If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired) Asinine SCOTUS: hopefully nobody will notice when we take these works already in the public domain and reapply copyright status onto them   (wired.com) divider line 211
More: Asinine, supreme courts, congresses, Breyers, public domain, Fritz Lang, supreme court ruling, H.G. Wells, Legal status  
•       •       •

14681 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jan 2012 at 3:32 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



211 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
FirstNationalBastard [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 03:29:55 PM
Re-Copyrighting: Because nearly 100 years just isn't enough!
 
A Fark Handle
2012-01-18 03:32:43 PM
good. we need more things for sopa to protect.
 
elffster [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 03:32:48 PM
When will the stupid end?
 
Captain_Ballbeard
2012-01-18 03:33:28 PM
Weclome to the New World Order, the Third Way, etc
 
apoptotic
2012-01-18 03:33:28 PM
Holy fark, that's ridiculous.
 
Walker [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 03:34:55 PM
THE HELL YOU SAY????

It's bad enough they keep extending the years copyrights are good for to save Disney's ass and prevent Mickey Mouse from going into public domain.
 
KatjaMouse
2012-01-18 03:34:56 PM
Urge to kill... rising!
 
LarryDan43
2012-01-18 03:35:02 PM
FirstNationalBastard: Re-Copyrighting: Because nearly 100 years just isn't enough!

Em eye see... see you soon.
 
Frank and Beans
2012-01-18 03:35:07 PM
I have a SCROTUS under my POTUS.
 
Splinshints
2012-01-18 03:35:41 PM
Everybody take a look around. Get a good look at the architecture, engineering, and media around you. Look at all the good, the bad, just look at everything we've created in Western society since the Renaissance.

Now look at the majority of the middle east.

That's what we're going to look like in a hundred years because of shiat like this.
 
Jensaarai
2012-01-18 03:37:00 PM
We need to be fighting to cut back copyright to its original intent, otherwise SOPA and PIPA will keep coming back.
 
A Dark Evil Omen
2012-01-18 03:37:01 PM
Capitalism at work. As long as nothing is valuable except for what it can be sold for, this will only get worse.
 
GreenSun
2012-01-18 03:38:59 PM
SCROTUM!

Holy crap, this is like Return of the Living Dead Copyright Holders! Beware, these restless undead will come Bach from their grave, try to Handel you before Chopin your fingers that you'll be so scared you'll Beethoven that you're already dead!
 
lennavan
2012-01-18 03:39:45 PM
Allowing copyright status to be extended ad nauseum is one thing. But to release it into the public domain only to revoke it later?

You have to know, somewhere there is lulz being had.
 
downstairs [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 03:39:49 PM
Walker: THE HELL YOU SAY????

It's bad enough they keep extending the years copyrights are good for to save Disney's ass and prevent Mickey Mouse from going into public domain.

Serious question. I believe the law says X years from the copyright holder's death, right?

If Disney, Inc. is still "alive"... how can it ever expire?

I assume the corporation, not Walt himself, owns the copyright?
 
funk_soul_bubby
2012-01-18 03:39:54 PM
More importantly...

FREE WHITNEY HARPER

i292.photobucket.com
 
Impasse
2012-01-18 03:40:09 PM
9/11 happened because the hijackers had unrestricted access to Shostakovich's works.
 
downstairs [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 03:40:59 PM
Who the hell would they give the copyright to for Igor Stravinsky's works?
 
enry
2012-01-18 03:41:36 PM
Walker: THE HELL YOU SAY????

It's bad enough they keep extending the years copyrights are good for to save Disney's ass and prevent Mickey Mouse from going into public domain.

Mickey is trademarked and so won't go public domain. The shorts though would go PD.
 
Marcus Aurelius [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 03:41:41 PM
Maybe I'll write my novel after all now that I know it can be copyrighted in perpetuity. Otherwise who would bother?
 
quizzical
2012-01-18 03:42:27 PM
I think I see where this is going. The rule Congress made applies to works from foreign countries with copyright that has expired here in the US, but not in the country of origin. My guess is that what Congress is encouraging reciprocity from other countries, so our ridiculous 75 year copyright can be applied around the world.
 
Hypothetical Imperative
2012-01-18 03:42:31 PM
But this is just so the US can comply with stipulations of an international treaty! We can't run the risk of appearing to be a country that doesn't take treaties and the laws of other nations seriously, now can we?

Would you kindly pick up that can?
 
