[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

So I'm curious if anyone here is going to get much more sophisticated than "copyright bad."

So you've basically decided to start your post with a simple straw man. No one in in this thread has stated that "copyright is bad." Some have expressed displeasure with the extension and re-copyrighting of public domain works, with the contraction of the public domain, but not one post expressed even the idea of "copyright=bad."

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

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.

What's your point?

The Alleged Simple-Minded Copyright Hater: I don't like the recent Supreme Court Ruling that reaffirms the power of Congress to remove works from the Public Domain. Furthermore, I don't think allowing Congress to contract the public domain or extend copyright serves the purpose of the copyright clause, which was to promote the creation of knowledge.

Kali yuga: The Supreme Court has already rejected the idea that the First Amendment prevents a re-establishment of copyright, or that PD is untouchable.

The Alleged Simple-Minded Copyright Hater: Are you posting in the right thread? I know what the Supreme Court Ruled, that is what I am disagreeing with in this thread.

Kali Yuga: All that matters to you is that copyright is bad, and any attempts by anyone to support copyright is also bad.

The Alleged Simple-Minded Copyright Hater:

Originally Posted by kali yuga

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).

Wait, hold on. Moving past your attempts to poison the well(well of course those stupid copyright haters didn't bother to read the ruling), you haven't read the whole thing? But you have no problem declaring that "The Requirement for for copyright to perpetuate "arts and sciences" was already thoroughly reviewed and found to be non-binding in Eldred V Ashcroft" and that the “ruling is very complex, in-depth, thoroughly researched,” even though you admit that you have not read the decision and that you are not well-versed in copyright law. So if you are not familiar with the literature, and you have not read the entire decision, how can you declare the copyright clause was “thoroughly reviewed” by the Rehnquist Court? This isn't just an honest mistake; you are appealing to a false authority—essentially stating that the Supreme Court has already thoroughly reviewed any challenges to copyright law, and therefore, anyone who disagrees is just a dumb copyright hater. Indeed there are scholars who would disagree with your assertion that the court thoroughly reviewed the relation of the First Amendment and Copyright Clause to Congressional action : From “The Constitutional Law of Intellectual Property After Eldred V Ashcroft”

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~...ost-Eldred.pdf

"A substantial consensus exists within the community of American intellectual property scholars that the CTEA is unconstitutional...moreover, several constitutional questions posed in Eldred, which the court chose not to address, have significance for other constitutional challenges to intellectual property rules."

From "The Myth of Copyright's Fair Use Doctrine as a Protector of Free Speech"
http://www.chtlj.org/sites/default/f....Lockridge.pdf
We are told that these two accommodations are
“generally adequate to address” First Amendment concerns, although
they do not go so far as to make copyright “categorically immune”
from a First Amendment challenge:

“[W]hen, as in this case, Congress has not altered the traditional contours of copyright protection, further First Amendment scrutiny is unnecessary.”4
As Justice Breyer noted in his dissent in Eldred, the Court in that
sentence provides questions, not answers.5
What are the “traditional contours” of copyright, and have they been altered? If the interpretation of the First Amendment matures in some way, should that not rightfully reopen the question of the interaction between copyright and free speech? And to the extent that the “traditional
contours” of copyright have changed, will the Court actually be
willing to scrutinize the relationship of copyright and free speech?"

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

No, what matters is that copyright is bad, and any attempts by anyone to support copyright is also bad.

No, what matters is that you try to make yourself feel smart and self-righteous.