4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, January 22, 2003 OP/ED (Thle firtichrgFm ttilg 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 letters@michigandaily.com EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 JON SCHWARTZ Editor in Chief JOHANNA HANINK Editorial Page Editor Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. NOTABLE QUOTABLE "The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence ... of Iraq's noncooperation." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in response to chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix's statement last week that his teams had found no "smoking guns" in Iraq, as quoted in this week's edition of Newsweek. SAM BUTLER THEi SAPBoX 0000010 i J r, 'i\ \ . "" LL This column copyrighted for more than 70 years JESS PISKOR TIs SPACE NOT FOR SALE ( arzan," "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," "Aladdin," "Beauty and the Beast," "Pinocchio," "Alice in Wonderland, "Cinderella, Peter Pan, "Sleeping Beauty," "The Jungle Book" and "The Sword and the Stone" are just a few of the Walt Disney Co.'s cartoon classics. These hugely popular movies continue to be major money makers for Disney and are mainly responsible for the immensity of the Disney empire. These movies have become a part of our culture and national identity. Did Disney think up these stories? No, they took stories already in the public domain, added a talking parrot and threw in a song or two. The Disney movies are of course different from the original texts. Victor Hugo's Quasi- modo was far deeper character than any "Dis- neyfied" morality tale could ever allow for. Yet it is within Disney's rights to modify and adapt the story anyway they want. But how would Disney react to any interpretations or adapta- tions of Mickey? If you tried to reinterpret Fan- tasia you would be up to your ears in lawsuits faster than you could say "Never-Never Land." The books these movies were based on were originally copyrighted by their authors and it would have been illegal to use and adapt the stories without the permission of the author (probably only acquired after the exchange of a fat check). Yet Disney was able to use these stories without paying for them. After a certain period, copyrights on books and other creations expire. After that time, these creative works are con- sidered part of the "public domain" and anyone can use, adapt and interpret them without per- mission. This is right and just. The role of copyright, as it is enshrined in Article 1, Sec- tion 8 of the U.S. Constitution, is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times (emphasis added) to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." As it stands today, copyrights hold for 70 years after the death of the author and 95 years total for copyrights held by corporations. After this exceedingly long time, the work shifts into the public domain. This explains why there are so many different publishers selling the works of Shakespeare. All in all, it's a pretty good system - authors get plenty of time to profit from and control their work (and thereby give artists the incentive to continue to create) and then the work becomes public so that people can incorporate this old work into new things without worries of copyright infringement. In 1998, after extensive lobbying from Hol- lywood, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which extended copyrights by another 20 years. The act was recently challenged in the Supreme Court by Eric Eldred, who had tried to make Robert Frost's poetry available on the web under the assumption that the copyright on the material published in 1923 had expired by 1998. His appeal was just denied and now it seems copy- rights might be extended continually. You might think a company like Disney that has benefited so much from expired copy- rights would support Eldred. But now the situa- tion is reversed. The copyrights Walt Disney himself had on early versions of Mickey Mouse and other cartoons were due to expire in 2004. If the law was overturned, Disney would lose the copyright on Mickey. Disney (and society) was provided with the opportunity to benefit from public domain laws, but now that opportunity is in jeopardy if copyrights become held in perpetuity. Keeping copyrights for so long benefits the extreme few while hurting the majority. Soci- ety does not benefit from having Michael Jack- son own the copyright on all Beatles songs. Originally in the United States, copyrights were only granted for a maximum of 28 years. It is important that copyrights expire at some point. The recent Supreme Court ruling allowing Congress to extend copyrights for another 20 years opens the door for a series of never-end- ing extensions. Does anyone really think that Disney will be ready to part with Mickey 20 years down the road?, Just as we allow drug companies to keep the patent on their drugs only long enough to recoup costs and make a nice profit before we open up the market to generic versions, so to should it follow with copyrights. Some things should not be copyrighted any longer. AOL Time Warner owns the copyright to "Happy Birthday" - and will through at least 2021 - so at your next birth- day, unless you want to pay the royalties, don't sing it in public. Jess Piskor can be reached atjpiskor@umichedu. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Roe v. Wade anniversary should spark discussion TO THE DAILY: On Jan. 22, 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that the "right of privacy ... