IP: more on Lawmaker: Is CD copy-protection illegal?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> 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/