What is Eldred Versus Ashcroft All About?
The Eldred v. Ashcroft Decision has the potential to completely revamp all cultural products.
Let's set the stage.
The Players: Eldred: Eric Eldred, Publisher of Eldritch Press, and the Lead Plaintiff.
Brewster: Brewster Kahle, Director of Internet Archive and inventor of Internet Bookmobile.
How did the late Sonny Bono get involved?
Sonny Bono introduced the Copyright Extension Act.
As a result of this lawsuit, the Supreme Court was forced to get involved.
The main issue in the Eldred vs. Ashcroft case is:
Does Congress have the legal power to grant exclusive copyright protection to content owners?
Eldred vs. Ashcroft questions the legality of Congress' power to grant limited
exclusive-copyright extension to content owners. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), a.k.a. the Mickey Mouse CTEA
, was passed as a means to allow copyright owners the sole control of their work for their lifetime plus 70 years. At the time the intention was yet another extension in copyright protection-the eleventh time in forty years.
Eldred argued over the interpretation of the term continuing extensions.
Copyright was originally granted for 14 years, with a 14-year extension. In 1976, Article 17 was revised to extend the law to 50 years after the death of the creator, and 75 years for corporations. This most recent extension, resulting from the Sonny Bono Term Extension Act, now grants 70 years to posthumous creators, and 95 years to corporations.
Where should the line be drawn?
Corporations like Disney, whose copyright on the earliest images of their mascot, Mickey Mouse, and other creative properties, are in high demand. thus they stand to make a lot more if these images do not pass into the public domain. Disney's agressive lobbying at the time of the law's sponsoring is well documented. The Disney representations were then due to become accessible to the public in 2003.
Does Congress have the power to invoke this law, while claiming to "promote science and the useful arts?"
The outcome of the case, dependent upon the constitutionality of Congress' rights (or lack thereof) to implement such a change, could completely revamp the consumption and profit division of all cultural products. Eldred's complaint is that the use of the term limited
is in opposition to continuing extensions.
Lifetime plus 70 years goes far beyond what is necessary
in the promotion of science and the arts.
The case also questions the balance between creators' needs for compensation for their work and the public's ability to access works through the public domain. Kahle objects to the continuous extension of terms. He feels doing so causes considerable harm to libraries and archives who are prevented access and distribution of public-domain information.
The government remains firm on its position regarding Eldred: Copyright extensions increase a work's dissemination, particularly if there is a commercial interest involved in the distribution of that work, such as a publisher or studio may have.
Does this Argument Have Any Basis in Fact?
Lawrence Lessig, renowned Stanford law professor, says,
"No."
Lessig has played a front and center role in the case from the start as the legal counsel of record. The issue is about the creation and dissemination of works today,
he says, adding that,
The opportunity is there to take material and give it back to our culture.
A number of studies prove it false as well.
Lessig maintains that it is unconstitutional for Congress to extend copyright 11 times over the past 40 years. He feels it was the original intention of the Copyright Act to have works expire
and thus pass into the public domain.
Hence the wording limited term.
What Is Before The Supreme Court?
This case is another in the ongoing series of issues before various courts concerning rights, copyright and decisions, many of which have been brought to the fore with the development of, and publishing on, the internet.
UPDATE:
The Supreme Court ruled against Eldred. However, Kahle filed another case, which is yet to be ruled upon.