Supreme Court Keeps Copyright Protections (Mine: Sonny Bono Copyright Act ruled Constitutional)

Associated Press ^ | 1/15/03 | GINA HOLLAND

[general_re]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld longstanding copyrights designed to protect the profits of songs, books and cartoon characters, a huge victory for Disney and other companies.

The 7-2 ruling, while not unexpected, was a blow to Internet publishers and others who wanted to make old books available online and use the likenesses of a Mickey Mouse cartoon and other old creations without paying high royalties.

Hundreds of thousands of books, movies and songs were close to being released into the public domain when Congress extended the copyright by 20 years in 1998.

Justices said the copyright extension, named for the late Rep. Sonny Bono, R-Calif., was not unconstitutional.

The Constitution "gives Congress wide leeway to prescribe `limited times' for copyright protection and allows Congress to secure the same level and duration of protection for all copyright holders, present and future," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) said from the bench.

A contrary ruling would have cost entertainment giants like The Walt Disney Co. and AOL Time Warner Inc. hundreds of millions of dollars. AOL Time Warner had said that would threaten copyrights for such movies as "Casablanca," "The Wizard of Oz" and "Gone With the Wind."

Also at risk of expiration was protection for the version of Mickey Mouse portrayed in Disney's earliest films, such as 1928's "Steamboat Willie."

Congress passed the copyright law after heavy lobbying from companies with lucrative copyrights.

[cake_crumb]

I don't feel like contributing today.
~~~ Wait until you see "Unable to locate server"

I don't have money.
~~~Help with the fundraiser. Bump the threads, ping your FRiends.

There's plenty of time to donate.
~~~ Bill collectors don't see it that way.

I don't know where to contribute.
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

I' ve got too many other things to do first.
~~~ Don't we all?

I can't contribute much, what's five dollars.
~~~ If everyone contributed one dollar a month, we'd never have a fundraiser again.

The dog ate my credit card.
~~~ Shoot the dog.

