This Man vs. Mickey Mouse
Lawrence Lessig believes corporate copyright deals rob us of our culture
January / February 2003
Craig Cox Utne magazine
Lawrence Lessig has nothing against Mickey Mouse. Really. In
fact, he believes the loveable Disney icon should be much more
ubiquitous than it already is.
RELATED CONTENT
As the economy sputters, community groups offer alternatives to military service...
There are six lobbyists trying to influence health-care legislation for every single member of the ...
Which is the healthier choice?...
An online community beats back urban decay in Detroit...
That’s part of the reason why the 41-year-old Stanford Law
professor found himself standing before the Supreme Court last
October arguing what both staid legal observers and anarchist Net
denizens agree is the most important issue facing the future of the
Internet: copyright.
When Congress approved and President Bill Clinton signed the
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998, Disney’s classic
cartoon Steamboat Willie, which introduced Mickey to the
world, was about to become part of the public domain. The law
extends all copyrights 20 years—from 75 to 95 years for works by
corporations and from 50 to 70 years after the death of the author
for works by individuals.
It was, Lessig tells Steven Levy in Wired (October
2002), a classic example of how mega-corporations are working to
foil visions of the Net as the grand digital commons of shared
information. Worse yet, the copyright extensions provided by the
act, opponents argue, clearly violate the Constitution’s intentions
of providing only “limited” copyright protection as a way of
promoting “the progress of science and useful arts.” The founding
fathers’ original wording struck a compromise between two competing
ideals. It gave artists and inventors an incentive to create, but
saw to it that their work would eventually return to the public
domain and seed future creative efforts. In the view of Lessig and
others, the Bono Act threatens to choke off the supply of shared
culture that is crucial both to the Internet and to creative
enterprise in general.
And while Disney and the Justice Department argue that Congress
has every right to define what “limited” means, Lessig doesn’t buy
it. “They‘re just plain wrong,” he says. “I believe that if they
weren’t working for clients who had millions of dollars hanging on
it, if we sat down in good faith and talked about it, they’d come
around to seeing it my way.”