WI hard limits to copyright in US Constitution

Eurofed

Banned
Let's assume that butterflies during the Constitutional Convention make it so that hard temporal limits and strong protection of fair use are written in the US Constitution from the beginning. I.e., if I may pimp my own work for simplicity, quoting from the USAO Constitution

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times, not exceeding twenty-five years, to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries, providing for freedom of speech, of the press, scholarship, and similar Fair Use;

The Founding Fathers were never much keen with patent/copyright as a concept, so I see this divergence as fairly easy to accomplish.

IMO, as influential as the content industry may get during industry, it shall never have anywhere enough clout to get a constitutional amendment passed. So this limit shall stand to modern times, and as the USA grows into a superpower, shape the international standard.

What changes would this cause, come the Digital Age ?
 
The problem here is international. Almost all countries prior to the recent past simply pirated works from abroad. They gave protections to their own people but otherwise not. This was an important facet in their rapid development. (That modern countries are so much more powerful and developed they can enforce the IP law on poorer countries when they themselves did not follow it once, is a historical novelty.) Reciprocity became a principle of international IP law very early on. At least since the middle 1800s. So if the majority of the powers of the period have a copyright term of 50 years or whatever it started at then, then the ONLY way they are going to give US works protection in their country is if the US extends it to 50 years too.

Interestingly, Fair Use in fact proved a reason for massive copyright expansion. Because of the exceptions granted by Fair Use (and I should say, Fair Use is a defense but you are still considered to have violated copyright) judges felt able to expand the scope of IP law and provide a windfall to economic rights holders such as the changes in derivatives law. And that's another thing, my personal opinion is that Europeans have some very strange ideas when it comes to moral rights (integrity provision) and moral rights were not really recognized in US courts until recently. But US courts would often give the same functional protections as moral rights under a rubric of "economic rights" so it amounted to the same thing.

In fact, I'll bet you could interpret that provision you wrote as being able to secure the protection multiple times. Every 25 years you'd have to reapply (probably a grace period or have to apply after 24 years etc.) and get your rights renewed. Each "security" is only 25 years for a clear limited time. Or hell, file two applications at the beginning then each one is good for 25 years.

Shorter: No. The US did not shape the intentional IP standard until relatively recently. There is no way I can see it imposing such a provision into universal copyright law. If the US stands aside the international standard, the Europeans will happily pirate any advances. At best, there maybe be a divergence about time provisions--currently there are variations, but a universal "floor" is common, was common and will continue to be common. Sorry Eurofed. I just can't ever give you a break. :(
 
Last edited:
I don't see this as being likely to happen, given that the main purpose of the Constitution is to set up the basic structure of government and ensure that essential rights don't get trampled on, rather than enact specific legislation. They tried using the Constitution to legislate once, didn't work too well (18th Amendment).
 
So if the majority of the powers of the period have a copyright term of 50 years or whatever it started at then, then the ONLY way they are going to give US works protection in their country is if the US extends it to 50 years too.

Actually, during the time of the American Revolution and early Republic, the term of copyright in the UK was 14 years, with an option of a one-time extension of 14 more years upon renewal for a total of 28 years. French copyright terms at the time were even shorter, only 10 years.

(Personally, I think that 14 years would be about right in balancing the interests of the creators and the general public. The only study I have read regarding optimal copyright term length from an economic perspective concluded that it should be no more than 7 years, but I can see doubling or tripling that length of time to 14 or 21 years.)

So I think that they would have no problem adopting a copyright term of 25 years.
 
Actually, during the time of the American Revolution and early Republic, the term of copyright in the UK was 14 years, with an option of a one-time extension of 14 years upon renewal for a total of 28 years. French copyright terms were even shorter -- 10 years.

So I think that they would have no problem adopting a copyright term of 25 years.
Certainly they had shorter terms in the early days. I'm actually thinking of the Berne Era since there was not a lot of international cooperation among IP law before then. The US is not really in any position to influence the world at large much before then either.

ED: My personal opinion is that IP protections should be subject to change depending on if there is "windfall" as determined by a sliding scale. I know this is not a realistic development, but I think it would be ideal. I actually began a paper to that effect but ran out of time and was forced instead to examine the strengths and weaknesses of WTO's IP regime.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The problem here is international. Almost all countries prior to the recent past simply pirated works from abroad. They gave protections to their own people but otherwise not. This was an important facet in their rapid development. (That modern countries are so much more powerful and developed they can enforce the IP law on poorer countries when they themselves did not follow it once, is a historical novelty.) Reciprocity became a principle of international IP law very early on. At least since the middle 1800s. So if the majority of the powers of the period have a copyright term of 50 years or whatever it started at then, then the ONLY way they are going to give US works protection in their country is if the US extends it to 50 years too.

As others said, the standard copyright duration was much shorter in the 18th century to begin with. The US constitutional limit might butterfly the international system in developing a maximum duration of 25 years instead of 50 years as the standard later on.

In fact, I'll bet you could interpret that provision you wrote as being able to secure the protection multiple times. Every 25 years you'd have to reapply (probably a grace period or have to apply after 24 years etc.) and get your rights renewed. Each "security" is only 25 years for a clear limited time. Or hell, file two applications at the beginning then each one is good for 25 years.

Honestly, given the language I proposed, this hugely blatant loophole simply isn't realistic or feasible, as long as the USA stays democratic. :eek:
 
As others said, the standard copyright duration was much shorter in the 18th century to begin with. The US constitutional limit might butterfly the international system in developing a maximum duration of 25 years instead of 50 years as the standard later on.
So can anything. My position remains that the US is simply not going to have the influence to keep everyone down to a 25 year limit absent major changes in larger trends.
Honestly, given the language I proposed, this hugely blatant loophole simply isn't realistic or feasible, as long as the USA stays democratic. :eek:
Remember, limited times and places actually means unlimited. I think you underestimate the BS quotient that the US Court system employs, but I'd like to live in a world where you didn't. ;)
 
Top