I am passing this message on to this listserv because it has some very well stated points to make about a very important issue that has an impact on everyone who is using the internet. Thank you for your interest.
Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
jwne[_at_]astro.temple.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE).
Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below.
You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use
the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions
for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html
or send a message to requests[_at_]lists.gseis.ucla.edu with Subject: info rre
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 20:52:09 +0000
From: Eric Eldred <eldred[_at_]mediaone.net>
To: Phil Agre <pagre[_at_]weber.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act
Hi Phil,
An emergency alert.
The U.S. Congress on Wednesday, October 7, 1998, passed the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act." As of 10/11 it was waiting for the signature of the President, who has already said he will sign it.
I have taken my web site down and urged everyone to email president[_at_]whitehouse.gov to veto the act, if they want a digital library on the Internet.
The important aspect of the Act is that it will prevent from entering the public domain most works first published after 1922. Thus those of us volunteers such as in Project Gutenberg who scan and post full texts of books will be denied access to those works, and be unable to continue with our work of presenting a free global public library.
The Act was passed without public debate, without news coverage, under a suspension of the rules, by voice votes, without even a quorum. You may read all about it at http://thomas.loc.gov if you search under S505.
In my opinion the significance of the Act is that it transfers a huge amount of rights and monies from the public to special private interests. If there is anything such as American cultural imperialism it only strengthens it by force of law.
One argument for the act is that it is required in order to normalize free international trade that countries have the same copyright terms. However, the act will not implement that, since European terms are after the death of the author, while U.S. terms until recently were dated after first publication. Secondly, there seems no reason why European terms should not be shortened instead of U.S. terms lengthened.
The Act will increase copyright terms by 20 years. That means up to 95 years after first publication. I can't think of a single author who lived that long. Clearly, the act will benefit only distant heirs, or, more likely, the large publishers who own most of these copyrights. It would hardly encourage new authors--can you think of anyone who would refuse to publish a book because the term was only 70 years after her death, instead of 90?
By the way, the act was named after the late Representative Sonny Bono by request of his wife, who was appointed in his stead. Rep. Mary Bono stated that he and she wished copyright to last forever, but that would be in violation of the Constitution, she was told, so she would settle for forever minus one day. Although Sonny Bono is not particularly known for a great amount of intellectual property, evidently his widow wishes to be enriched even in the distant future by royalties from any of his songs or works.
Nobody spoke up for the public and the consumer. No one reminded the legislators that the American people have a Constitutional right to all works protected by copyright. Copyright is and ought always to be a sacred contract between an author and the public. When the fixed, limited term expires, the rights revert to the public. Only this way can the public use the ideas for the free public discussion necessary for an informed democratic republic such as ours.
I see this act as part of a larger movement aimed squarely at the book as we know it and the Internet as we have constructed it.
In the future, the e-book will be a software product that will be protected not by copyright, but by a shrinkwrap license and by hardware locks. The "reader" will not be able to own the book, but will only be licensed to consume it as "pay-per-view". Scholars will find that books that are not commercially successful will just evaporate--libraries will not be able to function in the way they have been accustomed to.
To facilitate production of this type of book, NIST (U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology) sponsored an "e-book" conference this week in Maryland. At the conference the large publisher Microsoft announced a proprietary format for e-books, a combination of HTML and XML islands that will withstand copying.
The World Wide Web will be turned into something like "pay-per-view" television. Books will not be available for free nor will purchased books be able to be copied or resold. Consumers will be allowed to consume products if they pay for them, but non-profit producers or home selfpublishers will be crowded out of the e-markets.
We are being presented with some clear alternatives. If we are going to do anything to use the Internet to promote democracy and human rights and literacy and intelligent discussion, then we need to fight actively all attempts such as the bone-headed Bono Act that restrict the power of the web. Our government must not be allowed to listen only to lobbyists for large publishers, and use its power of criminal enforcement only in their behalf. If the government wishes to aid the Internet, let it keep its hands off.
Those of us who wish to promote a free global public library must redouble our efforts. We will need to beg rich people to buy up the rights to copyrighted works and donate them for free posting to the web. We will need to financially support a competitive free space on the web that makes works available. We will need to encourage all means for small producers to publish from their own web sites.
Please note that I am not opposed to a reasonable copyright term. However, 95 years seems ridiculous. And I am not opposed to selling books over the net. Indeed, Internet technology can only facilitate that, and aid protection by copyright alone--there is no need for additional criminalization nor locks. And I am not opposed to businesses making money. I am opposed, however, to businesses crying for special protection at the expense of the public. Finally, it is quite true that many American workers are employed in businesses that produce copyrighted works. However, it remains to be explained why if they are so successful they need this added protection. In fact, the protection seems to be granted only so as to enable U.S. firms owning these copyrights to dominate companies in other countries. Thus the end effect is to encourage an American cultural imperialism of a capitalist consumer society, at the expense of the public places in a democratic global society.
I hope you will aid me in publicizing these remarks.
--
"Eric" Eric Eldred Eldritch Press
mailto:EricEldred@usa.net http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/
Received on Tue Oct 13 1998 - 13:06:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:32 GMT