Comments on: firstmonday on eldred https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2248 2002-2015 Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:16:49 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.7.2 By: michael pettengill https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2248#comment-1650 Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:16:49 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2003/06/firstmonday_on_eldred.html#comment-1650 What I want to know is how the mickey mouse protection has made walt disney more creative. does the board of directors sit around a wegee board and get ideas from the great beyond?

and why do the corporate holders of copyrights so resist compensating the authors of those works decades later. certainly anyone who assigned their rights 40 years ago couldn’t predict that he would his rights for the rest of his life.

anyway, the reason most people don’t worry about the copyright extensions is that they “vote with their burning”. And its not just digital media – yeah there is the sign on the copier in every library, but no one pays that any more attention than smokers do to “smoking kills” labels on every pack.

What I hope for is for students burned by lawsuits to decide to not buy cds or music, and instead create the music themselves. Sort of a gnu/linux/oss movement of music and art.

The economics of music downloads are absurd – the company that happened to sign the artist, and then charges the artist for all promotion costs, and expects the artist to do the real promotion, is collecting the biggest cut for downloads handled by several other companies without doing anything. I’m sure that the music companies will, probably already have, sanction any artist that attempts to bypass the “system” that ensures their cut, even if the artist is a new artist without any connection to any of the existing corporate gatekeepers.

]]>
By: Lessig https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2248#comment-1649 Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:00:10 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2003/06/firstmonday_on_eldred.html#comment-1649 thanks, kien.

john,

(1) No challenge to Berne. The Act applies to American works only.
(2) Yes, absolutely correct. In my view, the office should subsidize the registration process in the short run. In the long run, we should be moving to a system, ala the DNS, where there is a competitive system in registrars.
(3) Damn right! Never again.

]]>
By: kien https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2248#comment-1648 Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:39:33 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2003/06/firstmonday_on_eldred.html#comment-1648 Valenti, Sherman, or Eisner? Place yer bets as to the identity of Larry’s angry little friend?

My money’s on Valenti. His relatively recent “morality” speeches were as light on their feet and eloquent (while as devoid of content) as VO’s rants.

Besides, I don’t think Sherman or Eisner are all that intellectually bright (while I have a huge amount of respect for their strategic business skills).

Nicely done, Larry. It’s rare to see someone with the skill to debunk a troll without actually feeding it.

]]>
By: Karl https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2248#comment-1647 Thu, 19 Jun 2003 01:29:19 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2003/06/firstmonday_on_eldred.html#comment-1647 I’m probably not the only one, but reading this whole thread I couldn’t help but be reminded of the case of IBEX in Code (p.78-82).

This speaker obviously has a bit more in mind than simple personal attacks, but he seems to relish in his anonymity in much the same way.

I won’t go nearly as far as to say that his motive could be some warped critique of the benefits of an open net, but it is something to think about amidst the flurry of inane chatter.

]]>
By: Dan https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2248#comment-1646 Thu, 19 Jun 2003 01:07:09 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2003/06/firstmonday_on_eldred.html#comment-1646 I’ve never seen such fervent anger on the side of those who want stronger IP protections. Usually it seems to be more of a calculated position to increase profit margins than any actual ideological convictions, so perhaps the apparent honesty of his position is the bright side to VO’s otherwise empty comments.

It’s rare that you see someone who is skilled at the actual expression of his argument–I’ll give VO that much, that his diction and grammar are fine–and yet entirely misses every single point directed at him. Rather disturbing, too, I suppose. An argument is not really an argument if it consists of one side presenting evidence and logic and attempting to engage in generally academic debate while the other just says “nuh uh”. It’s not really worth engaging in, and I have to respect Prof. Lessig for following this through as much as he had.

It’s also rather disappointing, though, that his personal blog–which I always found to be full of insight above the general rhetoric–has become full of name-calling and insensetivity, all caused by one individual. I hope this is the exception rather than the rule.

If VO would like to actually answer some of Prof. Lessig’s responses to his earlier claims, I’d be interested to read what he has to say. As I said before, it’s rare to find an honest debate with more at heart than profit margins. But if he just wants to insult like a pre-adolescent craving attention, I don’t see any value in his continued presence here.

]]>
By: Lessig https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2248#comment-1645 Wed, 18 Jun 2003 23:07:35 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2003/06/firstmonday_on_eldred.html#comment-1645 You still seem confused, Mr. Omniveritas. I said Congress extended the terms of existing copyrights 11 times. You have not yet pointed to anything that contradicts that claim. You have therefore not pointed to anything that makes me out to be a “liar.”

