Thank you for your feedback.
There is a saying that for every deliberation we make,
we must consider its impact on the next seven generations.
While I can see a positive consequence of the Eldred Act
which is that it will expire the copyright protection much
earlier and thereby return the copyrighted expressions to
their original status which is the public domain, I also can
visualize a possible undesirable consequence of the act.
The undesirable consequence is that the act provides
positive reinforcement for the continuance of copyright
protection and in turn it will increase the copyright term.
In the long run, the benefit of shorter copyright protection
due to the lack of maintenance fee will be easily dwarfed
by the increase in copyright term.
I would be very wrong. I am not totally convinced that the
act will produce more benefit than harm. I am afraid that
the copyright holders will use the act, if it becomes a law, as
a valid excuse for increasing copyright term.
When you introduced the idea about the Eldred Act few
months ago, Creative Commons did not have the project
known as the Founders� Copyright back then. Now that
Creative Commons provides it, I think that this makes
the act irrelevant.
At the forum called �Creativity and the Public Domain: Does
Copyright Protect Too Much or Too Little?� in New York City
last month, Marybeth Peters said that she did not agree with
the Eldred Act because it will not work with the treaties on
copyright and it will make difficult for the poor to pay the
fee. There was a person in the audience who thanked her
for speaking up for the poor. The lay people will see the
Eldred Act as favoring the rich and big corporations who
can afford the maintenance fee for many millions of works.
I wholly agree with you that we need to increase the value
of the public domain. But, it is still premature to say that
the Supreme Court does not see the value in the public
domain. For example, the Court said that D.C. Circuit went
too far in saying that copyright is immune from challenges
under the First Amendment. We will find out soon how it
will rule in the case Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox
Film Corp. Also, we will see whether it will grant certiorari
to Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. v.
Peter Veeck and if so, how it will rule in that case.
The key to increase the value of the public domain is
education. People like you did a very excellent job in
increasing the awareness of the dangers of expansive
copyright among the population. At the same time, you
also increased the awareness of the public domain. It will
take some time for the importance of the public domain to
permeate through the population. Creative Commons
provides two ways (Founders� Copyright and dedication to
the public domain) to actualize the importance of the public
domain. I believe that this speaks louder than the Eldred
Act and eventually makes it irrelevant.
Sincerely,
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
post in the public domain.
One big reason the Court went against us is that the Court didn’t see what the value of the public domain is. And one big reason it didn’t see the value of the public domain is that is has been denied to us for about 40 years.
The real way to counter this view is by demonstrating how powerful and valuable and important the public domain is. But we can’t do that unless we actually have a public domain.
The Eldred Act would create a public domain. It wouldn’t be everything, but it would be 98%. And then, when the question gets raised again, someone will have a much better chance to make the argument we tried to make: That terms have to be limited because the public domain is so important.
]]>Let’s forget about the Eldred Act. We already have the
option of dedicating our works to the public domain before
copyright term expires. Moreover, it is gratis. Creative
Commons has a way to help people dedicate their works
to the public domain. As more people become familiar
with Creative Commons, few more people will dedicate
their works to the public domain.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
post in the public domain.
I also just had this funny mental image. I saw Matrix Reloaded Monday night, and there’s a scene with Neo flying at ludicrous speed, with pretty much everything not tied down sucked along with him in his wake.
My vision was of Mickey as Neo, with all the abandoned intellectual property as his own personal detrius-wake.
]]>Even with these strong access restrictions, I think that the utility and popularity of these electronic libraries would be enormous. Broad and deep content collections could be made widely available. Powerful search techniques would be possible after digitalization.
Unfortunately, consider what happened to mp3.com when they tried to make electronic replicas of music available to individuals who already owned the original recordings. They lost the resulting court battle. It seems supportive legislation is required to create these libraries. If I own a book I should be able to loan it. In the electronic age, if I own a book I should be able to make an electronic replica and loan either one instance of the replica or one physical copy of the book.
]]>While I’m a more staunch proponent of copyrights, I think that the concepts of requiring renewal rights and a “protection” of the IP is a great one. If it ceases to be protected, then it should fall into the public domain and should benefit all of us.
]]>Great work Professor Lessig. Keep up the fight!
-jason
PS Donate some monety to The EFF while you’re at it.
]]>