Rescuing "Orphans": Copyright Law Challenged on First Amendment Grounds

Written by Eric Olsen
Published March 23, 2004
page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

11. Why is it important to file this lawsuit now?

The move to unconditional copyright came just at a time when digital technologies like the Internet could enable the archiving, preservation and reuse of content at a level never imagined before. For 186 years, American law limited the grant of copyright to those authors who claimed the need for copyright protection. But because of the indiscriminate nature of copyright today, the burden of copyright regulation extends to work whether or not the author or other rightsholder has any need for continuing protection. That unnecessary burden blocks the cultivation of our culture and the spread of knowledge.

12. So what are you asking the court to do?

The plaintiffs in this case, the Internet Archive and its Chairman, Brewster Kahle, and the Prelinger Film Archive (formally, Prelinger Associates, Inc.) and its President, Richard Prelinger, are filing suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the current system of unconditional copyright is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that unconditional copyright creates unreasonable burdens on speech in violation of the First Amendment, and creates effectively perpetual copyright terms in violation of the Progress Clause (the provision in the Constitution that grants Congress power to legislate with respect to copyrights and patents).

13. If you win, how could copyright law change?

There are many ways Congress could change the copyright law back to a conditional system and still remain in compliance with the Berne Convention. One way would be to re-impose formalities for all works of U.S. authors - these are most works published in the U.S., and Berne doesn't prohibit signatory nations from imposing formalities on their own authors. Another would be to pass the Public Domain Enhancement Act, which would impose a tiny renewal fee designed to move unused copyrighted work into the public domain. The PDEA also wouldn't violate Berne, because it would apply only to works of U.S. authors.

14. What's the relationship of this case to the PDEA?

Of course if the PDEA were passed, that might moot the necessity of this case. But so far, we have not seen substantial support in Congress for the PDEA, which makes necessary our resort to the courts. [Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic] I think it's clear that copyright owners have obtained too much power and that the public, and the public domain, have suffered as a result. Unconditional copyrights - those that require no action or effort from the owner to maintain the copyright - are particularly detrimental to th epublic domain. Whether this is a legally convincing approach is another matter.

page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Career media professional Eric Olsen is honored to be the founder and publisher of Blogcritics.org, which, quite frankly, rules - as do his wife and four children.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Rescuing "Orphans": Copyright Law Challenged on First Amendment Grounds
Published: March 23, 2004
Type:
Section: Politics
Writer: Eric Olsen
Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
Eric Olsen's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Eric Olsen
All Politics Articles
Eric Olsen's personal weblog
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — March 23, 2004 @ 11:08AM — Mark Saleski [URL]

yep, i've seen weird cases of this in the digital (sort of) music world.

there was a website devoted to unearthing old exotica records. ones that had gone out of print years ago.

the site took old LP's and posted mp3's of the songs along with lovingly scanned cover art.

the copyright holders found out about it and had them shut down.

the holders had no interest in reissues of the material (they were asked!).

kinda sad.

#2 — March 23, 2004 @ 11:38AM — Eric Olsen

Very good analogy: should copyright owners have the right to prohibit access to unavailable works? If so, why? No one is gaining anything if the public has no access to works.

#3 — March 23, 2004 @ 12:17PM — bhw [URL]

I think that if you actually register the copyright to something, what you do with it [or not] is your business. I don't think we have a constitutional right to see/hear/etc. someone else's expression of ideas.

But I do sort of agree that the passive nature of copyright is kind of silly. You don't have to do ANYthing to claim your rights. It seems that you should have to protect your work actively.

#4 — March 23, 2004 @ 12:21PM — Mark Saleski [URL]

surely what they do with their material is their own business.

in the example above, i thought it was pretty short-sighted (and what else is new for a record label).

nobody was making any money off of these mp3s...and just think, i might have heard something interesting...which might have lead me to purchase some other music.

nah, it'd never happen.

#5 — March 23, 2004 @ 16:47PM — Eric Olsen

I don't think it IS only the creator's business what happens to a work of culture once it has been released into the world. We are talking about materials that were once available but now aren't, yet th ecopyright keeps them tied up so that no one else can do anyting with them either. Why should a creator or copyright holder have the ability to prohibit someone else from doing something creative with a work that they have not kept available to the public?

#6 — March 23, 2004 @ 20:55PM — bhw [URL]

Because it's mine, Mine, MINE! Ahahahahahahahahahaha!

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/14000)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments