Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: more on Lawmaker: Is CD copy-protection illegal?
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 19:55:47 -0500
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 16:53:20 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach <karl () cavebear com> Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl () cavebear com> To: <farber () cis upenn edu> Subject: Re: IP: Lawmaker: Is CD copy-protection illegal? On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, David Farber wrote: > >Lawmaker: Is CD copy-protection illegal?> ><http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/cn/20020104/tc/lawmaker_is_cd_copy-protec tion_illegal__1.html>> > > >Lawmaker: Is CD copy-protection illegal? > >By John Borland CNET News.com > > > >Record companies' efforts to protect CDs against digital copying are > >beginning to draw scrutiny from lawmakers concerned that the plans might > >violate the law. Doesn't anybody ever read the US Constitution anymore? US Copyright law derives from Article I Section 8, which says: "The Congress shall have Power ... 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". In the US, copyright rights exist only for "limited times". Eventually the copyright in a work will expire... eventually. And if I happen to have a copy of a work in which the copy right has expired, then I am free to make copies. However, the thesis of the recording companies is that by virtue of their copyright powers they will impose upon us a *permanent* prohibition against copying. In other words, the recording companies are trying to impose a regime that forgets that the words "for limited times" exists in Article I Section 8. Now, the recording companies may try to shift the subject and claim that they are merely licensing the material to us and that we are agreeing to a private contract. But remember, contracts have power only because the power of the State stands behind the contract. The "for limited times" provision should be considered a barrier that prevents the private invocation of State power to enforce such terms. Now, Congress has enacted laws that say that periods on the order of a century are "limited times". I find that ludicrious. But be that as it may, what the copyright interests are trying to obtain is not protection for a limited time. Instead they are trying to obtain protection for an infinite time. Imagine a time in the far distant future, thousands of years from now, an archeologist starts to dig into the earthquake-buried remains of the city of "Hollywood". She comes across the Capital Records building and finds a DVD of the lost movie, Chaplin's "City Lights". Would anyone be surprised if a ghostly image of lawyer arises from the rubble and with in a hoary but clear voice say: "You may not copy that."? --karl--
For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- IP: more on Lawmaker: Is CD copy-protection illegal? David Farber (Jan 04)