![]()
by SUSAN AKER
I originally ran across this quite sometime ago, but as more and more people become aware of the copyright battles raging in congress and the courts, it bears reprinting. Bill
Due to Napster and DeCSS, copyright has found its way into the spotlight, at least in some Internet circles. Unfortunately, this has happened almost 25 years after the major portion of the damage was done.
Before I explain that comment, let's take a little look into history, all the way back to the creation of the Constitution of the United States of America. How many have read it? If you have, you're one of less than 25 percent of the American people (assuming you're American). Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 deals with copyright and reads as follows: "The Congress shall have Powers To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
That is the basis for all copyright law in America and is, supposedly, the article that Congress looks to every time they decide a change to copyright law is warranted. Of course, the wording leaves some points open to interpretation, but the entire Constitution was designed that way (one of the main reasons George Washington wouldn't support it.) Still, the Congress of the time interpreted the "limited times" portion as meaning 14 years, which was renewable for a second 14 years and a maximum of 28 years. The average person would see a favorite work reach the public domain in his/her lifetime.
The law stayed pretty much unchanged from the late 1700's until 1909, in excess of a century. For about half this nation's history 28 years of copyright met the needs of authors and the public. But in 1909 Congress decided another 28 years was necessary. Strangely, this was also a period of advancement in the field of printing, when books were actually becoming less expensive to make and distribute. Publishing profits soared and, with the extension in copyright time limits, they could reprint earlier works and still have the protection of copyright.
Now we come back to where I started this: twenty-four years ago, 1976, a little bit after the introduction of the cassette recorder, a little bit before video recorders became popular (but they did exist). It was definitely a time of flux in the world of copyrightable material and Congress believed that the standing copyright law wouldn't hold up to the fast-paced change already apparent in the field of authorship. Some of what they did in 1976 was probably really needed; the rest of what they did was blatant theft from the American public.
I'm talking about the unreasonable extensions to the "limited Times" the Constitution allows. The copyright clause was supposedly intended to "promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts," and yet they placed an author's life plus 70 years into the copyright law. How can an author be encouraged to create after he/she is dead? And that doesn't address what the law does to the public domain. No longer can a person hope to see a contemporary work reach the public domain before their death.
One of the worst things about this is that most people do not seem to realize what has been taken from them. The propaganda put out by the entertainment industry has the average American believing that the author has a rightful claim to their work, in perpetuity. And it isn't true. No creation is made in a vacuum - authors get their inspiration from the public domain or an unrecognizable theft (possibly Fair Use) of another author's work. The act of creation does not entitle one to a perpetual monopoly on the work since no one can be the sole owner of everything that went into the work. This is supposed to be balanced by the limit on copyright and the reversion to the Public Domain. The author can make his living from his work and then give it back to the world that helped create it.
Another point that isn't very well known, that has, in fact, been buried into near complete obscurity is that the copyright owner does not own the work, only the copyright. The work, itself, is owned by no one. Intellectual Property, a very big issue in the modern world, has no owner. You can only own the right to copy a work, not the work itself.
The difference between these two points is important, though of little practical value to the average person. The entity with the copyright is the only one who can offer the copies for distribution, or not.
Here we arrive at what is known as "The First Sale Doctrine," which governs the ownership of individual copies. The Entertainment Industry and the Software Industry both want you to believe that you don't own the copy of the work that you have purchased. First Sale Doctrine disagrees. Once the copyright owner has been compensated (you paid for the copy) they have no further rights toward that individual copy. As owner of the copy, it is your right to decide what to do with it, with the obvious exception of making further copies.
As a part-time artist, I have done commissioned work and it wasn't until I started this research on copyright that I learned about Work for Hire and how it differs from ordinary copyright. You might think that the art commission I did would still be covered under an artist's copyright, but, unless stated otherwise in the contract, the copyright would go to the person who commissioned the work, who could then make art prints and sell them, leaving the artist with only the price received from the original painting.
This is the same law that gives movie studios copyrights on movies they make instead of sharing equally between everyone who contributed to the movie's creation. The actors and screen writers and the special effects crew are all doing work for hire, offering up their creative talents for a set compensation which isn't based on how many copies are sold, unless the actor or whatever put such additional compensation into the terms of contract. But that is covered under different law.
And here we come to the year 1995, when Congress extended corporate copyright (work for hire) to 95 years after publication or 120 years from creation. (You might have noticed that Mickey Mouse turned 75 in 1996, which is the former maximum for corporate copyright. It makes me wonder how much money Disney spent on lobbyists.)
DVD's make an entrance to the marketplace. How many are aware that these disks are encrypted by regional codes? I doubt the average person is really aware of the fact, or what it means. Most people think they're a lot like VHS tapes only they use a different player, can't be recorded onto using these players and they have a nicer, clearer picture. Otherwise, they're the same, aren't they? Covered by the same old copyright law that covers virtually everything that may be recorded in some fashion, aren't they?
No. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is possibly the worst bit of legislation ever to pass through Congress, comes into play at this point, passed in 1998. No longer is copying the only copyright related crime. It has, in essence, become a crime to open the book you purchased. You must, now, place your purchased copy of the copyrighted material into a reader that is authorized by the owner of the copyright. It would be like offering a book written in another language, then making you purchase the services of an interpreter in order to hear the story. Oh, and not just any interpreter, but this one has to be fluent in all the nuances of the particular dialect and has to pay part of his salary back to the copyright owner in order to keep his interpreting license.
Back in the 1980's a law was passed, known as The Home Recording Act, that gave the user certain rights when recording works to video tape that were technically making a copy of copyrighted material. These have been negated by the DMCA and will not apply to any technology beyond videotape. High-Definition Television is coming and the FCC wants America completely converted to this format by 2006. The entertainment industry is already working towards a way to encrypt everything that comes to your HDTV so that it cannot be recorded. The DMCA makes it illegal to even attempt to break that encryption for such a purpose. Time-shifting of programs may become a thing of the past - no more recording so you can watch it later.
If unchecked, these laws will continue to flourish, bit by bit taking away all rights and freedoms until one day we will awaken to find we have none left. The public domain is already suffering from America's blissful ignorance of what their "leaders' are doing. The DMCA infringes on the first amendment (read the briefs on the MPAA vs. 2600.com if you want more information on how). The changes made in 1909, 1976 and 1995 rest on the edge of being unconstitutional (remember "limited times"). Wake up America! Demand that copyright have a reasonable limit and that older works be turned over to the Public Domain.
Think about this: under the original copyright law, Star Wars would become public domain in 2005. Old episodes of Bonanza and I Love Lucy would already be public domain. You could legally embroider pictures of Mickey Mouse onto T-shirts and sell them. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" would belong to everyone as would "Gone With the Wind." All of those great Rock 'n' Roll songs from the fifties and sixties would be public and no one could complain no matter how many MP3's you distributed of them. Basically, anything published before 1972 would belong to the people of America. Books, TV, movies, art and music all work through the copyright laws and all of them have been given what nearly amounts to a perpetual monopoly.
What you can do: 1. (most important) Write letters. Let your congressmen know what you think, let them know that your vote matters. 2. (also a good idea) Join an organization that deals with freedom and rights issues. 3. Use your vote. Don't vote for those who've proven to be corporate stooges. 4. Tell everyone you know about this important issue and get them to do the same.
Bill Evans
slain666
W-B
