get this from The Onion? |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Excuse me for a minute while I ponder this....
What. The. . Is. This. ?
Friedman a socialist? a notorious one at that?!? WSJ a pinko rag? Am I missing some attempt at humor or irony by the author? Or is this just more garbage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
Sure you didn't get this from The Onion? |
Haha, yeah, I was wondering about that as well. I guess I figured that the broader message itself was worth overlooking what seems to be just an erroneous categorization of Friedman and the WSJ. I think I'm going to email that author and ask him what the heck he was talking about in those regards, because I can't make much sense of it either.
Anyway, while Friedman has been an outspoken critic of the US Drug War for quite some time, he gave a speech in 1991 lambasting it as a Socialist enterprise, so I seriously doubt that he could possibly be a Socialist himself.
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/...n/socialist.htm
BTW - what's "The Onion?" |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
BTW - what's "The Onion?"[/color] |
Satire. www.theonion.com. Some funny stuff sometimes.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41899
| quote: | Trick-Or-Treaters To Be Subject To Random Bag Searches
October 26, 2005 | Issue 41•43
WASHINGTON, DC—Responding to "a possible threat of terror and fright," Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced Monday that trick-or-treaters will be subject to random bag searches this Halloween season.
Trick-Or-Treaters To Be Subject To Random Bag Searches
Police prepare for a long and spooky night.
"Individuals concealing their identities through clever disguise, and under cover of night, may attempt to use the unspecified threat of 'tricks' to extort 'treats' from unsuspecting victims," Chertoff said. "Such scare tactics may have been tolerated in the past, but they will not be allowed to continue this Halloween."
While he would not elaborate on the specific threat, Chertoff said his office had "heard a couple spooky tales," and indicated that there was good reason to believe that Americans face "a very ghoulish scenario" this October.
"We have done and will continue to do everything we can to protect citizens from those who would play on our fears," a haunted Chertoff said. "Nevertheless, Americans are advised to be in a state of readiness."
National Guard troops and local police are being stationed at checkpoints in residential neighborhoods to seize the contents of any paper bags, pillowcases, plastic pumpkins, or other receptacles. Additionally, candy-sniffing dogs will be posted at regular intervals to locate and devour suspicious items.
Local, county, and state officials have been placed on orange alert, with strict orders to confiscate and investigate bags containing Bit-O-Honey, Snickers, Baby Ruth, Twix, Butterfingers, Mr. Goodbar, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, gum, and any and all forms of taffy.
Trick-Or-Treaters To Be Subject To Random Bag Searches
Chertoff discusses possible perpetrators of Halloween mischief.
Chertoff asked Washington citizens for their assistance, and he outlined steps that the average citizen should take to aid in the war on fright. The DHS guidelines encourage parents to report any suspicious neighbors who create potentially spooky yard displays, especially those that include candle-illuminated pumpkin faces, skeletons in windows or doorways, or repeating tape loops of werewolf howling.
Chertoff recommended that law-enforcement authorities be granted sweeping new powers to ensure security, including mandatory street-corner identity checks for suspects wearing clothing designed to conceal facial features or otherwise obscure ready personal identification. Additionally, local police have been ordered to detain any individuals appearing to be ghosts, goblins, witches, or other characters designed to evoke fear.
Critics of the warning say that the DHS is merely sowing seeds of unease for political reasons, pointing out that the organization has yet to present any real evidence of the threat.
"This is yet another misguided and unfair example of profiling by our nation's law enforcement," said ACLU spokesperson Marilee McInnis. "It's doubtful that many G.I. Joes will be searched, but Aladdins, genies, and belly dancers should expect a huge crimp in their Halloween fun." |
|
|
|
| Trancer-X |
That is funny, but the problem is that satire piece probably isn't too far off from what they'd like to be doing. :p :eek: :nervous: :crazy: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
That is funny, but the problem is that satire piece probably isn't too far off from what they'd like to be doing. :p :eek: :nervous: :crazy: |
Chertoff has a hard-on for Dracula. |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
mplayer is so friggin awesome, I am glad the laws are different in Hungary. I also enjoy the ipod copying programs, horay for the people who make those programs and put themselves at risk so that we are able to acess the stuff we rightly paid for.
I think that these laws are going to stifle invention in the US and allow other countries to outpace us in new technologies, which is quite scary. I dont think we should let hollywood shoot American technological innovation in the foot by strenghtening copywrights and patents, it seems most of you feel the same way. The problem is that the current system is all about making things easier for the well established by preventing change and giving them unfair leverage against the innovators and startups. |
|
|
|
|