What you point to is a statement by the government, repeated by the court, that tries to undercut the significance of the 8 extensions that we cited. The government, and the Court believe those extensions are less significant because they were “subsumed” into the 1976 Act. But all that means is that the 1976 act did not further extend the terms that had been exended already, some of them 7 times. imho, that doesn’t make the acts less significant; it makes them more significant — the idea that 8 congresses agreed to extend existing copyright terms in a 15 year period shows quite clearly that perpetual terms is the norm. But whether you think the 1976 Act makes the earlier extensions MORE or LESS significant, there is NO ONE WHO ARGUES (except you, Mr. Omniveritas) that “Congress didn’t” extend existing terms.

As to the “expanded copyright protection which has produced the greatest creative outpouring in the history of humanity” — oh, please, Mr. Omniveritas, give it a break. Again, you are missing the point completely. The 11 extensions of existing terms in the last 40 years were for WORKS THAT ALREADY EXIST. You are confusing the extension of an EXISTING COPYRIGHT with the extension of a prospective term. Those extensions therefore have absolutely nothing to do with you “every time we write a song, take a photo, publish a book” since that is in the future, and the 11 extensions for existing works are for works in the past.

So “pity” me, if you will, Mr. Omniveritas, if I don’t think that the extensions of copyrights for works that already exist don’t benefit “everyone.” I’m with the 17 economists, including the 5 Nobel Prize winnners, including Coase, Buchanan, Arrow, Friedman and Akerloff, who believe that those extensions benefited not “everyone,” but the special interests that funded Congress to pass them. But I take it they too are part of the jihad…

]]>
By: Karl https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2248#comment-1644 Wed, 18 Jun 2003 23:04:33 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2003/06/firstmonday_on_eldred.html#comment-1644 Hey VO, did you pay royalties last time you sang/played songs at one of your victory celebrations? If not, you’re a hypocrite of the highest order.

By the way, the collapse of your defense of your position in the face of how compromised your beliefs had become by Professor Lessig’s observation was the most humorous part of all this, not your ‘witty’ repartee.

-kd

]]>
By: Anonymous https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2248#comment-1643 Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:34:39 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2003/06/firstmonday_on_eldred.html#comment-1643 Well, Larry, since you seem incapable — perhaps willfully so — of understanding the footnote on page 4 of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Eldred v. Ashcroft, I’ll put it in terms you might be able to understand. You think Congress extended copyright terms eleven times; I think Congress didn’t — and the Supreme Court agrees with me. That’s one of the reasons why you and your side loses, and my side wins.

And as for celebrating our victories — believe me, we do that all the time. And we’ll continue to do so. Every time we write a song, take a photo, publish a book, all with the benefit of that expanded copyright protection which has produced the greatest creative outpouring in the history of humanity. And if you don’t think that was for the benefit of all — then I can assure you that I regard you with more pity than anger.

Ciao, loser — and liar.

]]>
By: Tom Morris https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2248#comment-1642 Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:34:41 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2003/06/firstmonday_on_eldred.html#comment-1642 “Why don�t ordinary people get it?” Because 99% of people are idiots. Copyright term extensions are not exactly going to rock the political boat anytime soon. Why? Because it can’t be boiled down in to a snappy slogan. “Save Unborn Foetuses” can, “Women’s Right to Choose” can, “Don’t let them take our Guns!” can, but “Rebuild the public domain and reignite creativity by repealing copyright law extensions” isn’t.

It’s the same reason why nobody has a clue about criminal law (my current speciality) and that the media portray an arrest as meaning a conviction etc.

]]>
By: Lessig https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2248#comment-1641 Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:45:34 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2003/06/firstmonday_on_eldred.html#comment-1641 “In fact, Congress so carefully and deliberately extended copyright terms (for the good of all), that ‘placeholder’ extensions were necessary to accomodate that deliberative process.”

Oh that’s funny, angry friend. Yes, yes, that’s it. Congress “carefully and deliberately extend[ing] copyright terms FOR THE GOOD OF ALL.” Sorry I missed that.

But you can’t have it both ways: Either congress DID extend the terms 11 times (and then my claim that it did is not a “lie”) or congress DID NOT extend the term “carefully and deliberately.” I take it you’re agreeing then that Congress DID in fact extend the term of existing copyrights 11 times. But you say they didn’t do it “willy-nilly”: Whatever. “Willy-nilly” is your word, not mine. So again, I would ask, where exactly is the “lie” that you so bravely charge me with?

I do hope that you are, as you say, not angry (not that what you say has been very reliable so far). You sure SEEM angry, with all your harsh and rude talk, calling people who disagree with you “little” etc. Seems a lot of something to work out there.

But whatever, Mr. Winner, aka “Omniveritas.” Lessig-the-loser, and I’m sure some of the “little” people who doubt that Congress was motivated by the “good of all,” wish you all the best. You should go out and celebrate all your victories. No reason to waste your time with a bunch of losers.

]]>