Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Friday, November 8,2002
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editors:
Salena De La Cruz, Pat Payne
Editorial
Students must stand up to Daddy ‘0’-bucks on logo
Maybe paternalism is a nationwide movement. The GOP
now has control of the Congress and the Oval Office, and
pundits have been saying Americans want a strong father-fig
ure to guide them and keep them safe.
Whether it’s the national mood or not, ugly paternalism has
landed at the University, threatening students’ ability to speak
out against the institution they’re paying to attend.
The University, through Strategic Communications
Associate Vice President Harry Battson, has announced
that any materials a student group produces — like
business cards, letterheads, posters or flyers — now have
to be branded with the “O” logo. Compliance is required
immediately, or else Daddy “0”-bucks won’t let the group
purchase any new materials.
What is going on here? Have we returned to the 1950s,
when college administrators “knew better” and “guided”
student expression so it would be “appropriate”? This
policy — which was decided without broad student input
or support — is the most corrupt move the University has
made in years.
Student groups are student funded. Students pay an inci
dental fee to have groups formed and run by students. And
many groups have concerns about the direction of the
University, or about certain policy decisions made by Daddy
uO”-bucks. And they have the right to express those ideas
without an administrative seal of approval. How are students
expected to think freely if they can’t spend their own money
to produce materials that reflect their ideas?
If you’re not outraged yet, here’s some more: Battson has
said that if, say, the director of the Multicultural Center wants
to have a business card, the “O” logo must be proudly
emblazoned across the top. The Multicultural Center logo, if
it really must be put on the business card, can go on the back.
On the back? Has the administration lost its mind?
It gets worse. Student groups were told Wednesday that
their own logos now need to be approved by Battson. Logos
that have been used for many years probably will be
approved, groups were told. But... old logos probably need to
be updated so they appeal to a “contemporary audience.”
Could the University please choose one side of its mouth to
talk out of?
“No, no,” Daddy “0”-bucks says. “This is about percep
tion.” Everything that comes out of the University, everything
that everyone says, must be “on message” with the identity
the University is trying to promote. After all, that’s how you
get to be a nationally recognized top-tier program.
This message-molding also has its hands on administrators
and faculty. A draft document was recently circulated among
administrators, listing the “themes” that were appropriate to
use when promoting the University. So now no one on
campus can express an idea about the college unless they
have been vetted by Daddy “0”-bucks? Sounds like a scary
private university. So much for public education, or freedom,
or critical thinking.
Actually, here’s the irony: In that draft document, one of
the “themes” administrators are allowed to promote is,
“Faculty care about teaching ... and demand the develop
ment of critical thinking.” Really? Well, faculty may demand
critical thinking, but the University only seems to want to
allow it when it is “appropriate.”
In response, we wanted to encourage student groups to
refuse, to
stand up for
their rights, to
demand free
thought. But
it’s not like
they have a
choice; the
University
won’t allow
materials to be
printed if they’re not approved.
The issue made us so angry, in fact,
that our imaginations envisioned a
fantasy world: Student groups ordering box
es and boxes of the “O” letterhead and posters, piling them
high and burning them to the ground.
In reality, however, students must find a rational way to let
the University know this policy is not acceptable.
Editorial board members
Michael j. Kleckner
Editor in chief
Jessica Richelderfer
Managing editor
Salena De La Cruz
Editorial editor
Pat Payne
Editorial editor
Jenna Cunningham
Student representative
Copyright controversies within the public domain
Some people may not know it, but there’s a concept in this
country called public domain. After a set period of time, copy
right protections on a work (novel, recording, play, movie, video
game, what-have-you) are supposed to be phased out. After that,
the work becomes the joint property of everyone, and can be
published freely by anyone. Even more important, authors then
can reference those works in their own without fear of running
into a pack of lawyers.
However, public domain is quickly becoming as fictional as
Sherlock Holmes. Most of the great detective’s adventures have
fallen into public domain, as have the works of Shakespeare and
Homer. However, the last set of stories (The Casebook of Sher
lock Holmes) was caught in a blanket renewal of all copyrights
under the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998.
Thousands of works published in 1923 or after, including great
movies like “Casablanca” and numerous scientific works, were
unceremoniously yanked from the public domain. This is a
disaster in many ways for culture. Think if Vergil had to hunt
t««M ■
r _
r "
.
it
111 1
Peter Utsey Emerald
down the copyright holders for Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey (from
which Vergil borrowed in his Aeneid)? For that matter, What
would have happened with Nicholas Meyer’s famed novel “The
Seven-Percent Solution,” which was a
Holmes pastiche? What of a scientific or
historical work that could be published on
the Internet for all to see?
I’m not against the idea of a copyright that
is meant to recompense, for a limited time,
the authors of a work, but it rankles me that a
few companies are now lobbying for perma
nent copyright. The problem with the copy
right setup in this nation is that it has be
come driven by the entertainment industry.
In the 19th century and before, before
the big media conglomerates came along, return of
it was pretty much assured that a work Captain Sensible
would go into the public domain in the au
thor’s lifetime (unless, like Edgar Allan Poe or Emily Dickinson,
the author died young). In the original copyright acts, the maxi
mum length of a copyright was set at 28 years. After that, every
one could publish it. That all changed with the advent of the
major movie studios and the rise of phonograph recordings.
Not too long ago, both industries realized that — hey, these
copyrights are going to run out someday — their golden goose
was about to expire of old age.
So, what to do? Congress has the power, under the Constitution,
to set copyright limits. So, you lobby, lobby, lobby: Get friendly
with a few legislators, and grease a few palms with — ahem —
“campaign contributions.” This they did, and 11 times since 1962,
they were able to get the copyrights extended. Finally, in 1976, we
joined the Berne Convention which set copyright at 50 years ajfter
the death of the author, or 75 years for works for hire.
Then, they got one of their own elected. Sonny Bono, of Sonny
and Cher “fame,” was a California congressman. Then, he hit a
tree while skiing. His wife, Mary, and Sen. Orrin Hatch felt that
the best tribute to Sonny would be to extend all copyrights
another 20 years, and set the maximum for any work at 95 years.
The best that public-domain enthusiasts could ask for would
be to strip the copyright extensions back to the life of the author
plus 50 years (the Berne stipulation), as well as abolish the auto
matic renewal. This could happen, with any luck. Eldred v.
Ashcroft may challenge the constitutionality of the Bono Act on
the grounds that they cannot retroactively yank works in, or
almost in, the public domain back into copyright protection. What
is so amazing is that the court even heard the case at all. They
have not been interested in the past in hearing copyright cases.
Of the intellectual property controversies arising now, copy
rights will have the largest impact on our civilization.
Contact the editorial editor at patpayne@dailyemerald.com. His views
do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald.