Okay, I know, I act all “Ms. Knowledgeable” all the time, but there are (gasp!) things even I don’t know. And they’re the kind of things I feel I should know.

The thing I’m wondering about now is the reaction to the recent Eldred decision by the Supreme Court. The ruling upholds the “Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act” or the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act,” which allows Disney to hold on to “Steamboat Willie” for another twenty years.

Now, my kneejerk rule-of-thumb is: if Disney’s for it, it’s a bad thing and we should do our best to oppose it. (Trust me: if you follow this guideline, it will never steer you wrong.) But my question is: why is copyright extension—keeping works such as Gone With The Wind and Mickey Mouse and The Wizard of Oz out of public domain—such a bad thing for the public interest?

Why should my work eventually go into the public domain? Why can’t my heirs profit from my work in perpetuity? Why is intellectual property different than, say, physical property such as Standard Oil? Why can’t my work fund a whole bunch of nincompoops whose name is synonymous with wealth?

I’m not being snarky. I actually don’t know. I’m a writer, my work is intellectual property, I should understand these things. I don’t.

I’ve added a new blog to my blogroll, Copyfight, the Politics of Intellectual Property, in an attempt to understand this issue.

Update: Bookslut pointed me to “Copyright ruling is a ripoff of consumers,” an editorial by Dan Gillmor in the San Jose Mercury News that explains a little of why this Supreme Court decision is so evil. But you know, we’re getting used to the Supreme Court being that way.