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." As we think upon the cultural ramifications of that historical moment, we believe that a clear resolution to this issue could unfold if ide- ologues on both sides would cease their rhetoric-work and let the ongoing work of grass roots activists speak for itself. This resolution involves an ethics of pre- vention and care. Prevention is the most effec- tive way of reducing abortions. Supporting responsible sexual relations through informa- tion about abstinence and safer sex practices is key. When prevention fails, the ethic of care fol- lows. This fall, a speaker from Feminists for Life noted that most women do not freely "choose" abortion, but are coerced into their decision by lack of financial resources, family or social pressure, and/or lack of access to ade- quate health care among others. Pro-choice groups have emphasized this shameful situation for some time, but the point is that more efforts should be directed towards improving resources for pregnant women, be they financial, medical or emotional. Pro-life groups work very hard to provide resources and emotional support for pregnant women and to enable adoption. Planned Parenthood, a pro- choice organization, devotes an overwhelming portion of its resources towards pre-natal care for low-income families. More of this work remains to be done. Most people agree that abortion should be legal in cases of sexual abuse and health risks posed to the mother. Most agree that abstinence and contraception education are key to reducing unplanned pregnancies. And most people agree that substantial social resources should provide support for pregnant women and infants. So as you think about this debate, remem- ber that rhetoric is an empty and divisive pur- suit. Only informed action in the pursuit of prevention and care will ever bring this volatile chapter of U.S. history to a close. STUDENTS FOR CHOICE EXECUTrIVE BOARD Daily editorial lacked evidence against Bush plan TO THE DAILY: According to the Daily, minority enroll- ment at Texas state schools has been stag- nant. Is there any evidence to support your claim, or should we just take everything the editorial board of a college newspaper as fact? The Daily's first critique of the 10 per- cent plan is that it only considers numbers, not people. Please, please point me to the section of the University's now infamous point system that actually considers the per- son, not superficial qualities such as the color of one's skin. The next item the Daily mentions is that the 10 percent plan relies on urban segrega- tion to be effective. I think the Daily missed the point. The plan was created to account for geographical segregation, not to rely on it. If we redistributed the approximately 85 percent black population of Detroit evenly over the rest of the state of Michigan, the plan would still work. The argument that minorities were not given the same oppor- tunities at the level of secondary education would be thrown out because urban segre- gation has been removed, so granting admission to the top 10 percent of every high school should include equal propor- tions of every race. Bush's plan does not pivot upon segregation, it simply accepts that it is an unfortunate part of the society in which we live. How anyone can justify blindly granting an edge to some in the admissions process based solely on the color of their skin goes against everything that equality means. I seem to remember someone saying, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Maybe I only remember that because we share the same birthday, but I thought there was another reason, like the fact that his followers cry for equality while demanding special con- sideration for their unfortunate skin color. My brother suggested an admissions program that makes sense, which means it will never be implemented anywhere. Do this: Page one of the application has name/address/phone number/RACE/etc., while pages two and beyond contain grades, SAT scores and extracurricular activities. The reviewer only gets to see pages two and beyond after putting the application in either the "accepted" or "deferred/denied" pile, where it is reunited with page one via the social security num- ber. No race considerations. Only factors that make up a person are considered. Equality. Get it? BARRY FULLER yet horrifying. I was carefully looking at the ads for the upcoming Spring Break and the compa- nies that try to sell this "holiday" to students. Vulnerable students, If you find yourself checking out these ads for a great late-February getaway with your friends, be wary as to what these companies claim to offer. And if you find yourself with a booked room at the Sandpiper Beacon in Pana- ma Beach, Fla., you may be better off spread- ing some sand across the carpet in your dorm and turning the heat up to 90 degrees. This "beach resort" boasts in their ad that their establishment is "The Fun Place," but the most fun you will have during your break at the Sandpiper-Beacon is probably the nap on the flight down to Florida. I went with three friends and booked a trip there, not knowing the first thing about Panama Beach, only using the assumption that if this place has such a large ad in the Daily then, by God, it must be the biggest party resort ever! Ha. While driving from the airport to the resort, the first thing we noticed was that we were moving farther away from where any students or younger people were located. In Panama Beach, there is "the strip" where all the resorts, bars, clubs and hotels are located. We found ourselves about three miles down "the strip" from anybody close to our age. The beach was barren except for me and my friends, an older geriatric couple sleeping upright in chairs propped in the sand, and a group of 80-year-old men sitting in a hot tub near the beach. It was so quiet you could actu- ally hear me crying. We passed the time play- ing shuffleboard with the eighty-year-old men and drinking 30-packs in our "cabana" that held two beds, a mini-fridge, a small bathroom, and about three feet of turning space for our bodies to fit inside. Oh, and "Home of the world's largest and longest keg party? What? What? I repeat: I played shuffleboard with 80-year-old men - I saw no kegs, no party. The only piece of ass for miles had a pair of Depends strapped to it. We finally got out of our little room at the Sandpiper, lost our deposit and moved into the Marriott down the road where there were craploads of young people, beach parties, and a shuttle that transported us to a series of bars each night. I feel that it was irresponsible for the Daily to put this advertisement in the paper. Students deserve a sunny break around the end of Feb- ruary, not a disastrous experience like mine at the Sandpiper Beacon. We should understand that as students, we are sometimes vulnerable to getting ripped off. When it comes to credit cards - and especial- ly when it comes to spring break offers - we 0l 0 0 THE BOONDOCKS AARON McIGRUDER "--