t byfield on Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:41:28 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> ABA back away from 95-year corporate copyright term |
it's not so often these days that something good happens in the realm of intellectual property, but this is good. not a huge substantive victory: it's just the american bar associ- ation, and it's an omission (failing to endorse an argument) not a commission (actively opposing that argument). however, it does suggest that more and more people are getting antsy about IP claimants' overreaching. cheers, t ----- Forwarded From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org> To: <info-policy-notes@lists.essential.org> Subject: [IPN] ABA board of governors declines to endorse 95 year corporate copyright term Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 21:39:27 -0400 Sometimes in life you are happy when nothing happens. The ABA met today in Chicago to decide if it would adopt a policy in support of the 95 year term for corporate copyrights, and file an amicus brief in support of the Sony Bono copyright extention act. ABA IP Section had pushed hard for this, and the ABA Executive board had reportedly unanimously recommended adoption of the policy and the filing of the brief. CPTech (and others) asked the ABA board of governors to reject this policy, and not file the brief. The ABA just wrote to say: "the Board of Governors of the ABA declined to adopt policy on this issue earlier today at its meeting in Chicago. Therefore, no amicus brief will be filed." We are quite pleased.... Jamie <----CPTech's April 12 letter to the ABA Board of Governors--> To: Board of Governors American Bar Association Attention of Alpha Brady: via fax: 1 312 988 5153 Re: ABA resolution on Copyright Term Extension Act From: James Love Director, Consumer Project on Technology Date: 12 April 2002 This is a brief note to express our views on the proposed resolution that would have the ABA endorse the notion that "the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-298) does not violate, and is fully in accordance with, the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." It should be obvious that this act is not only controversial, but also widely perceived as a textbook example of the consequences of corrupt influences from our system of special interest funding of federal elections. The Washington Post August 17, 2002 editorial condemning the act was titled " Copyright Craziness," and noted: This degree of protection -- under which works from 1923 are still owned privately -- does little to promote science or art, but it does protect copyright holders who make big campaign contributions. Unfortunately, it also serves to keep material out of the public domain long after the public's interest in its free exchange outweighs any value served by continued protection The February 21, 1998 editorial by the New York Times said: But no matter how the supporters of this bill frame their arguments, they have only one thing in mind: continuing to profit from copyright by changing the agreement under which it was obtained . . . There is no justification for extending the copyright term. Groups as diverse as the Cato Institute, the American Library Association and the President of the National Writers Union have denounced this act, which provided a retroactive extension of corporate owned work-for-hire copyrights to 95 years. The Supreme Court will be considering two important legal issues, including the relationship between the first amendment and copyright, and the constitutional basis for extending copyright terms. In the end, this is a case about what limits if any exist on endless extensions of the copyright terms, in areas where there can be no moral or economic justification for the monopoly. Who can even pretend to claim that a corporate term of 75 years is an insufficient incentive for creators? This act is plainly understood as special pleading for copyright owners, and as contrary to the interests of creators, who themselves are users of such works. And if 95 years is endorsed by the ABA, is there really any basis to say that a term of 1,000 years would not be possible? There is no reason for the ABA to jump into this debate at this point, and certainly no reason to endorse the 95-year work for hire copyright term, and indeed, the reputation of the ABA will be harmed greatly if it adopts the proposed resolution. Attachments: Copyright Craziness, Washington Post Editorial, August 17, 2001; Page A22 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=opinion&c ontentId=A22911-2001Aug16 Keeping Copyright in Balance, Editorial in the New York Times, February 21, 1998 http://www.law.asu.edu/HomePages/Karjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/comm entary/NYTedit2-98.html Why Disney Has Clout with the Republican Congress, Phyllis Schlafly column 11-25-98 http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/nov98/98-11-25.html -------------------- James Love, mailto:james.love@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org voice +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040, fax +1.202.234.5176 _______________________________________________ Info-policy-notes mailing list Info-policy-notes@lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/info-policy-notes ----- Backwarded # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net