Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

No one can force him to work but at the same time he cannot stop anyone else from recreating his work. A brand name doesn't prevent copies, a logo might be trademarked but everything else would be fair game. Cabinets have long since been invented so there's no patent issues and the design of a utilitarian item is not subject to copyright.

In the end, all you are saying is that a carpenter's work is worth so much more than an author's.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

In the end, all you are saying is that a carpenter's work is worth so much more than an author's.

How do you figure? No one forces a carpenter to build and no one forces a writer to write. The writer is granted a monopoly over what people can do with the result the carpenter isn't. This gives the author has an advantage over the carpenter. My question is why dmaul and perhaps you feel that advantage is deserved if nothing is given in exchange for it. Personally to me the cost is simple, a short time limit on the monopoly plus reasonable exceptions often called fair use or fair dealing. Thus the time limit becomes the payment.

The disagreement came about when dmaul said he won't settle for anything less than life+ and I won't accept a non determinate period or any period longer than the average human life expectancy.

Are you really planning to get on my case for auguring that an effectively perpetual monopoly that isn't even paid for is a problem?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

No, you confuse my view with a response to someone else's view. It was asserted that profit motive is the only reason one publishes anything. Thus my response, if they already have a source of money that will last forever why then would they bother to create again?

I then went on to suggest that perhaps people who aren't dmaul1114 might choose to do things for reasons other than it'll put more money in their bank account than any other thing.

Oh. I saw your first comment as a statement in response to dmaul suggesting creators should receive royalties for their work for their entire life. He did not assert that profit motive was the only reason to create so I did not understand that you were responding to a remark that stated this. Your second remark was the only one I saw suggesting money was the only reason to create.

Sorry for the confusion.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Oh. I saw your first comment as a statement in response to dmaul suggesting creators should receive royalties for their work for their entire life. He did not assert that profit motive was the only reason to create so I did not understand that you were responding to a remark that stated this. Your second remark was the only one I saw suggesting money was the only reason to create.

Sorry for the confusion.

Cheers,
PKFFW

It happens, text can be a difficult way to communicate since you don't see people reacting to each other.

[charleski]

Originally Posted by Dave Berk

On Monday, the appeals court reversed the lower court's ruling and said there's no problem with the First Amendment because copyright law "addresses a substantial or important governmental interest." This is, plainly speaking, ridiculous. The argument effectively says that the government can violate the basic principles of the First Amendment any time it wants, so long as it shows a "substantial or important government interest." But that makes no sense. The whole point of the First Amendment was to protect citizens' interests against situations where the government's interests went against citizens' interests.

There are a number of exceptions to the First Amendment, but this judgement is ridiculously and dangerously broad and needs to be struck down by a higher court.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Maybe entering the public domain should just mean that that book/movie/tv show/music etc. can be copied and distributed freely.

But not that people can freely use those characters etc. for new products etc.--if that's what the Mickey Mouse case is about.

This sort of use would fall under the protection of Trademarks, which are very different to copyright and already have no term limitation.

[Kali Yuga]

OK, a few things to point out here.

This ruling is not about copyright holders clawing back works that properly and legitimately entered PD.

The ruling asserts that certain foreign works were improperly classified as PD, due to the foreign nation failing to follow its agreements to respect the originating nation's copyright laws per the Berne Convention or other mitigating circumstances (e.g. errors in paperwork). §514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act moves to restore those copyrights and sets up specific limits on protections for those who inadvertently used the works while they were misclassified as PD.

That's why the ruling explicitly states: "Section 514 does not restore copyrights in foreign works that entered the public domain through the expiration of the term of protection." (p 6) It's only when the nation failed to properly enforce copyright protection in harmony with the agreements it signed that protection resumes.


The Techdirt article is horrendously biased; it's short on legal reasoning and long on hysteria and knee-jerk reactions. For a more even-handed summary: http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/...from-the-dead/

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Again, I could never support a system where an author (or musician etc.) can see other people making money off their content while they're alive without them getting their royalty payment.

You're talking about copyright guaranteeing control, which it was never intended to be for.

Copyright should be long enough to give the average work a chance to make a reasonable profit for the artist. No more, no less. That's what will give artists incentive to continue to create. Any copyright terms based on the life of the artist have nothing to do with the original intent of copyright.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Copyright should be long enough to give the average work a chance to make a reasonable profit for the artist. No more, no less. That's what will give artists incentive to continue to create. Any copyright terms based on the life of the artist have nothing to do with the original intent of copyright.

While I generally agree that Life + 70 is a little too long, I don't see a problem with the basic Life + formula. Nor do I see any requirement to limit copyright exclusively to "incentive to create." There is nothing wrong or illegal about Congress expanding copyright to include, for example, a more basic realm of "protecting commercial interests."

For example, an artist like Michael Jackson -- no matter what your opinion of his work or his person happens to be -- poured significant funds into producing a series of recordings that were not released during his lifetime. Does it make sense that upon the instant of his death that all of his copyrights, including the ones for as-yet unreleased recordings, should instantly go into the public domain because you can't "incentivize the dead?" Should his estate be stuck with massive debts and no viable way to recoup those debts?

Similarly, should we just abolish the concept of a "literary executor?" Should every scrap of paper that Nabokov ever wrote on be declared PD at the instant of his death? Should Salinger's estate be forced to publicly release anything Salinger wrote, in spite of any written instructions in his will or to his executor(s)? What if the artist explicitly instructs a literary executor to put his archives and unpublished writings into the hands of an institution that is capable of maintaining the writings -- does that somehow run afoul of the idea of putting works into PD?

(Granted there are problems with this approach; e.g. the Kerouak estate is tangled up in all sorts of legal wrangling, which is preventing scholars access to his archives and papers. However, throwing open the floodgates doesn't quite seem beneficial either.)

Or... What constitutes a "reasonable profit" and a "reasonable time frame?" 70 years? 50 years? 25 years? What's the criteria, and from whence is the time frame derived? Or should we pick a profit amount, and declare that the instant the work achieves a certain amount of profit, it goes into PD...?

Life + 70 may be too long. However, the idea of guaranteeing copyright for the creator's lifetime, plus at least some additional time, certainly makes sense to me.

[Deneb]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

But I won't budge on the term of copyright. Needs to be until death of the creator at the shortest, and ideally 10-15 years later so there's incentive to publish work late in life, or for families to publish their work posthumously etc.

People should get to enjoy the fruits of their labors for at least their lifetime if they're fortunate enough to create something that people want to read/watch/listen to over that long of a time span.

The creators not in it for money are free to give it away online and never seek to make money off it. Those who choose to produce it for sale, should have control of it at least until death.

Why a life time? Patent last 20 years and nobody stop inventing...

Why not link copyright to the creation: 20 years for each work, whether the author is alive or not, works for late and posthume creations...

I agree writers should benefit from their work, like the inventors, but why a life time?
Or make the patent last for the life time of the inventor +70...That would be interesting to see.