Comments on: Exporting extreme IP

By: Lessig

Lessig — Sat, 24 May 2003 20:49:09 +0000

Professor Dennis Karjala has a nice chart showing that the Sonny Bono Act actually increases the disharmony with EU law for important categories of works -- e.g., works for hire. So it might be my "ignorance" but I suggest the reason Congress extended the copyright term is something else.

And as to the "I think you would have liked it" point, apparently you are unaware of my views.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Sat, 24 May 2003 18:50:48 +0000

Let's see if this comment stays up:

You can't be that ignorant. The US extended the term of copyright to harmonize with the EU, and now we seek to bring other nations, such as Singapore, into compliance.

When I lived in Singapore in the mid-80s, their copyright law didn't protect the works of non-Singaporeans. It was possible to buy all the popular software of the day (Lotus 1-2-3, MS-DOS, Microsoft C, dBase) for the price of a floppy, and photocopied manuals were available for a minimal charge. Pirated audio and videotapes were also available for next to nothing, complete with fake liners. It was a Napster-lover's dream.

I think you would have liked it.

By: John Lanius

John Lanius — Wed, 21 May 2003 01:09:13 +0000

Adrian, no it's not true in the United States, at least from the domestic-law perspective. Constitutionally, treaties are equivalent to federal statutes, i.e., subservient to the constitution, and therefore subject to judicial review, and can be overturned or nullified by later-enacted statutes -- in fact, most treaties are not self-executing; they require further legislation by Congress to implement. Also, they are subject to judicial review. As an example, the Supreme Court would surely overturn a treaty between the US and UK establishing the Church of England as the national church of the United States as void under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

By: Jim Roberts

Jim Roberts — Tue, 20 May 2003 18:38:32 +0000

It appears that the government is resonding to external criticism while ignoring internal criticism. I feel your frustration. We have common defense but not common sense.

By: Dave Ethington

Dave Ethington — Tue, 20 May 2003 15:26:07 +0000

I�m not clear on how you�d work around one obvious difficulty with any �commercial value� clause; that sometimes the commercial value of some piece of IP can drop to zero for years before coming back to life

I think that is the strongest selling point to having the renewal tax implemented. The copyright holders use their own ideas as to what has commercial value. If they don't care enough to pay the $1 renewal, then into to Public Domain it goes.

By: Mike Hoye

Mike Hoye — Tue, 20 May 2003 13:22:02 +0000

I'm not clear on how you'd work around one obvious difficulty with any "commercial value" clause; that sometimes the commercial value of some piece of IP can drop to zero for years before coming back to life in a different area. Nobody in their right mind paid any money for the rights to Tetris for a decade until cellphones you could play little video games with became common, but all of a sudden that dead IP is worth money again.

And, really, what's the commercial value of IP? How much you'd realistically get for it, or how much you're asking?

By: Adrian Lopez

Adrian Lopez — Tue, 20 May 2003 03:02:34 +0000

Is it true that once a treaty is ratified the Judiciary branch cannot strike down certain aspects of that treaty? Even if the law is unconstitutional?

I have no problem with international cooperation, but the constitution should be unassailable, international treaties be damned. Treaties should be subject to judicial review. To allow otherwise is to allow governments to sneak in all kinds of legislation that would otherwise be struck down by the courts.

Comments?