Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Wow. The late Scalia your hero. The fallacy you are trying to use against us is trying to make us think that Scalia's opinion on how the Constitution should be interpreted ias how it is done "in real life."

But then, of course, you should know that he didn't follow what he preaches. He did whatever was necessary to push his own agenda - whether that be in the best interest of the people or not.

Not really true, Thomas is a bit closer to my beliefs than Scalia was, but I do think that Judge Scalia was in a better position to know how the legal system in the US works than most here.

Scalia was a textualist, which meant that he tried to apply the law as written. On the flip side, he was a bit more of a follower of stare decisis (let the decision stand, the legal doctrine that one should refrain from disturbing a settled point of law, even if the decision was wrong) than I like.

One should not simply conclude that if one disagrees with you that they have bad intentions. Most of Scalia's decisions were based on one of those two principles.

Most people point to the 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith where Scala wrote the majority decision as the decision where Scalia did not "practice what he preaches". That case has been analyzed many times. I'm not a big fan of the result of the decision, I'm a bit more of a libertarian than that, but as Scalia said, just because something is bad policy doesn't make it unconstitutional. The idea that one can restrict certain activities that are associated with a given religion is commonly accepted. None of the Constitutional freedoms are absolute. The question is where do you draw the line.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Not really true, Thomas is a bit closer to my beliefs than Scalia was, but I do think that Judge Scalia was in a better position to know how the legal system in the US works than most here.

Scalia was a textualist, which meant that he tried to apply the law as written. On the flip side, he was a bit more of a follower of stare decisis (let the decision stand, the legal doctrine that one should refrain from disturbing a settled point of law, even if the decision was wrong) than I like.

One should not simply conclude that if one disagrees with you that they have bad intentions. Most of Scalia's decisions were based on one of those two principles.

Most people point to the 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith where Scala wrote the majority decision as the decision where Scalia did not "practice what he preaches". That case has been analyzed many times. I'm not a big fan of the result of the decision, I'm a bit more of a libertarian than that, but as Scalia said, just because something is bad policy doesn't make it unconstitutional. The idea that one can restrict certain activities that are associated with a given religion is commonly accepted. None of the Constitutional freedoms are absolute. The question is where do you draw the line.

It is interesting that there is one specific big case that people refer to (1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith). I did not dig into Scalia that deeply yet, but I am unconvinced that it only happened once. A review of a book you recommended made me come to the conclusion that it [his book] is propaganda.

For me, being German and having grown up in the eastern part until it got swallowed up by the western part, any kind of propaganda is evil. Both the one with good and bad intentions. Let me tell you that the reunification of Germany was not a two sided deal, it very much was one sided. Don't let history books fool you.

[pdurrant]

Moderator Notice

General discussion of approaches to interpreting laws is probably more appropriate for the Religion and Politics forum.

Thank you.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

It is interesting that there is one specific big case that people refer to (1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith). I did not dig into Scalia that deeply yet, but I am unconvinced that it only happened once. A review of a book you recommended made me come to the conclusion that it [his book] is propaganda.

For me, being German and having grown up in the eastern part until it got swallowed up by the western part, any kind of propaganda is evil. Both the one with good and bad intentions. Let me tell you that the reunification of Germany was not a two sided deal, it very much was one sided. Don't let history books fool you.

Read the book, it's fairly inexpensive and is actually a fairly good presentation of both sides of the question. As I mentioned, the book has essays from four widely divergent views on how to interpret law. Scalia and Tribe were two of the best know legal theorists in the US at the time. Sometimes reviewers allow their personal views get in the way.

[Erickem]

Since copyright is entirely a legal construct of rights, is hard to see what else might be transferred. The copyright is the rights.

___________

My website: mày ngang thái

[Richwood]

I think that our current copyright law is ridiculous. To me, if a book is out of print or ebook commercial availability for 25 years then it should lose copyright, even if the author is still alive. If out of new commercial availability for that long then what is the chance of a publisher spending the time and effort to reissue it? Probably 99% of copyrighted material falls into that category I suspect. Also copyright should only be issued to the author rather than allowing publishers to hold ownership.

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by Richwood

I think that our current copyright law is ridiculous. To me, if a book is out of print or ebook commercial availability for 25 years then it should lose copyright, even if the author is still alive. If out of new commercial availability for that long then what is the chance of a publisher spending the time and effort to reissue it? Probably 99% of copyrighted material falls into that category I suspect. Also copyright should only be issued to the author rather than allowing publishers to hold ownership.

The devil is in the details, though. Suppose I published an extremely racist book or a book that had shared embarrassing details about somebody, so I stop distributing it. After 25 years, a random person can take my book and start publishing it again? Copyright is also my right not to publish.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

The devil is in the details, though. Suppose I published an extremely racist book or a book that had shared embarrassing details about somebody, so I stop distributing it. After 25 years, a random person can take my book and start publishing it again? Copyright is also my right not to publish.

