This is a great piece about the mistake in the administration’s recent trade agreement with Singapore — requiring it (and us) to stick to the DMCA. Less noticed is article 16.4.4 which increases the term of copyright from 50 pma to 70 pma. (Remember, we had to increase our term to harmonize with the rest of the world; now the administration is pushing the rest of the world to increase its term to harmonize with us).
The frustration in all this is the total disconnect between criticism and governmental response. It is the form of a democracy, but with none of the substance. We make mistakes, and we force them on the rest of the world. The world then simply adopts the mistakes we make — in the face of overwhelming criticism.
For example, has anyone explained why, if a country needs a DMCA law, it can’t pass a law that respects fair-use like exceptions? Or if a country needs to extend copyright terms, it can’t limit the extension to works with commercial value?
The world loves to criticize the US, and criticize they often should. Yet the criticism would look a bit more credible if critics didn’t dress like puppets.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.