Eldred vs. Ashcroft
Comments: 9
The improbably-named Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was signed into law by Bill Clinton on October 27, 1998. The act extended copyright protection from 50 years after an author’s death to 70 years. It was the eleventh time Congress had extended copyright protection in 40 years, and its biggest lobbyist in Washington was, unsurprisingly, the Walt Disney Company. (Mickey Mouse was due to enter the public domain in 2003.)
While copyright protection in undeniably good, excessive protection starves the public domain and this has some potentially stifling and unpleasant consequences. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Eldred vs. Ashcroft in which Eric Eldred, a publisher, is one of the lead plaintiffs challenging the consitutional validity of the act. Lawrence Lessig, a well-known authority on intellectual property, is handling their case pro bono.
The Eldred vs. Ashcroft site unfortunately lacks a simple, concise position statement, although their news page has links to all of the stories and editorials that have covered the case. The following 3 articles provide a good introduction and overview:
Supreme Court to Intervene in Internet Copyright Dispute
By Linda Greenhouse, New York Times
At issue is whether the Constitution’s grant of authority to Congress to issue copyrights and patents “for limited times” in order to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” contains any limitation on how that power is to be exercised.
Setting Boundaries on Copyrights
By Kendra Mayfield, Wired
Copies of old books, movies and songs are being lost before they can be archived because Congress has over-reached its authority by extending copyright terms on creative works.
Mickey Mouse vs. The People
by Damien Cave, Salon
Those who favor the law argue that Congress should be allowed to determine the definition of “limited times” and that the Bono Act simply puts the U.S. on equal footing with European intellectual property laws, which offer a similar degree of protection.
Eldred and Bjorklund vehemently disagree. In their first joint interview since the Supreme Court decided to review the case, they exuberantly explained why in a conference call with Salon.
•••
Posted to The Good • 2002.08.06 (Tue) • 22:02
Comments
Posted by
Mary Beth 2002.07.18, 11:13
Apparently if you buy a computer between now and when Jaguar comes out, you’ll pay a $20 upgrade, but everyone else will pay the full value. there are a lot of apps that come with it though price, beyond the OS improvements, so it seems worth it. Actually, the demo of Rendezvous alone was worth it!
OK - so we didn’t get our tiny hand held computer, but it sure seems like we’re going there someday.
Personally, I’m rooting for “jaguar-spotted” tshirts for the launch! That’s not likely but as I said, a girl can dream - I get tired of only black shirts at work.
Posted by michael b 2002.07.18, 13:36
Eh…I really don’t want to pay $129, but I’ll end up doing it anyway like any other Mac whore.
Apple soooo has an unfair monopoly on quality.
Posted by tomas 2002.07.18, 18:12
i haven’t fully understood what’s new in jaguar really, except more apps.. but i mean, is there something new about the operative system itself, too?
Posted by Tristan 2002.07.18, 23:35
An upgrade discount would have been nice, but all things considered I don’t think it’s that bad, i mean, think of how much you’ve paid for other app’s in the past (i could go on forever about how much of a ripoff QuarkXpress was & still is).
When you think of OS-X as an application you use every day for considerable amounts of time, $129 doesn’t seem like all that much.
Posted by Mary Beth 2002.07.19, 07:33
Go here for more info about jaguar - ical, isync etc:
Among them: new email program with great anti-junk mail feature, ichat integrated with AIM, rendezvous that simplifies networking of all networkable devices (finding them automatically), inkwell (handwriting recognition) sherlock three - internet services without a browser, more windows network compatibility, better, more integrated address book etc. Looks like a real winner.
Keep in mind too that many people didn’t pay for 10.1, upgrading during the free upgrade period after it was released.
I thought it was a pretty low key keynote talk (we had it in the store live via satellite) but the demos were wonderful!
Posted by jez 2002.07.21, 21:04
it definitely isn’t fair to make loyal users pay $129US (or in my case $229AUS) to get the new version, there should be the Up to date program for Jaguar like there was with 10.1, I was happy paying me $19.95AUS….
I suppose since it is a very major upgrade and I have been using the developer previews it’s definitely welllllll worth it….
Posted by jh 2002.07.22, 23:16
As Steve said during the keynote last week, it works out to less than a dollar for each new feature. The obvious retort is to ask why we were paying the same price for the initial release of the OS which he mentioned elsewhere was not ready for prime time.
But anyway, I’ll be forking over the dough just as soon as I can (and I don’t even have a Mac that can take advantage of the new graphics code). Not sure about .Mac (formerly iTools), however.
Jez - AU$229!? Yoicks. How am I ever going to support my Macintosh habit when I move back to Australia?
Mar Beth - if you do get your Jaguar t-shirt (and I won’t be at all surprised), I’m going to be soooo jealous.
Posted by Mary Beth 2002.07.23, 03:55
We’ve got jaguar running on one of the new 17” iMacs and let me tell you — it’s slick. Don’t have iCal/iSynch yet but I’m really looking forward to that. The speed is phenomenal. Peppy. Some new system preferences and other cool things.
Yeah, just imagine me — I’m looking for “jaguar” spotted leggings so I can achieve a look of my dreams — spotted leggings, big black shirt, big hair, cats eye glasses. Yeah, that’s my alterego.
Posted by Alan-a-Dale 2003.01.19, 22:58
(part 3)
And far in the distance, a shimmer of green, Are the ownerless trees that cannot be seen. “If you want to see them, to set their fruit free, Then just find out to whom you should pay a fee. If no-one then no, you can’t see them at all.” It says in fresh paint at the base of the wall. So nothing is ours to use or to claim, Back on the ground from whence all these trees came. The gates are still shut, and we never will touch The forbidden fruit for which we’ve paid so much.
(cont. elsewhere)
Post a comment:
Send This Story to an Enemy
• • •
