Counter argument that was not tried before: - Copyright under the constitution requires both (1) originality and (2) fixation. "Fixed in a tangible medium of expression" isn't as developed, but it's there. This is why antibootlegging (recording live music without the performer's knowledge) is done under the Commerce Clause, not the Copyright Clause. Because the creator has to be involved in fixing the original expression in some tangible medium.
- If an artwork isn't both original and also fixed in some form, then it isn't subject to copyright. The Copyright Clause of the constitution can't apply. - Since the 1850's paper tends to be printed with acid levels that give it a maximum lifespan of about 100 years. This is because the sizing (stuff that keeps ink from feathering) is done with alum rosin. Studies on paper permanency are available. Film has a slightly shorter lifespan. - The argument is that the lifespan of the physical media sets a maximum limit on the duration of copyright. If an artwork has a set amount of time that fixation will last, then that sets a maximum limit on the copyright. Here's long explanation: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1908318 Decaying paper easier to understand than an economic argument based on math. Decay is less speculative than future profits. A book made in 1923, on alum rosin sized paper, is now approaching the end of its life. Acid in the pages will continue to oxidize, not on a straight line, but at an increasing rate along a curve, and the pages (probably already brittle and easily broken by folding) will eventually turn to ashes and crumble due to acid in the pages. To see this for yourself, you can take an old book, and crease the corner of the page. If the paper breaks along that crease, then that book is near the end of it's lifespan. Nothing will change that. It is impossible to reverse the brittleness. There is no unseen mathmatical factor, like in economics. It's going to happen. If copyrights are extended, then for the first time in US history, the duration of copyright will exceed the lifespan of a mass produced sheet of paper, and hence of the average book. What other arguments have people developed this past decade? -Wilhelmina Randtke On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 1:02 PM, David Riordan <[email protected]>wrote: > A Bloomberg > article<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-29/a-free-market-fix-for-the-copyright-racket.html>about > the RSC's pulled copyright reform report just got me thinking... > > Back in 1998, almost 14 years ago, Congress passed the Mickey Mouse Sonny > Bono Copyright Term Extension > Act<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act>, > which took all works then covered under copyright in the United States and > retroactively tacked another 20 years of monopoly before they would reach > the public domain. Works that would have reached the public domain in 1998 > got a stay of execution from the hands of *the public* –* those unwashed > * *masses* – until a date far, far in the future, 2018. > > *Wait - that's like six years away! That's pretty soon!* > > We haven't talked much about copyright term extension since Larry Lessig > lost us > <http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_lessig_marapr04.msp> > *Eldred v. > Ashcroft<http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_lessig_marapr04.msp> > * and got these retroactive copyright term extensions enshrined as > constitutional as a side effect. So now, for copyrighted works to enter the > public domain, Free Culture advocates really have only one form of > recourse, blocking term extensions. > > We don't know when this extension movement will begin (its early stages > are likely being planned now), but we know it's inevitable. Consequently, > we should begin to prepare our counter-argument now so we're ready when it > comes. Who knows, we may soon have a strong base of support on the > right<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-29/a-free-market-fix-for-the-copyright-racket.html> > (which > will have the delicious side effect of causing Democrats like me an > existential crisis), which would bring some serious firepower to the fight. > > Otherwise, the 115th Congress might be the one to realize Sonny Bono's > dream, as so eloquently put by his widow, Mary Bono on the floor of the > House of > Representatives<http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1998-10-07/pdf/CREC-1998-10-07-pt1-PgH9946.pdf#page=7> > back > in 1998: > > Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am > informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I > invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all > of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti’s > proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may > look at that next Congress. > > > -- > David W. Riordan > -- > mobile: 203.521.1222 | im: daveriordan | email: [email protected] | > @riordan <http://twitter.com/riordan> | http://magicschoolb.us > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
