Thing 10. Copyright and Plagiarism (Part II)

This will be an ongoing discussion because of the recent developments concerning the abuse of copyright by large corporate entities (e.g. Microsoft and its 1998 antitrust litigation, Disney and its wish to extend copyright protections forever, Diebold and its desire to keep the secrets of its defective electronic voting machines somehow protected as intellectual property). Therefore, as citizens and professional educators we need to stand guard like sentinels protecting the public interest as well as the creators of art, etc., and prevent one side from dominating the other, as is the case, presently. As teachers and SLMSs, we deal with copyright on a daily basis. The material in Thing 10 concerning information of the related topics of copyright and plagiarism is, for the most part, very good. I must note, preliminarily, the the U.S. Copyright Office (as presented by the Library of Congress) is generically satisfactory and comprehensive. However, it must be observed that during the controversy over the extension of copyright protection concerning the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998, the Copyright Office too often took an advocacy position concerning the legislation. The office should remain neutral. Btw, if anyone ever wondered why Hollywood loves Bill Clinton so much, the Bono Act of '98 should provide ample evidence of why they do. The Bono Act extended copyright protection by 20 years, both prospectively and retrospectively. The only people testifying before the U.S. Congress on behalf of this extension were those who stood to benefit in a fiduciary manner from the legislation. All legal scholars who testified opposed the legislation as a violation of the words and spirit of the Constitution. Yes, that's right, the Constitution provides the backdrop for all discussions of copyright and patents. The founders saw fit to give the Congress the sole power ". . .(t)o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for LIMITED (emphasis provided not, by Madison, but by drfaust) Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. . ." U.S. Cons., Art. I, Sec. 8, para. 8. Over the years the Supreme Court has interpreted this paragraph to mean that the "immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ULTIMATE aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975). Unfortunately, the recent change of direction at the Congressional level hampers teachers and SLMSs as these forces seek to virtually eliminate any further "in the Public Domain" (no more public domain motion pictures, for example). So while we teachers and SLMSs virtuously follow the law of copyright and fair use as it applies to our respective professions, we must also enter the public arena and monitor these unfortunate developments in copyright law. For further information, the following article is an excellent primer on the Bono Act. "Extending Copyright and the Constitution: 'Have I Stayed Too Long?'", by Michael H. Davis, of the Cleveland State University School of Law, which can be referenced at the web site for the "Social Science Research Network" (papers.ssrn.com). As for other materials mentioned in Thing 10, I highly recommend the "Copyright & Fair Use" page at the web site for the Stanford University Libraries (fairuse.stanford.edu). The section on coopyright FAQS is outstanding as well as the sections on "fair use", "public domain", and "releases." Also, the site links to an outstanding not-for-profit legal organization NOLO (www.nolo.com). Finally, the web page maintained by Carol Holzberg from the University of Maryland University College is very good and compares well with the Stanford web page. It can be found at (www.techlearning.com). Btw, that wonderful Nicholas Brothers clip I played for my students in my classroom, was only available because it is in the Public Domain. drfaust