Report On Dmca, And Copyright Infringment

[dmorgan89]

I am doing a report in english class on a law,rule, or act that i dont like and would like to change and i have chosen the digital mellinium copyright act, and copyright infringement laws. I need some good information and links arguing against p2p being illegal and telling reasons why it should be legal and the battles against napster, kazaa, ect. Anyone with any information and any links helping me would be very appreciated. thanks.

[Jibbler]

Try here.

[OlderThanDirt]

I am doing a report in english class on a law,rule, or act that i dont like and would like to change and i have chosen the digital mellinium copyright act, and copyright infringement laws. I need some good information and links arguing against p2p being illegal and telling reasons why it should be legal and the battles against napster, kazaa, ect. Anyone with any information and any links helping me would be very appreciated. thanks.

I wish you luck, dmorgan89. I won't mention links, though, since the kind of report I'd write (if it was me) would probably be much longer than what you're assigned -- and some of the information you'd need can only be found in books. But, I'll give you my strategy as if I had your assignment.

First, I'd start with the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 which states:

Clause 8: 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.

Pay particular attention to the word limited and research the intent of the Founding Fathers in using that word. Then, read the Copyright Act of 1789 (aka Copyright Act of 1790) which sets forth that intent. From that time forward, you'll need to check something else (ahem).

Read the Copyright Act of 1909 (which I often refer to as the Rape Of The Public Domain Act of 1909). And after you're done reading it, research who was behind the vast changes in that act (the motives of the lobbyists). In short, follow the money. By the time you get up to the DMCA (and the current copyright law which anoints life plus 50 years protection to copyrights, not necessarily controlled by authors and artists but by licenseers), you'll realize that corporations and vested-interests have succeeded in wresting our rights, as the public domain, away from us. Why is this important?

Time-travel back to the original mention of copyright in the Constitution. Why were the Founding Fathers so insistent upon a limited form of protection? The answer? Because the Founding Fathers were fearful that literature and innovation would fall into the hands of rights kingdoms that would lord over these rights for extended periods of time and stifle progress ... just as it happened in England. For that info, go to any search engine and search for the phrase "Statute Of Anne" and research the history behind why that law needed to be passed. And may the truth set you (and all of us) free.

P.S. If the Founding Fathers could only see that 1964 Beatles copyrights were owned by Michael Jackson in 2003, they'd turn over in their graves several times. And, the existence of the top-5 media cartel, the RIAA (aka rights kingdoms), and all the trappings of absurd copyright lifespans would keep them turning over in their graves even longer.

[dmorgan89]

thank you both for your help. especially "olderthandirt" to to take the time to tell all of that. I'll educate my class in why the dmca and copyright infringment laws that are putting college students in debt and how the music industry is so greedy and we can't even download music off the internet without fear of being prosecuted.

[OlderThanDirt]

Good luck. A Constitutional argument may be harder to refute. One other thing. In order to modify our Constitution, an Amendment must be made to it. Constitutionally speaking, all Copyright Acts following 1789 are unconstitutional. They just haven't been challenged as such ... yet. Here's my point.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 not only demanded a limited right, it demanded a right that was exclusive to the author/inventor. And the Copyright Act of 1789 was clear about that. An artist was granted protection on a work, expiring after 14 years OR upon the death of the artist. If an artist died 3 years after the work was copyrighted, the work automatically fell into the public domain and lost all copyright protection. Remember, this was an exclusive right that couldn't be sold, licensed, or bequeathed in a will. If, after 14 years protection, the artist was still alive, the artist was given the option to extend protection one time only for another 14 years. And, at the end of that time (or if the artist died during that period), the work would belong to the public domain forever.

The Copyright Act of 1909 is most remembered as doubling that time ... 28 years initial protection with an option to extend protection one time only for another 28 years. But there was a far more sinister change in the law. For the first time ever, artists could sell, license or bequeath their works to estates or third parties -- a violation of the exclusive mandate set forth in the Constitution and, therefore, an unconstitutional change in the law unless it had been done by amendment.

In short, the rights kingdoms we now see today (the music industry and RIAA) have no Constitutional right to exist!

Again, good luck on your report. Give 'em Hell, hehehe.

[RealitY]

Well said again OTD.

[Darth Sushi]

Indeed, well said.

[OlderThanDirt]

Thanks ... and one more Constitutional thing. The most recent Copyright Law anointed copyrights existing in 1973 with life-plus-50-years protection. In short, works which had fallen into the public domain were yanked back under the Copyright Law umbrella. That is a clear violation of both Section 9 and 10 of Article 1 of the Constitution:

Section 9:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Section 10:

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

This is Cornell University Law School's definition of ex post facto law:

Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws.

Or, in simple terms, a person could share music which had fallen into the public domain after 1973 without guilt ... then find themselves in front of a judge later on because the protection was extended after the fact. But again, these things haven't been "challenged" yet. However, there are a number of organizations working independently and in unison to bring these matters, eventually, to the Supreme Court. Preparation will take time, though.