So I'm curious if anyone here is going to get much more sophisticated than "copyright bad."
Generally speaking the Supreme Court takes the attitude that unless there really is a threat of perpetual copyright, then it's not their job to second-guess the acts of Congress on the question of copyright duration. They also rejected the idea that the First Amendment prevents a re-establishment of copyright, or that PD is "untouchable" by Congress. The requirement for copyright to perpetuate "arts and sciences" was already thoroughly reviewed and found to be non-binding in
Eldred v Ashcroft.
Thus their job was to determine if there was a conflict between the Berne agreements (an international treaty) and existing US copyright law. They basically found there wasn't a conflict, and that protecting works that were not previously protected in order to meet treaty obligations was not an establishment of "perpetual copyrights."
The ruling is very complex, in-depth, thoroughly researched and received a 6-2 vote. Not that anyone here is a) well-versed in US or international copyright law (I'm not) or b) bothered to read the ruling (I might read the whole thing if I have time). No, what matters is that copyright is bad, and any attempts by anyone to support copyright is also bad.
On a side note, I find it slightly amusing that Mr Golan can't afford to pay licensing fees for
Peter and the Wolf, but can afford to take the case all the way to the SCOTUS. Ah yes, lawyer logic.
Anyway....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BWinmill
should those international standards aspire to adopt the most restrictive standards of signator nations?
|
That's not how it works.
It's based off of the copyright laws of the original nation, and is sometimes also subject to other agreements between individual nations.
E.g.
Gone With the Wind is still under copyright in the US, but is in public domain in Australia, much to the irritation of the Mitchell estate.