BurnShrike
2012-01-18 03:42:44 PM
1. Create work
2. Profit
3. Allow copyright to expire
4. Wait for people to start using your work
5. Re-copyright it
6. Profit again
 
imontheinternet
2012-01-18 03:43:14 PM
Excellent. I'll copyright The Canterbury Tales, Beowulf, and Shakespeare and sue all of western civilization for infringement.
 
Vlad_the_Inaner
2012-01-18 03:43:17 PM
And this is different from Mickey Mouse cartoons falling out of, then back into copyright (via Congress) how?
 
quizzical
2012-01-18 03:44:14 PM
quizzical: I think I see where this is going. The rule Congress made applies to works from foreign countries with copyright that has expired here in the US, but not in the country of origin. My guess is that what Congress is encouraging reciprocity from other countries, so our ridiculous 75 70 years after death copyright can be applied around the world.

Fixed it myself.
 
mcreadyblue
2012-01-18 03:44:32 PM
If this means no more showings of "it's a wonderful life" at Christmas time, I am all for it.
 
Gosling
2012-01-18 03:44:33 PM
So when do we copyright the Bible?
 
The_Six_Fingered_Man
2012-01-18 03:44:33 PM
BurnShrike: 1. Create work
2. Profit
3. Allow copyright to expire
4. Wait for people to start using your work
5. Re-copyright it
6. Profit again

You forgot a pretty important step there. Between #2 and #3, there is the whole "die, then wait 75 years" thing.
 
DSF6969
2012-01-18 03:44:34 PM
downstairs: Who the hell would they give the copyright to for Igor Stravinsky's works?

The highest bidder
 
heavymetal [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 03:45:59 PM
If it helps the 1% fleece the American working class of what few dollars are left in the bottom 80%, you know our congress and SCOTUS will support it. They are bought and paid for.
 
Vlad_the_Inaner
2012-01-18 03:46:03 PM
enry: Mickey is trademarked and so won't go public domain. The shorts though would go PD.

image.spreadshirt.com
 
mcreadyblue
2012-01-18 03:47:09 PM
downstairs: Who the hell would they give the copyright to for Igor Stravinsky's works?

The thing is it doesn't really matter.

iPads, iPhones, iXxxxx, etc. mean they can retroactively remove the copyrighted works from your devices and make you pay for them.
 
Lost Thought 00
2012-01-18 03:47:56 PM
This is a joke, right? I mean, no one could be quite that evil. And certainly they wouldn't be so completely out of touch as to hand down a ruling like that in this political climate.
 
bigbadideasinaction
2012-01-18 03:48:16 PM
Vlad_the_Inaner: And this is different from Mickey Mouse cartoons falling out of, then back into copyright (via Congress) how?

Because, IIRC, they never fell out - the copyright extension was passed into law before their works fell into public domain.

Both that decision and the SCOTUS one, however, are bad decisions.
 
Karac
2012-01-18 03:49:08 PM
So something has entered the public domain, where it is owned collectively by the entire public.
And congress now has the right to remove these things from the public domain and give them to a private entity, presumably for financial profit.

How many of these people were against Kelo v. New London? Also, I know congress can't pass bills of attainder, which impose a fine or penalty on an individual - they have to make general laws which apply to everyone. How is making a law that gives an individual something of monetary value legal?
 
TofuTheAlmighty
2012-01-18 03:49:17 PM
The Court found that it was not unconstitutional for Congress "re-copyright" works. I'm inclined to say this decision is correct.

Acts of Congress which re-copyright public domain works, however, are onerous, ridiculous, anti-innovation, and serve only money-grubbing rent-seekers.
 
PanicMan
2012-01-18 03:50:23 PM
downstairs: Who the hell would they give the copyright to for Igor Stravinsky's works?

The hunchback community?
 
turbidum
2012-01-18 03:50:43 PM
It's not quite as bad as everyone in this thread is making it out to be. They're talking about getting in line with the way copyright works internationally.

The bigger problem is that Congress might put us in line with the Berne Convention while also keeping U.S. copyright laws enforced; they want to have their cake and eat it, too (what else is new?).
 
Dwight_Yeast
2012-01-18 03:51:10 PM
downstairs: Walker: THE HELL YOU SAY????

It's bad enough they keep extending the years copyrights are good for to save Disney's ass and prevent Mickey Mouse from going into public domain.

Serious question. I believe the law says X years from the copyright holder's death, right?

If Disney, Inc. is still "alive"... how can it ever expire?

I assume the corporation, not Walt himself, owns the copyright?

The law is based on the creator's death, not the copyright holder's.
 
Mikey1969 [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 03:51:11 PM
WOw, what would the implications of this clusterfark be, anyway?

