Wired News is running a very cogent story that explains, in lay terms, what yesterday's court ruling on copyright means. In a nutshell, Congress approved (another) 20-year extension to copyright in 1998, which means that all existing copies of many books and works of music will likely vanish before they enter the public domain, which means that the works themselves will disappear from the historical record. What's more, the extension to copyright limits the sort of derivative works that can be made — small orchestras have limited repertoires, anthologists, limited pools of works.
Now, the Supremes are willing to hear an appeal to the 1998 extension. If the plaintiffs are successful, term of copyright may revert to pre-1998 levels, which not only meas that the issues above will be mooted, but more to the point, Mickey Mouse might end up in the public domain if the case succeeds.
The argument hinges on the constitutionality of the extensions to copyright. The framers originally established a 17-year 14-year (thanks, Larry!) term of copyright, as part of the constitutional mandate to provide creators with "a limited monopoly" on their works. With the continual extension (11 times in the past 40 years) of copyright's term, the monopoly is no longer "limited" in any real sense of the word (the present term of copyright is author's life plus 70 years, or 95 years for works that belong to corporations).
As a result, "Any film after 1923 is not being restored," Bromberg said. "(These films) will be irrevocably lost."
In addition, small orchestras rely upon works in the public domain because they can't afford the prices for copyrighted works. The available repertoire for an orchestra will shrink as the public domain shrinks, Bromberg said.
"Some works will be lost, and a wider range of works won't be publicly available," Bromberg said.
Supporters for the plaintiffs argue that digital archives could make these old books, songs and films inexpensively available if copyright protection extension limits are lifted.