Just let me finish freeping.
~~~BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Don't wait until it's too late. Do it today. Do it now!
Free Republic is funded solely by us. It's up to us to keep it running.
Do your part, contribute if you can.
Bump the fundraising threads. Help keep this place alive!

STOP BY A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Petronski]

I like CatoRenasci's solution: it cannot be a perpetuity or a virtual perpetuity. I think a million years would be a virtual perpetuity. I personally think a hundred years would be a perpetuity.

Sadly, I have not yet been appointed Supreme Court.

[bvw]

Justices Stevens and Breyer, dissenting.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 01-618
ERIC ELDRED, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
[January 15, 2003]

JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.

Writing for a unanimous Court in 1964, Justice Black stated that it is obvious that a State could not ioextend the life of a patent beyond its expiration date,lt Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U. S. 225, 231 (1964). 1 As I shall explain, the reasons why a State may not extend the life of a patent apply to Congress as well. If Congress may not expand the scope of a patent monopoly, it also may not extend the life of a copyright beyond its expiration date. Accordingly, insofar as the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 112 Stat. 2827, purported to extend the life of unexpired copyrights, it is invalid. Because the majority's contrary conclusion rests on the mistaken premise that this Court has virtually no role in reviewing congressional grants of monopoly privileges to authors, inventors and their successors, I respectfully dissent. ...

[general_re]

The problem here is that it wrecks the implied bargain inherent within the very concept of copyright. To recap briefly, all creative works are, to some extent, derivative works based upon prior creative works - no artist, writer, musician, et cetera, works in a cultural vacuum. And people who make creative works benefit from the existence of a rich public domain from which they draw ideas and inspiration. So in exchange for protection for their works, society asks them to (eventually) give back to that public domain whence their own works were derived.

But now, we run the risk of creating a class of people who draw from that public domain without ever having to hold up their end of the bargain by giving anything back. To take an example (and a particularly low-hanging fruit, at that), Disney reaped enormous profits from "Little Mermaid", and they didn't have to share one thin dime with the estate of Hans Christian Andersen, because his works are all public domain now. But what will Disney give the public in return for this largesse which we have bestowed upon them? Nothing, now - Disney gets something for nothing, and future generations of artists and writers and musicians are stuck with the bill, when there's nothing in the public domain that dates after 1928...

[steve-b]

There should be no difference in my ability to inherit 100 percent of my parents' intellectual work as 100 percent of my parents' farm.

The difference is that a plot of land is a natural property which exists in and of itself, while a copyright is a creature of the state.

The Founders realized some potential problems with the latter, and attempted to impose a limit via the "limited terms" clause; however, their failure to specify a maximum time opened a loophole that is now being exploited. The loophole is sufficiently subtle that the Court could find no way to close it without usurping the prerogatives of Congress.

[Libertina]

I agree with this. Copyright protection is a validation of the rights of the person/s who created the product. Longer protection gives successful companies a reason to keep developing products, and allows slower owners/producers/famil owners an opportunity to build their business.
As it is, when any tom, dick, or Kwong in the world uses your design or copies your product, it is YOU who must pursue them and pay for legal fees. In fact, many owners/producers of small-barrier-to-entry products & specialty items must go down to the ports and help look for knock offs themselves. It is not a rarity to find an entire shipment of knockoffs of your American product right there on the docks waiting to go into local stores. It can destroy your business profitability. Laws are on the books but there isn't enough man-power or will power to support them. It sucks - especially for inventors trying to get patents. It's not conservative to want to steal another person's life work. IMHO. I have gone through the process to obtain a patent and you are pretty well screwed if you do and also if you don't.

[bvw]

Theft ... Justice Stevens, in his dissent:

Ex post facto extensions of copyrights result in a gratuitous transfer of wealth from the public to authors, publishers, and their successors in interest.

[steve-b]

Until the text of the decision is available, there's no way of knowing the Court's reasoning. That said, I suspect that they did see the obvious problem with permitting retroactive extension (it would be like a "three wishes" story in which one could wish for "a billion dollars and a palace and three more wishes and the IRS to vanish into a black hole and a pair of bi cheerleaders in a tub of lime jello and three more wishes and...."), but could find no clear way to close the loophole without, in effect, legislating from the bench.

[Arthalion]

There should be no difference in my ability to inherit 100 percent of my parents' intellectual work as 100 percent of my parents' farm. And my children's rights should likewise not be disturbed by legislative limitations.

I disagree. Creative works are snapshots of the time in which they were created, and they eventually become part of the history of a people and nation. The concept of copyright limitations ensures that authors and creators of copyrighted materials have ample time to profit from their venture, but that those works will be available to people of future generations looking to study our art or films.

Could you imagine living in a world where distributing the works of Shakespeare or photos of the Mona Lisa were illegal? What if the decendants of Madison, Jay, and Hamilton still owned the rights to the Federalist Papers and demanded $500 per copy? Or worse, what if they prohibited their distribution? Movies like Casablanca and the Wizard of Oz, and even Steamboat Willy, are part of our history too. Shouldn't our decendants have the right to view these creations just as we view the creations of our own ancestors? When a creative work ceases to be a "product" and becomes a part of what makes us "us", and once the creator has been ensured a fair period of profit from his invention, then that work should become part of the public domain and available to all.

[general_re]

I personally think a hundred years would be a perpetuity.

In that case, you may wish to reconsider your opinion that this was the correct decision - a hundred-year term is very likely under this act....

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, signed into law on October 27, 1998, amends the copyright laws by extending the duration of copyright protection. In general, copyright terms were extended for an additional 20 years.

For works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection will endure for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. In the case of a joint work, the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For anonymous and pseudonymous works and works made for hire, the term will be 95 years from the year of first publication or 120 years from the year of creation, whichever expires first;

For works created but not published or registered before January 1, 1978, the term endures for life of the author plus 70 years, but in no case will expire earlier than December 31, 2002. If the work is published before December 31, 2002, the term will not expire before December 31, 2047;

For pre-1978 works still in their original or renewal term of copyright, the total term is extended to 95 years from the date that copyright was originally secured.

There are additional provisions regarding sound recordings made before February 15, 1972, termination of grants and licenses, presumption of an author’s death, and reproduction by libraries and archives. For further information about these provisions, call the United States Copyright Office's Public Information Office, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., eastern time, except federal holidays, at 202-707-3000. You may view this legislation at the Copyright Office Website.

The Act does not restore copyright protection to any works that are in the public domain.

Source

For when you do get appointed to the Court ;)

[steve-b]

What if the decendants of Madison, Jay, and Hamilton still owned the rights to the Federalist Papers and demanded $500 per copy? Or worse, what if they prohibited their distribution?

Or, worse yet, permitted only the Revised Updated Edition ("...the proposed Constitution shews its concern for the Poorer Classes by its provision of the General Welfare clause authorizing Aid to them....")?

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

I think we can agree about indefinite extensions being contrary to the common good, but if you think 'intellectual property is theft' I suspect you've never created any marketable intellectual property."

Thank you.

Napster: What It Say About Us

[PISANO]

Nice to know Mickey is still bringing home the bacon to Minnie.

[Atlas Sneezed]

The myth behind this is that somehow Disney would lose its rights to Mickey Mouse without such protection.

In reality, all it would lose is the right to prevent others from making copies of a 75-year-old-film.

Trademark rights are perpetual as long as use is continued, so no one would ever be able to use a Mickey image on T-shirts, other goods, or in theme parks for entertainment services. And no one could use the Modern Mickey image for anything.

[general_re]

I suppose the only ultimate limit on copyright terms will be the Rule Against Perpetuities -- lives in being + 99 years.

Isn't it generally 21 years, not 99? I like the sound of that much better ;)

[Roscoe]

The difference is that a plot of land is a natural property which exists in and of itself, while a copyright is a creature of the state.

"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson

[Petronski]

That's what I get for picking a round number, off the cuff. I only meant to say I think we're getting close to passing 'limited' but we are not there yet. :)

[Eric in the Ozarks]

You make some good points.
I'll let someone more knowledgeable in the law take this forward. I can't say when intellectual property should no longer be mine and when it should become "ours."
It should be a very long time, if at all.

[bvw]

Justice Breyer, in dissent.

The statute before us, the 1998 Sonny Bono Copy- right Term Extension Act, extends the term of most ex- isting copyrights to 95 years and that of many new copy- rights to 70 years after the author's death. The economic effect of this 20-year extension, the longest blanket ex- tension since the Nation's founding is to make the copy- right term not limited, but virtually perpetual. Its pri mary legal effect is to grant the extended term not to authors, but to their heirs, estates, or corporate succes- sors. And most importantly, its practical effect is not to promote, but to inhibit, the progress of Science.

(My note to some posters above:) And I, bvw, have created and made money from works that fall under what you jakes call "intellectual property", some copyrighted, some not. The protection and value is in the packaging and delivery -- not the "IP" content.

The first outfit I worked for -- one that spawned many companies, and that developed many new ideas, the fruits of which you and I both enjoy today -- had a corporate policy against patents.

[Jim Noble]

I don't care if the Bono Copyright Act is unconstitutional (well, OK, I do care and it is).

What is important, however, is the fact that this law is the fruit of naked bribery, bribery so open and so notorious that it threatens the foundation of the Republic.

I expect the USSC to reject the habeas corpus petitions of Hollings and Berman when they are locked up for their crimes.

Then this decision won't suck so much.