Supreme Court Says Congress May Re-Copyright Public Domain Works

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

I'd have all the books for free while it's still legal to do so

But if they then regain copyright protection, they would then become illegal for you to have, would they not, and you'd have to delete them? I'm not sure what you'd have gained? Apologies if I'm wrong about that.

[spindlegirl]

Delete stuff that I obtained legally? Wouldn't that be like obtaining a book that an author puts out for free and then having to retroactively pay him when he puts the price back on again?

You have a lot of PG books, don't you? do you plan to pay for them all if such a bill passes? Will you delete all your copies?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

You have a lot of PG books, don't you? do you plan to pay for them all if such a bill passes? Will you delete all your copies?

Personally, I would try to do so, yes, although it may be difficult to ascertain which books were affected.

[spindlegirl]

Well, I dont plan on deleting any of my PG stuff. I obtained it legally, and I doubt anyone is going to care that the copy of "The Jungle Book" sitting on my hard drive that I downloaded in 2010, legally, is going to suddenly be illegal to own.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Well, I dont plan on deleting any of my PG stuff. I obtained it legally, and I doubt anyone is going to care that the copy of "The Jungle Book" sitting on my hard drive that I downloaded in 2010, legally, is going to suddenly be illegal to own.

That is of course your decision to make. As you say, you are unlikely to face legal action as a consequence.

Why do believe that "The Jungle Book" is likely to be affected, may I ask? Rudyard Kipling died in 1936; his work is in the public domain pretty much everywhere.

[spindlegirl]

I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping something I obtained legally. This is not even a matter of deciding. I obtained it legally, and it is mine for personal use as declared in the front of the license on the copy I obtained.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping something I obtained legally. This is not even a matter of deciding. I obtained it legally, and it is mine for personal use as declared in the front of the license on the copy I obtained.

Provided that you don't make any further copies of it, I entirely agree. The issue would arise if you were to copy the book once it was once again protected by copyright. That would very likely be a copyright violation. If it's just sitting there on your disk, not being copied, there's no problem. Unfortunately, the issue is that there's very little that you can do with a computer file that doesn't involve copying it.

[Hellmark]

If you obtained it legally, then you may keep it. You just are not allowed to further distribute it. Some limited copying is allowed, legally, due to fair use. Copyright infringement happens when you redistribute it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

If you obtained it legally, then you may keep it. You just are not allowed to further distribute it. Some limited copying is allowed, legally, due to fair use. Copyright infringement happens when you redistribute it.

Surely copyright infringement occurs when you copy it - that's the meaning of the word. Do you not think that it would be copyright infringement to, say, copy it from your hard disk onto a reading device? I believe that it probably would be.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

If you obtained it legally, then you may keep it. You just are not allowed to further distribute it. Some limited copying is allowed, legally, due to fair use. Copyright infringement happens when you redistribute it.

I thought so. I already have these files on Calibre and my T1, so I see nothing morally or legally wrong with using them for myself (aka reading them )

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Surely copyright infringement occurs when you copy it - that's the meaning of the word. Do you not think that it would be copyright infringement to, say, copy it from your hard disk onto a reading device? I believe that it probably would be.

I'm not sure how it is in the UK, but in the US, it happens with the redistribution. Fair use allows for personal copying. You just cannot keep a copy if you sell the original, and you cannot give anyone a copy.

And to be totally clear, the people who get in trouble for pirating, they're snagged for the uploading, and not the downloading. Confusion comes in, because most P2P clients start uploading automatically as soon as possible, and with Bit Torrent, you don't even have to have it downloaded completely before it is uploading parts to others.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Surely copyright infringement occurs when you copy it - that's the meaning of the word. Do you not think that it would be copyright infringement to, say, copy it from your hard disk onto a reading device? I believe that it probably would be.

Absurd. Few copyright holders would try to make such an assertion, and none would test it in court for fear of setting precedent. Some, for instance MGM, have stated in court that they do not see such actions as copyright infringement.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

So you've basically decided to start your post with a simple straw man...

I've spent enough time on MR to know that there will be a lot of negative reactions to the ruling, based on personal preferences rather than actual understanding of the law or how the SCOTUS works.

And let's be realistic: Most people who disagree with a legal ruling don't bother to consider the actual laws or rulings in question, they just disagree with the results. For example, the Citizens United ruling is roundly rejected on what may well be an excellent civic good (influence of special interests and big donors is bad for society) but ultimately has an insufficient Constitutional basis to overwhelm the requirement of Congress not to restrict speech.

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

you haven't read the whole thing?

Not yet, I've read about 1/3 of it so far.... and did not choose to hide it. It's long, complicated, and just came out. I'd like to read it more carefully, but have lots more on my plate.

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

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"

I've read Eldred v Ashcroft. And yes, that ruling does review and reject the idea that the "promote arts and sciences" phrase is not binding on the powers of Congress.

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

This isn't just an honest mistake; you are appealing to a false authority....

Any more names of fallacies you'd like to throw out, rather than address the actual content of my post?

Ms Samuelson doesn't seem to say much more than "Feist should have applied, and Lessig's argument was correct." (Eldred did discuss Feist, see p22 of the opinion.) Yes, other issues remain, Eldred did not address everything -- which is why this case was heard, and I'm sure there will be more IP cases in the future.

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

"A substantial consensus exists within the community of American intellectual property scholars that the CTEA is unconstitutional...

Wow, that appeal to the vague authority of a "substantial consensus" of scholars, cited by a scholar with her own agenda, really showed me.

On a side note, while I understand there are some valid concerns (especially over perpetual copyright), IMO ultimately it is better to leave many of these issues up to Congress rather than the SCOTUS. It's a much more flexible option, since it's significantly easier to change a law than to override a Supreme Court ruling.

Of course we could start a wide-ranging discussion on the nature of US Constitutional law, the role of scholarship therein, etc etc but I'd say that's best left for a politics subforum.


[quote=spellbanisher]From "The Myth of Copyright's Fair Use Doctrine as a Protector of Free Speech"
http://www.chtlj.org/sites/default/f....Lockridge.pdf
I'll address this later, if/when I have time or inclination.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I'm not sure how it is in the UK, but in the US, it happens with the redistribution. Fair use allows for personal copying. You just cannot keep a copy if you sell the original, and you cannot give anyone a copy.

I agree entirely that fair use allows for personal copying when you have a legitimate right to the original, but I would suggest that you would no longer have that right if the original were to regain copyright protection.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree entirely that fair use allows for personal copying when you have a legitimate right to the original, but I would suggest that you would no longer have that right if the original were to regain copyright protection.

If I 'buy' a free book from Amazon, and it later becomes a non-free book, I don't lose any rights in relation to it.
The PD copy was obtained legally (and in fact may well have been an Amazon freebie), what is the difference?

UK Copyright law provides: "It is not an infringement of the copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to copy or adapt it provided that the copying or adapting is necessary for his lawful use and (b) is not prohibited under any term or condition of an agreement regulating the circumstances in which his use is lawful".

That would seem to suggest that for a legally acquired file, transferring it to an eReader, which is necessary to be able to read it, would not be an infringement.