Posted by: randomjohndoe
on August 01, 2003 10:30 PM
An RIAA boycott is useless. No business will give in to a boycott if doing so will bring a hastened end to their business. Do you think the tobacco companies would give in to a boycott aimed at making them stop selling cancer causing products? Fortunately, a boycott is unnecessary.
Ccchips is on the right track about Congress. As was recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court just this year in the Eldred Press case (championed by Larry Lessig), Congress has the Constitutional authority to set copyright law pretty much as it sees fit. In this case, the court allowed the extension of the copyright term to allow Disney to keep Mickey Mouse under copyright, but it could be a double edged sword. By well established legal precedent, Congress could set copyrights to expire after 10 years, or could set a legal definition of fair use that would explicitly allow non-commercial sharing of intellectual property.
Sure, much of Congress is in the RIAA's pocket, but that's because the RIAA doesn't face much real opposition. If enough people get fed up with the RIAA (and MPAA) and their tactics, and get organized and lobby Congress, you'll see change. Look at the NRA. They don't really have all that much money, and represent an industry that is much less profitable than the recording industry, but they have enormous influence. Why? They have (or claim) 3 million members, many of which are willing to contact Congress, and are willing to make their cause the deciding issue when they vote.
If Congress cut back copyright terms, I'm sure it would go to the courts, but the odds are against the courts over ruling Congress. The legal precedents are well established. And while the Constitution does provide protection against the government seizing property without compensation, rolling back copyright law isn't really a seizure, and the courts don't view intellectual property as quite the same as real property.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Congress can change copyright law
Posted by: randomjohndoe on August 01, 2003 10:30 PMCcchips is on the right track about Congress. As was recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court just this year in the Eldred Press case (championed by Larry Lessig), Congress has the Constitutional authority to set copyright law pretty much as it sees fit. In this case, the court allowed the extension of the copyright term to allow Disney to keep Mickey Mouse under copyright, but it could be a double edged sword. By well established legal precedent, Congress could set copyrights to expire after 10 years, or could set a legal definition of fair use that would explicitly allow non-commercial sharing of intellectual property.
Sure, much of Congress is in the RIAA's pocket, but that's because the RIAA doesn't face much real opposition. If enough people get fed up with the RIAA (and MPAA) and their tactics, and get organized and lobby Congress, you'll see change. Look at the NRA. They don't really have all that much money, and represent an industry that is much less profitable than the recording industry, but they have enormous influence. Why? They have (or claim) 3 million members, many of which are willing to contact Congress, and are willing to make their cause the deciding issue when they vote.
If Congress cut back copyright terms, I'm sure it would go to the courts, but the odds are against the courts over ruling Congress. The legal precedents are well established. And while the Constitution does provide protection against the government seizing property without compensation, rolling back copyright law isn't really a seizure, and the courts don't view intellectual property as quite the same as real property.
#