Huge copyright giveaway: Will Sen. Edwards and others show some guts and reverse it?
This is an example of a localized anti-Bono letter in the context of a
presidential primary. Also see an
accompanying item in the TeleRead
Web Log.
A multibillion-dollar giveaway to Hollywood and other special interests--that's
what the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was, at the expense of our
schools and libraries.
I'm a lifelong Virginia Democrat and would love for other voters to join me in
asking Presidential candidates to oppose the Act.
For me at least, Sen. John Edwards is highly worthy of attention on this issue.
First, I'd like to be able to vote for him, as I've been seriously considering.
Second, he serves on a copyright-related committee in the Senate. Third, he is a
mill worker's son running as a vigorous advocate of education and opportunities
for self-improvement. So far, however, despite efforts to elicit an answer, he's
been mute on Bono, and that's a big disappointment. The Bono Act is stealing
from the rest of us to make the copyright elite still richer.
By living up to its name, the Copyright Term Extension Act will eventually
transfer BILLIONS of dollars from our schools, libraries and the public at large
to Disney, other conglomerates and the rich heirs of long-dead authors,
composers and others. As author of half a dozen books, I'm pro-copyright. But
Bono overdoes it. If it hadn't been for the Sonny Bono Act, many more classics
such as "The Great Gatsby" would already be on the Net for unfettered use by
students and the rest of us. Remember, one of the official goals of Democrats
for the New Dominion is to "Examine opportunities to close the Digital Divide."
This topic, in other words, is highly germane to the DND list, and I hope that
other members will join me in spreading the word on Bono and the need to fight
it.
Hollywood's pro-Bono arguments about "creative incentives" are laughable--I
doubt that the Act will cause Mr. Fitzgerald to rise out of his grave to finish
"The Last Tycoon." Ironically, the Act even hurts creative people. Walt Disney
made no small part of his fortune through adaptations of public domain material.
In a state so reliant on the Internet for both education and jobs, we Virginians
should not be subservient to Hollywood and entertainment conglomerates. The more
content online, the richer our Net and our schools will be.
Today the Net is a major homework helper for students, and to cheat the Net is
to cheat Virginia's children.
Not to mention all the children in other states as well. The Pew Foundation
says: "A July 2002 survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project shows that
three in five children under the age of 18--and more than 78% of children
between the ages of 12 and 17 go online." That was two years ago. If anything,
America's children depend even more on the Net today. And that isn't even to
mention non-Net considerations--such as the money that schools pay to perform
plays and musical compositions still under copyright. Is George Gershwin's
estate more important than education? Do we need what some have called a
copyright gentry? Gershwin's heirs and corporate interests have ALREADY been
reaping tens of millions just from the copyright of "Rhapsody in Blue." Isn't
that enough, especially when our schools and libraries are hurting so badly?
What's more, given the harm to our public libraries, I highly doubt that a
library booster named Thomas Jefferson would approve of this reverse Robin
Hooding. In fact, the Founder Fathers limited copyright terms to a fraction of
what they are now--just 28 years. I do think the terms should be longer than
that since people are living longer. But a little balance would help. Would you
believe, Bono "retroactively extended the duration of copyright from the life of
author plus fifty years to the life of the author plus seventy years, in the
case of individual works, and from seventy-five years to ninety-five years in
the case of works of corporate authorship and works first published before
January 1, 1978" (as summarized in Wikipedia).
Ideally Congress can repeal the Act, period. But if that isn't possible,
Washington should pass the Public Domain Enhancement Act advocated by Stanford
law professor Larry Lessig and others. It would at least mitigate the damage.
I'm proud to say that Virginia Congress member Rick Boucher is among the
sponsors.
How do our Presidential candidates stand? Will they fight for repeal or at least
support PDEA?
