Thread: Supreme Court Says Congress May Re-Copyright Public Domain Works
View Single Post
Old 01-22-2012, 06:31 AM   #75
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward View Post
My point is not whether Congress has that right.
And yet you continue because...


Quote:
Originally Posted by RSE
Your arguments seems to be that the public domain has no value, therefore seizing any part of it requires no compensation. However, it clearly has value to the parties being given it, which undercuts the position that there is no value to certain public domain items.
That is not in any way, shape or form my argument. I never said anything remotely along those lines. Nor did the SCOTUS.

What they said was that §514 or URAA did in fact properly handle any possible concerns based on the Takings Clause.

It's not that PD has no value. It's that PD is not a transfer of ownership, and further that there are no Constitutionally required protections on PD.

The petitioners did NOT make the argument that you're making. Their claim was that they had a "vested right," and that by reinstating copyright their First Amendment rights were harmed. If an objection based on the Takings Clause was a legitimate concern, there's no reason why the petitioners would not have included it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RSE
2. Barring that, nobody has any claim to it, therefore, there is nobody with standing to claim a loss. This is not true.
No, it's pretty much true.

The point of Section III B is that the "vested rights" claimed by the petitioners don't exist. Using public domain materials did not grant them any rights or protections at all.

If you actually read how §514 is set up, it doesn't indicate that the public at large ought to be or will be compensated. All it addresses are reliance parties and derivative works. They do not receive compensation; rather, reliance parties are given time to sell off their existing stock, and derivative works are required to pay a royalty to the original copyright holder.

If "public domain" meant "literal ownership by the public," then the government ought to levy a special tax on sales of public domain works, and redistribute those proceeds to the "public owners" of the works. That doesn't happen, precisely because public domain is not a transfer of ownership or rights. Public domain is the expiration of copyright protections, which results in a de facto eradication of any possible ownership.

As best I can tell, your argument has no legal basis, at least not in the US.
Kali Yuga is offline   Reply With Quote