01-18-2012, 03:54 PM | #1 |
intelligent posterior
Posts: 1,562
Karma: 21295618
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ohiopolis
Device: Kindle Paperwhite 2, Samsung S8, Lenovo Tab 3 Pro
|
Supreme Court Says Congress May Re-Copyright Public Domain Works
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...right-decision
While this case, bringing copyrights on foreign works into compliance with an international treaty, is not too objectionable, the decision does have unsettling ramifications as a precedent. |
01-18-2012, 03:57 PM | #2 | |
Guru
Posts: 826
Karma: 6566849
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Bay Area
Device: kindle keyboard, kindle fire hd, S4, Nook hd+
|
Quote:
|
|
Advert | |
|
01-18-2012, 04:16 PM | #3 |
Spork Connoisseur
Posts: 2,355
Karma: 16780603
Join Date: Mar 2011
Device: Nook Color
|
Sigh. Way to go, Supreme Court. Keep up the *good* work.
|
01-18-2012, 04:44 PM | #4 |
Wizard
Posts: 2,698
Karma: 4748723
Join Date: Dec 2007
Device: Kindle Paperwhite
|
It's been a while since I've looked through copyright, but there's already a provision to re-copyright PD works if you use it often enough. I'll see if I can dig it up.
|
01-18-2012, 05:20 PM | #5 | |
Grand Master of Flowers
Posts: 2,201
Karma: 8389072
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naptown
Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)
|
Quote:
And this decision doesn't burden the 1st Amendment any more than the copyright clause already does. |
|
Advert | |
|
01-18-2012, 05:38 PM | #6 |
Guru
Posts: 612
Karma: 7511929
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York, NY
Device: Amazon Kindle Paperwhite 2
|
grrrrrrr...
|
01-18-2012, 05:49 PM | #7 |
Wizard
Posts: 2,552
Karma: 3799999
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Foristell, Missouri, USA
Device: Nokia N800, PRS-505, Nook STR Glowlight, Kindle 3, Kobo Libra 2
|
It just sucks, that stuff that has been in public domain for decades, and have become part of the culture, are now going back to being copyrighted. Like, I've seen Peter and the Wolf performed so many times back in school, because it was good and the school could afford it (you know, since they didn't have to pay royalties).
|
01-18-2012, 07:46 PM | #8 | |
Guru
Posts: 826
Karma: 18573626
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Canada
Device: Kobo Touch, Nexus 7 (2013)
|
But hey, it's all necessary to retroactively give millions of dead artists an incentive to create the works they already created.
Here's a quote from Wired: Quote:
|
|
01-18-2012, 07:51 PM | #9 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,068
Karma: 23867385
Join Date: Nov 2011
Device: kindle, fire
|
I contend that abuse of copyright is the root cause of copyright violation. Copyright was intended to ensure the creator of IP a fair profit on their effort. When the right to a fair profit entends beyond the creator to an industry and spans generations, people feel justified in ignoring the law.
|
01-18-2012, 08:35 PM | #10 | |
Bah, humbug!
Posts: 39,072
Karma: 157049943
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chesapeake, VA, USA
Device: Kindle Oasis, iPad Pro, & a Samsung Galaxy S9.
|
Playing the Devil's Advocate here, I can understand the reasons given by the judges in this case. From the article (my emphasis):
Quote:
|
|
01-18-2012, 09:06 PM | #11 |
Nameless Being
|
|
01-18-2012, 09:12 PM | #12 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,149
Karma: 39600000
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: near Philadelphia USA
Device: Kindle Kids Edition, Fire HD 10 (11th generation)
|
Then we'd be hearing that young people, interested in music of the past couple decades, respect copyright, while the elderly are known for massively downloading Deanna Durbin movies.
|
01-18-2012, 10:08 PM | #13 | |
Autism Spectrum Disorder
Posts: 1,212
Karma: 6244877
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Coastal Texas
Device: Android Phone
|
Quote:
The other problem is, the Berne Convention seems to have been written to encourage bad-faith patents and copyrights. I've heard talk that someone in Australia managed to secure a patent on the wheel, for example, and might be demanding royalties in the not-too-distant future. If that's the case, then we need to be seriously re-examining what the real purpose of the treaty is. |
|
01-18-2012, 10:38 PM | #14 | |
PHD in Horribleness
Posts: 2,320
Karma: 23599604
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In the ironbound section, near avenue L
Device: Just a whole bunch. I guess I am a collector now.
|
Quote:
You would have to be either pretty stupid or morally destitute to contend anything else, as there is no third option. |
|
01-18-2012, 11:44 PM | #15 | |
Professional Contrarian
Posts: 2,045
Karma: 3289631
Join Date: Mar 2009
Device: Kindle 4 No Touchie
|
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:
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. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Supreme Court decides 16 year olds understand copyright law | Fbone | Lounge | 11 | 12-02-2010 01:28 PM |
Question about copyright/public domain | banjobama | General Discussions | 11 | 07-25-2010 03:52 AM |
Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain | Dave Berk | News | 38 | 06-25-2010 08:52 AM |
US Court: Congress can't put public domain back into copyright | wallcraft | News | 26 | 04-07-2009 02:49 PM |
License, copyright or public domain? | tompe | Upload Help | 6 | 01-13-2008 09:25 AM |