This question is for all of them. But Sen. Edwards particularly needs to speak
up. Remember, he serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which holds
jurisdiction over copyright matters. He wasn't in the Senate when the act
passed, but he can help repair the damage and promise to oppose any future
efforts to extend copyright terms. Significantly, the Sonny Bono Act was a
bipartisan outrage passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Bill Clinton,
which is unfortunate given all the good that his White House did in many other
ways. I'd hope that we Democrats would be capable of reversing our mistakes.
For further information:
--More from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
--Opposing Copyright Extension.
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/
--The Public Domain Enhancement Act, a compromise inspired by Prof. Lessig.
http://eldred.cc/
--Copyright and K-12: Who Pays in the Network Era?
http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Futures/rothman.html
--A copy of a Forbes article showing how copyright term extension affected
"The Great Gatsby," "Farewell to Arms," "Rhapsody in Blue" and other works.
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/commentary/Mcmenamin8-23-99.html
Below, I'll reproduce some thoughts on the Lessig compromise from Steve
Forbes, who, as a conservative Republicans, is my political opposite. In
addition, I'll provide details on the Act's outrageous costs to schoolchildren
and the rest of us.
Want to take action in favor of schools and against special interests? Then
contact the campaign headquarters of your favorite candidate--and also write or
talk to other policymakers. In Edwards case, the phone number is 919-785-1900.
I've been told that Robert Gordon, whom I could not reach, would be one Edwards
advisor to try. His number in DC is 202-224-3154, and I'm told he'll be in on
Monday. Active in your PTA? No matter what their parties, tell 'em how the Bono
Act is a billion-dollar giveaway to take a stand against.
Meanwhile I'm bc:ing Sen. Edwards' Virginia supporters listed on his contact
page at
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/contact_us.asp . I would be highly
appreciative if they could gently remind the Senator of the issues at stake
here. I WANT them to steal my thunder.
Thanks,
David Rothman | davidrothman@yahoo.com | 703-370-6540 (Alexandria)
- Author, "Copyright and K-12" (personal opinions only, not speaking for the
Department of Education)
- Coordinator, TeleRead.org (advocating well-stocked national digital libraries
with fair compensation to content-owners)
P.S. As noted, I have not yet made up my mind about which candidate I'll
support. So if Sen. Edwards speaks up, he might get my vote. This is a pretty
good litmus test of whether he takes his populist rhetoric seriously.
P.P.S. Feel free to circulate this letter--without permission needed!--to people
in Virginia and other states. Remember, there are lots of primaries to go.
//////////////////////////////
From Mr. Forbes: "Only about 2% of copyrighted work between 1923 and 1942
continues to be exploited commercially. Stanford Law School professor Lawrence
Lessig has proposed a sensible compromise. Borrowing a page from patent law,
wherein holders have to pay a fee every few years to keep their patents current,
Lessig would apply that principle to copyrights: After a certain number of
years, copyright holders would have to pay a nominal amount of money to maintain
protection. If the holder didn't pay the charge for, say, three years, the work
would go into the public domain."
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0331/027.html
//////////////////////////////
Information on the cost of the Sonny Bono Act to America's schools, libraries
and the public at large:
"In 1996 Bantam Books conducted a study and determined that almost 12 million
literary classics are sold each year to high schools and colleges," the American
Association of Law Libraries, the American Library Association and likeminded
groups noted in a friend of the court brief filed during the unsuccessful
Supreme Court fight against the Act.
"One analysis concluded that if copyright were extended twenty years, consumers
including schools and students would pay out an additional $345 million in
royalties."
More likely the figure would be well over half a billion today, considering the
increase in the prices of paperbacks. And if indeed limited to books as appears
to be the case, the analysis would exclude musical compositions, Hollywood films
and plenty else. So in the end Bono may cost the public more than a billion
dollars within the equivalent of just one 20-year term. Costs will reach the
multibillions sooner or later, with or without nonbooks included; and they will
only go up from there. That's no small transfer of wealth from little school
kids and others--yes, Bono means fewer books per hard-earned tax dollar--to
Hollywood and wealthy friends.
(For the friend of the court brief, see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/cert/library-amicus.html
)