The New York Times has an editorial today saying that the copyright term is too long, in a nod to Eldred v. Ashcroft:
The purpose of the 1998 Congressional extension was not protecting
artists, but enriching media companies that hold property rights in
their creations, virtually in perpetuity. The founders did not envision
copyright being put to this use, and the Supreme Court should not allow
it.
Bully for them. But they can do a lot to promote the issue right now.
The Times could do their own shortening of the copyright extension,
just by declaring that everything they’ve published prior to 1927 is
now in the public domain, to go back in line to that 75 year term.
Simple, no muss, no fuss, and it would show great benevolence on their
part. Think of it as form of “exceeding federal guidelines”.
My suspicion on Eldred v. Ashcroft, btw, is that the courts will not
only rule the current retroactive extension illegal, but all previously
enacted retroactive extensions– in other words, the term of copyright
will become what the term was at the time of the creation of the work.
And boy, won’t that be fun to watch.