Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
h'm... It seems I stand corrected on US public domain.
No, that's still not my argument.
I'm pointing out that the expiration of copyright is not the transfer of ownership. When copyright expires, all protection is terminated. The works whose copyrights have terminated are referred to collectively as "public domain."
It's not that the content is "unclaimed." It's that it is unclaimABLE by anyone.
There is no longer any ownership of Shakespeare's plays. You, as a member of the public -- of a totally different country than the original author -- did not receive a certificate of ownership of his works upon birth.
Nowhere in the US copyright laws does it say that when copyright expires on a work, ownership of 1/6,000,000,000 of the work is transferred to every man, woman and child currently in existence.
If the human population expands to 8 billion people, your share and access of PD works does not shrink from 1/6,000,000,000 to 1/8,000,000,000.
Public domain is the exact opposite of holding intellectual property rights over a work. And the reason why PD works is BECAUSE the rights expired, and are no longer applicable.
The public cannot decide what PD works can or cannot be published; the public does not receive royalties for PD works; the public cannot deny anyone the right to use a PD work for derivative purposes. You cannot sell or trade away your particular share of works in PD.
Again, in the words of the ruling:
Once the term of protection ends, the works do not revest in any rightholder. Instead, the works simply lapse into the public domain. Anyone has free access to the public domain, but no one, after the copyright term has expired, acquires ownership rights in the once-protected works.
Nope.
Again, in this very ruling the SCOTUS said "no." That was the whole point behind the "vested rights" argument, which was specifically addressed and rejected in III B of the ruling.
Yes, I read both of those sections. The first was a description of part of the URAA, the second was a footnote in the section that basically rejected the idea that any member of the public has a "vested right" to public domain.
The Takings Clause does not establish ownership or criteria of ownership. Further, no one brought a case saying they deserve compensation greater than what was outlined in §514. Nothing in the opinion criticized the way reliance parties or derivative works were handled, or suggested that it was insufficient compensation.
Seriously, just read the ruling. Copying and pasting paragraphs taken out of context is not helping your argument. |
In order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
The public cannot decide what PD works can or cannot be published; the public does not receive royalties for PD works; the public cannot deny anyone the right to use a PD work for derivative purposes. You cannot sell or trade away your particular share of works in PD.
|
However, I have the
de facto right to make a copy, vend copies of it, make derivative works from it, perform it, among other possibilities, all for free. I lose those rights when it item is restored to Public Domain. Are those not real economic losses? Think of unclaimed land in the Western US in the past, or the "Commons" of New England. Those were cases of access without ownership. Same for Hiking trails in Hawaii.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
It's not that the content is "unclaimed." It's that it is unclaimABLE by anyone.
|
Not true! Congress has claimed it for the original holders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
The only clearer formulation I can come up with is:
No protection = no ownership = no control = no "seizure."
|
Before - No protection = no ownership = no control = no "seizure."
After - Yes protection = yes ownership = yes control = ??yes?? "seizure."
If you check out the jusiprudence in the Western US, you will find that access
is an actionable item. While that has nothing to do with copyright
per se, it is in the juriprudence of "property" in a broad sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
The Takings Clause does not establish ownership or criteria of ownership. Further, no one brought a case saying they deserve compensation greater than what was outlined in §514. Nothing in the opinion criticized the way reliance parties or derivative works were handled, or suggested that it was insufficient compensation.
|
This ruling is only a few days old. No claim for taking could be made before a year, as had the case been decided the other way there would have been no ground for further ligitation, and as the expiration of one year hold harmless period does not start until then.
Whether or not this will be litigated, I don't know. I personally lack the means. Don't be suprised if it does, though, you opinions to the contrary. And don't be suprised if it ends up winning.