LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2003

ARSCLIST January 2003

Subject:

Re: NYT: Protecting Mickey Mouse at Art's Expense

From:

[log in to unmask]

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:23:43 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (102 lines)

see end...
> Protecting Mickey Mouse at Art's Expense
> NYT Op-Ed January 18, 2003
> By LAWRENCE LESSIG
>
> STANFORD, Calif.
>
> The Supreme Court decided this week that the Constitution
> grants Congress an essentially unreviewable discretion to
> set the lengths of copyright protections however long it
> wants, and even to extend them.
>
> While the court was skeptical about the wisdom of the
> extension, seven justices believed it was not their role to
> second-guess "the First Branch," as Justice Ruth Bader
> Ginsburg put it. As I argued the opposite before the court
> for my clients, a group of creators and publishers who
> depend on public domain works, I won't say I agree. But
> there is something admirable in the court acknowledging and
> respecting limits on its own power.
>
> Still, missing from the opinion was any justification for
> perhaps the most damaging part of Congress's decision to
> extend existing copyrights for 20 years: the extension
> unnecessarily stifles freedom of expression by preventing
> the artistic and educational use even of content that no
> longer has any commercial value. As one dissenter, Justice
> Steven G. Breyer, estimated, only 2 percent of the work
> copyrighted between 1923 and 1942 continues to be
> commercially exploited (for example, the early Mickey Mouse
> movies, whose eminent entry into the public domain prompted
> Congress to act in the first place).
>
> But to protect that tiny proportion, the remaining
> copyrighted works will stay locked up for another
> generation. Thus a museum that wants to produce an Internet
> exhibition about the New Deal will still need to find the
> copyright holders of any pictures or sound it wants to
> include. Or archives that want to release out-of-print
> books will still need to track down copyright holders of
> works that are almost a century old.
>
> This is a problem that the First Branch could fix without
> compromising any of the legitimate rights protected by the
> copyright extension act. The trick is a technique to move
> content that is no longer commercially exploited into the
> public domain, while protecting work that has continuing
> commercial value. The answer is suggested from the law
> governing patents.
>
> Patent holders have to pay a fee every few years to
> maintain their patents. The same principle could be applied
> to copyright. Imagine requiring copyright holders to pay a
> tax 50 years after a work was published. The tax should be
> very small, maybe $50 a work. And when the tax was paid,
> the government would record that fact, including the name
> of the copyright holder paying the tax. That way artists
> and others who want to use a work would continue to have an
> easy way to identify the current copyright owner. But if a
> copyright owner fails to pay the tax for three years in a
> row, then the work will enter the public domain. Anyone
> would then be free to build upon and cultivate that part of
> our culture as he sees fit.
>
> None of the supporters of the copyright extension act
> should have any complaint about such a provision. All of
> them argued that they needed the term increased so they
> could continue to get revenue from their works that
> supported their other artistic endeavors. But if a work is
> not earning any commercial return, then the extension is
> pointless. Of course, there may be people who want to keep
> their work from passing into the public domain, even if it
> is not commercially exploited. That's why the tax should be
> low, and should apply only to work that was published. The
> privacy and control that copyright law gives authors would
> thus be assured for as long as Congress deems proper.
>
> This compromise, of course, puts much less work into the
> public domain than my clients believed that the framers of
> the Constitution envisioned. But it would nonetheless make
> available an extraordinary amount of material. If Congress
> is listening to the frustration that the court's decision
> has created, this would be a simple and effective way for
> the First Branch to respond.
> Lawrence Lessig is a professor at Stanford Law
> School.
There is a very simple fix to all of this, at least for sound recordings
(it might work for books as well) I call the "Use it or lose it" approach.
Establish a duration after the expiration of which the copyright holder
can only maintain his/her/its ownership if the entity is available for
sale (or lease, etc.) and has been continuously so through the  holder
or a selected agency thereof. Thereafter, the holder would not lose
ownership...they would, however, be held to a policy of compulsory
licensing similar to that which applies to composers and publishers,
whereby the material could be used on payment of required royalties.

This would avoid the "dog in the manger" situation where a copyright
holder can say "you CAN'T reissue that...and I WON'T!" thus blocking
access to the material for current users!

Steven C. Barr

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager