October 09, 2002

Eldred v. Ashcroft

This is one huge day as far as copyright laws go. Congress has extended copyright laws again and again, to rediculously long times. The first copyrights in 1790 lasted only 14 years with the option to extended that copyright another 14 years. Today, if the copyright is held by a corporation, it lasts 95 years. This is clearly in the best interests of the people to promote distribution of old works. Obviously, they can’t be distributed over the internet or some other medium, only for profit by a corporation.

Well, I’m going to refrain from any more comments on this, but I invite you all to read up on this case and post your opinions. Here’s a few articles on the oral arguments that occured today.

ABC News (owned by the Disney Corporation who was largely responsible for the passing of the 1998 law extending the copyright term)
LawMeme (comments on the oral arguemnts)
Associated Press
And of course, Google News will show you plenty more.

1. Copyrights can, for the most part be broken easilily, but I guess I understand what is going on. Trying to help out the little guys copyrighting cool shiznit. Go little guys. Oh yeah, I have a date, wooo hoooo, tomarrow, wooooo hooooo.

   Posted by: ?? on October 11, 2002 02:47 AM

2. WWOOO HOOOOO

   Posted by: ?? on October 11, 2002 02:47 AM

3. man, just another freakin stupid way to let the rich continue to get richer. so the hell what if someone wants to put mickey mouse on some t-shirt in bumfuck arkansas to pull in a couple extra bucks? i say to disney, “disney, you have an assload of money. you are merged with aol. you are gay. can i borrow 5 dollars?” to which they say, “i am disney, hear me roar. ‘roar.’ oh, and to answer your statements, yes i do, yes i am, yes i am, no you can’t. mwa-ha-ha.” those limey bastards.

   Posted by: Lowell on October 11, 2002 07:14 PM

4. Limey bastards? Maybe I’m missing something, but I wish Lowell would explain the British connection. If there’s something here that I’m missing I’m going to feel as stupid as Austin’s white trash ass.

   Posted by: Curt on October 11, 2002 10:00 PM

5. ho, i’ll fight you.

   Posted by: Austin on October 11, 2002 10:52 PM

6. Yeah what is up with the British connection there Lowell? And I hear ya on feeling as stupid as Austin’s white trash self.

   And moreover, you couldn’t put Mickey Mouse on a t-shirt and sell it if this case is won. This case deals with copyrights, not trademarks. Trademarks last forever and Mickey Mouse and crew are trademarks of Disney. If this was overturned, the only thing you’d be allowed to do is redistribute old Disney movies. So, you could throw one up on your website or something to that effect. But, you wouldn’t be able to put a picture of Mickey on your website advertising the video, because that would violate the trademark. Hope that clears a few things up for ya.

   Posted by: Andy on October 12, 2002 05:52 AM

7. man, lowell doesn’t care about all this jibber-jabber. lowell has made a stand and plans to stand by this stand. lowell made no reference to dirty, dirty brits, he just likes calling people limey. oh, and bastards. also, lowell thinks that speaking in the third person is the shit.

   Posted by: Lowell on October 12, 2002 02:07 PM

Sorry, commenting on this post is now clossed.