Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
Based on Taylor's profile he's in the US, so what the US courts have said apply to him. I don't know how other parts of the world have ruled on this (or even if they have yet).
|
Well, no ... that's not how it works. You see, copyright laws have as much to do with the jurisdiction in which the work is published as it does with where the author resides or where they actually wrote the work.
That's why it can be a lot more complex than just "well, Taylor is in the US, therefore US copyright laws apply." What if Taylor "publishes" his work on a server in Europe? Then, shouldn't the copyright laws of whatever European country the server is based apply?? Especially if Taylor specifically chose that company to host the work because he preferred the copyright laws of that country??
Even if I am an American author ... if my publishing house of choice is in Britain, British copyright laws apply to that work. It's not all just a matter of nation of birth for authors, although we tend to think of it that way because it is easier ... it's just not quite correct.
In addition, I think that no matter what the US Courts have held, Taylor still has a very valid point that he's trying to make (and taking a lot of flak for it). Some of the people more or less whacking him upside his virtual head are arguing "the law" .... however, "the law" is not always just, moral, or even correct. Whatever the courts have held ... even if it's the US Supreme Court, people make a giant assumption that the justices, or even the attorneys who argued the case, had a great handle on how the internet really works. The politicians in the US certainly don't (it's a truck ... no, it's a series of tubes), so why should the legal establishment??
Next point ... why is it people are willing to assume that, because a court (again, even the Supreme Court of the US) has made a decision ... that it's anything more than just the "law" and we should all just leave it alone?? What if it's the wrong decision?? If you have any thought that the Supreme Court of this country is not capable of some really bone headed decisions, I suggest you read Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), and more recently Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1954). Sure ... it's the "law" .... it's just bad law.
And lower courts?? Don't even get me started. I remember reading one case where the court held .... as a matter of law no less ... that it was impossible for a person to have premeditated a murder because of the brutality of the crime. Seriously?? Just because you stabbed your victim 150 times, by law you can't be guilty of first degree murder?? WTF??? Well, there's a roadmap for a murderer who's literate and has access to some law books.
So, Taylor feels like he is being robbed of his copyright because of caching by search engines such as Google. I can see how he feels that way, despite what the law may or may not be. And ... I am still not convinced that the entire debate (even with regard to Taylor here in the US) rests with the US Courts ... because I would have to look at every one of those cases to see if there was subject matter jurisdiction .... it's a pesky little requirement, but given the state of the internet it's just not all that cut and dried.