I hear that argument a lot in these debates about copyright and it does seem valid. but in the end, the amount of books that have been purposely held back by their author is vanishingly small compared to the amount of orphan works that would be rescued if Richwood's pie in the sky copyright fantasy were ever to come true.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

The devil is in the details, though. Suppose I published an extremely racist book or a book that had shared embarrassing details about somebody, so I stop distributing it. After 25 years, a random person can take my book and start publishing it again? Copyright is also my right not to publish.

Copyright is a privilege/right granted to authors to promote culture and the writing of books. It gives the author an incentive to write knowing that he can probably make some money during the copyright period. It is understood that at the end of the copyright period the book goes into the public domain, thus giving something to the public in whose name the privilege/right is given.

If you take advantage of copyright you cannot turn round and say I do not want the book to enter the public domain because you do not want it distributing any more. If you do not wish a book to be distributed do not publish it. If you do publish it and change your mind later, then tough. You have taken advantage of copyright and should pay your dues.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

Copyright is a privilege/right granted to authors to promote culture and the writing of books. It gives the author an incentive to write knowing that he can probably make some money during the copyright period. It is understood that at the end of the copyright period the book goes into the public domain, thus giving something to the public in whose name the privilege/right is given.

If you take advantage of copyright you cannot turn round and say I do not want the book to enter the public domain because you do not want it distributing any more. If you do not wish a book to be distributed do not publish it. If you do publish it and change your mind later, then tough. You have taken advantage of copyright and should pay your dues.

I still prefer the old method of copyright, where the author had the choice to renew it every so often. If there's a book they really don't want put in the public domain in their own lifetime, they could then keep it under copyright protection.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

I still prefer the old method of copyright, where the author had the choice to renew it every so often. If there's a book they really don't want put in the public domain in their own lifetime, they could then keep it under copyright protection.

Thesaidon is making a moral/ethical point, not a legal one. Just about everywhere an author holds the copyright during their life plus at least an additional 50 years, without the need for renewal. Of course, many such authors have no right to make their books unavailable, because they have given up this right to a publisher in their traditional publishing contracts. The conventional wisdom is that those who have not can of course choose not to publish further copies. However, once published, the book will end up in the public domain eventually. I would actually like to see a US court determine the question as to whether an author can in fact withdraw a book from publication considering such a withdrawal reduces the books available, directly the opposite to what the US constitution seeks to achieve. Copyright law exists to make more books available. In any event, is it an ethical act to withdraw a book from publication having once taken advantage of the copyright system?

Too many people seem to view the primary overriding purpose of copyright as being to make copyrights property and confer rights on authors accordingly. This is not the case, particularly not in the US.

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

If you take advantage of copyright you cannot turn round and say I do not want the book to enter the public domain because you do not want it distributing any more. If you do not wish a book to be distributed do not publish it. If you do publish it and change your mind later, then tough. You have taken advantage of copyright and should pay your dues.

Except when I wrote the book, copyright said that I had control over its distribution until after I was dead. You want to change the rules on me, and increase my "dues".

Copyright also protects unpublished works. Should someone be able to publish the journals I kept once they become 25 years old?

And how do you deal with me re-publishing the book after 24 years and charging $5,000 a copy? Are you going to also put maximum prices on what people can charge for books?

[SleepyBob]

Note that I am not against saving orphan works, or shortening copyrights, just that you have to be aware of unintended consequences.

It's a real shame that some of the software written in the 70's and 80's is basically destined for oblivion.

[arjaybe]

Would the copyright holder's moral rights allow them to prevent the publication of something they created?

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

Except when I wrote the book, copyright said that I had control over its distribution until after I was dead. You want to change the rules on me, and increase my "dues".

Copyright also protects unpublished works. Should someone be able to publish the journals I kept once they become 25 years old?

And how do you deal with me re-publishing the book after 24 years and charging $5,000 a copy? Are you going to also put maximum prices on what people can charge for books?

You misunderstand me. I never said or meant that the copyright holder could not use copyright to prevent a book being produced and distributed during the period of copyright, whatever the period. If they are later embarrassed by what they wrote and published (currently life of author plus 50 or 70 years).

But once published, after the copyright period has expired the publication should automatically enter the public domain regardless of whether the author wishes it to not.

The dues are - you use copyright - the publication goes into the public domain when copyright expires.

Regarding unpublished journals, if someone found them and published them after copyright had expired, then they are currently legally entitled to do so. If copyright has s not expired then the copyright holder could prevent publication or take legal action to suppress the publication.