What would happen to people who have legally and fairly used this for years? Would any works they produced that are based on these thing suddenly be subject to legal ramifications? Would they get sued and fined? Would the copyrights for their new works be yanked and transferred the estate of the previous copyright holder? Sure, you THINK it wouldn't happen, but there have been some pretty B$ claims made over the years, and the copyright holder usually wins.

I also don't think I saw in the article where it stated how long these would be copyrighted under the new regs...

The courts and the film and recording industry already don't respect 'fair use' as it is, who knows what the outcome of this will be?
 
Emposter
2012-01-18 03:51:29 PM
downstairs: Walker: THE HELL YOU SAY????

It's bad enough they keep extending the years copyrights are good for to save Disney's ass and prevent Mickey Mouse from going into public domain.

Serious question. I believe the law says X years from the copyright holder's death, right?

If Disney, Inc. is still "alive"... how can it ever expire?

I assume the corporation, not Walt himself, owns the copyright?

Death of the author, not death of the copyright holder.

In other news, intellectual property rights are not like most other rights created or recognized by the Constitution. Unlike other rights, IP rights are not actually granted by the Constitution. Instead, the Constitution grants to Congress IP right creation powers, with no guidelines at all except that the result be limited in duration and promote the progress of the arts and sciences.

SCOTUS has already said that Congress' power in this realm is limited only by the requirement that laws pass a rational basis test, so much power that SCOTUS' dissent described the decision as resulting in "essentially no limit on congressional action under the [intellectual property] Clause."
 
hurdboy [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 03:51:30 PM
Breyer and Alito on the dissent, Ginsburg writing for the majority, law students' heads asploding nationwide.
 
fawlty
2012-01-18 03:51:44 PM
Did anyone even read TFA? The ruling brings the laws of the US into line with the Berne Treaty, of which the US is a signatory, and in line with most of the world's copyright laws. Plus, it seems to me that copyright is a creature of statute, not a natural right. What congress giveth, congress can taketh away and giveth again.
 
Harry Freakstorm [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 03:52:52 PM
Marcus Aurelius
Maybe I'll write my novel after all now that I know it can be copyrighted in perpetuity. Otherwise who would bother?

Me too. My book is about a dog living in Alaska during the gold rush. Yeah. It sounds a lot like "White Fang" and it is pretty much word for word London's work. But it isn't plagiarism. It's re-imagining. You see, the dog has a dream that he's a steamboat captain sent up an African River. Then, I'll splice in some Aesop fables and copyright the whole thing. In fact, my novel will include the all the written works currently in the PD. I shall call it "Gutenberg's Demise." The Kindle version will weigh 20 pounds. All copyrighted by me.
 
Dr Dreidel
2012-01-18 03:52:58 PM
Gosling: So when do we copyright the Bible?

Translations of the Bible get copyrighted all the time, n'est-ce pas?

I imagine the "original" Hebrew and the "official" KJV and the like can't be copyrighted (over 75 years after the initial publication), but translations that represent "new work" - wouldn't they be copyrightable?

Also, if this is to fall in line with international law, copyrights wouldn't be flying in and out of the public domain every week. There's probably a class of IP that this applies to, and they will exit PD effective next week or whatever, and this should (ideally) be the last we hear of it.

// until Disney's lawyers get copyright to extend to 1000 years after the last of your male-line descended progeny have been killed by rabid war-spiders
 
Delawheredad
2012-01-18 03:53:42 PM
Breyer and Alito in dissent. Alito is shaping up to be an unpredictable justice which may be a good thing. He clearly is not a Scalia clone.
 
MaudlinMutantMollusk [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 03:53:43 PM
I'm beginning to think we need to rethink that whole appointment for life thing for SCOTUS justices

/this SCOTUS deplores individual rights
//unless the individual is a corporation
 
BizarreMan
2012-01-18 03:56:09 PM
Gosling: So when do we copyright the Bible?

We're still waiting for 70 years after the death of the author.
 
whither_apophis
2012-01-18 03:56:12 PM
FTA ""Congress can hardly be charged with a design to move stealthily toward a regime of perpetual copyrights," Ginsburg wrote.

It's not the first time the Supreme Court has approved the extension of copyrights. The last time was in 2002, when it upheld Congress' move to extend copyright from the life of an author plus 50 years after death to 70 years after death."

You're right Ginsburg, there's nothing stealthy about it.

/This post is copywrited W_A Enterprises and all of you reading it now owe me 3 months of TF
 
Displayed 50 of 211 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
From the Fark Shop:
More from the Fark Shop »