Jinn of Current Events

Dante Alighieri, in the Divine Comedy: The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of crisis, remain neutral.

To remain neutral between abject slavery (dhimmitude) and an anti-terror war is not a principled stand. To remain amoral between good and evil is to encourage evil to proliferate. 

None of the arguments here are original to me. Feel free to quote, copy, expand, and improve. The basic principle to consider is that Congress may neither expand the scope of a patent monopoly, nor restrict it, nor extend the duration of a copyright beyond its expiration date, nor cut it short. The issuance of a patent or copyright is appropriately regarded as a quid pro quo--the grant of a limited right for the inventor's disclosure or author's publication, and the subsequent contribution to the public domain within a definite time. That time period must be related to human life, otherwise it bears no reasonable relation to living human interest. It would be manifestly unfair if, after issuing a patent or copyright protection, the Government (acting as a representative of various special interests) sought to modify the bargain by shortening the term of the protection. Similarly, lengthening the term of protection is an usurpation of power.

Due to repeated extension of copyrights, only one year's worth of creative work, copyrighted in 1923, has fallen into the public domain during the last 80 years. Thus, people who live an average number of years will now die without anything created and copyrighted in their lifetime having entered the public domain. But free, unlimited public access was the ultimate purpose of both patent and copyright protection!

Financially speaking, ex post facto extensions of copyrights result in a gratuitous transfer of wealth from the public to authors, publishers, and their successors in interest (more often the latter two and especially corporations, since most authors die a long time before their works may fall out of copyright monopoly).

Monopoly protection of patents and copyrights for more than 20 years is contrary to the interest of mankind; it must be fought and eliminated, both by seeking better laws and civil disobedience (put on the Internet "copyrighted" works which have really fallen into the public domain). Looking at fundamental principles, patents and copyrights must be restricted to individuals; corporations should be prevented from owning such monopolies, thus removing their current incentive to turn temporary contracts for common welfare and mutual benefit into perpetual bondage.

The Supremes' Eldred opinions are online; do read them: Majority (136kB PDF); Stevens' dissent (132kB PDF); and Breyer's dissent (136kB PDF). 

It doesn't make sense and borders on tyranny. Copyright duration has grown to exceed the average human life. We need another, radical strategy to revert to the original, reasonable protection: 14 years. Congress has repeatedly lengthened the terms of copyrights over the years. Copyrights lasted only 14 years in 1790. With the challenged 1998 extension, the period is now 70 years after the death of the creator. Works owned by corporations are now protected for 95 years. [AP] 

Joyce Malcolm (BBC News): The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.