Thread: Copyfraud - public domain's fate?
View Single Post
Old 12-03-2010, 11:36 AM   #39
Kali Yuga
Professional Contrarian
Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Kali Yuga's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,045
Karma: 3289631
Join Date: Mar 2009
Device: Kindle 4 No Touchie
OK, I did a tad of Googling and found this from 2004....

http://blog.librarylaw.com/libraryla..._with_the.html

Mitchell's estate did threaten to sue, and the Australian site did pull the book rather than go through the expenses of selectively blocking the book and/or dealing with lawsuits.

Separately, geo-restricted PD editions and related works are available, just not in countries where the copyright term is longer.

So, this is definitely a conflict (with a poor resolution), but not "copyfraud."


Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
Because that's the duty that copyright law imposes on us. It is our responsibility to obey the law that applies in our country. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the International Berne Copyright Convention that requires someone in one country to enforce the copyright law of another country (or, as you're suggesting, of ALL other countries). If you believe otherwise, could you give any references to such a requirement?
If we are talking term length, then you are correct that the durations are completely different in Australia than in other countries.

However, otherwise I don't believe your interpretation is correct. If it is, then a company in Australia could, for example, set up a business that only accepts US customers and ignores US copyrights with no consequences. The point of sale is not Australia, it's the buyer's location (US); thus, Australian copyright laws aren't being violated, and US entities would have no legal recourse.

There are several real-world examples, notably the Allofmp3.com case. The allegation was that allofmp3.com was operating in Russia, did not have legitimate authority or authorization to sell digital music, and was sued in the US by American entities (RIAA and multiple music labels) for copyright infringement.

Similarly, Kazaa was sued in the US for copyright infringement, even though their owner (Sharman Networks) was incorporated in Vanatu and operated out of Australia. (They were sued separately in Australia, by the way.)

So, I'm going to *cough* go out on a limb and state that while I hope it never happens, the Aussie PG site's operators apparently can be sued in the US courts under these conditions.
Kali Yuga is offline   Reply With Quote