Comments on: Copyright question

By: Ray Davis

Ray Davis — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 18:30:39 +0000

Unfortunately, some Democrats have played leading roles in the corporate dismantling of intellectual freedom and the public domain, notably California’s own (and Hollywood’s owned) Dianne Feinstein.

By: Pete

Pete — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:09:52 +0000

Rob: I believe one needs to protect a given copyright to keep in from falling into public domain early. No, that’s trademark. Trademarks in e.g. video game characters last forever – as long as you’re still using them and they’ve not become a generic term like Hoover or aspirin. Copyrights persist even in works that are not being published, in situations where it is no longer clear who owns the rights, and regardless of whether or how selectively they are enforced.

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 22:05:28 +0000

At least in Ireland, yes, works are “reclaimed” from the public domain. That’s what happened to Joyce’s Ulysses in the 1990s (iirc).

By: john b

john b — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:04:34 +0000

Giles: nothing whatsoever. Sonny Bono was, famously, an independent socialist congressman.

By: john b

john b — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:03:55 +0000

Giles. Nothing whatsoever. Sonny Bono was, famously, an independent socialist congressman.

By: Giles

Giles — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:28:52 +0000

whats this got to do with republicans?

By: Joe Liu

Joe Liu — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:14:06 +0000

John, The Bono term extension act extended the term for works that were still protected as of the effective date of the Act, so it did not remove works from the public domain. However, in a separate bit of legislation, Congress did re-instate copyright for certain foreign works that had passed into the public domain because of our old formality requirements. This was extremely controversial, and I believe is being challenged on constitutional grounds. In general, it’s actually a non-trivial task to find out if something is still copyrighted. This is because many older works were governed by prior copyright statutes that calculated the copyright term in different ways. Here’s a useful chart summarizing the different rules: http://www.lib.rochester.edu/copyright/durcopy.htm Joe.

By: ken

ken — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:41:06 +0000

Check out our “Philosophy Talk” episode on “Who owns ideas?” with Larry Lessig. He is really good on what’s wrong with current copyright law. You can hear the episode at the following url:

http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/WhoOwnsIdeas.htm

By: Swisslawyer

Swisslawyer — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:36:31 +0000

I do not know about the legal situation in the US, but the Swiss Supreme Court had to decide the exact same issue when Switzerland extended the term of protection retroactively from 50 years post mortem auctoris to 70 years p.m.a. in 1993. The Supreme Court held that the extension was not applicable to works already in the public domain at the time the new law came into force. The decision (in German) can be found here http://clir.bger.ch/cgi-bin//MapProcessorCGI?mapfile=navigate/ConvertDocFrameCGI.map&ds=navigate&doctype=doc&lang=de&pa=1&d=doc_de_1998_BGE_124_III_266 .

By: SomeCallMeTim

SomeCallMeTim — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:10:50 +0000

My recollection is that there are other enabling acts that extend the term of the copyrights that attach to some of the works that would otherwise fall into the public domain. That is, work X would go public domain in 1996, but in 1995 (after being lobbied by Disney, et. al.), Congress extends the copyright term for a certain date-class of works for, say, 10 years. Then, when Bono passes, all of those works remain protected by copyright. This is all pretty vaguely recalled.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:55:55 +0000

I believe one needs to protect a given copyright to keep in from falling into public domain early. Its the reason why video game publishers fight to stop emulators. No one is going to make money selling video games from the late 1980s, but if the copyright isn’t protected, poublishers may lose their claims on characters contained in those games.

By: jholbo

jholbo — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:53:56 +0000

Well, it wouldn’t necessarily have to be ex post facto criminalization. (That would be the most dramatic option and you are right to question its constitutionality.) You could just forbid future sales. But it would put a crimp of uncertainty in plans to market public domain works if there were significant fear that they might cease to be. But such it seems is not the case, as per my update.

By: David

David — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:45:33 +0000

I suspect this has to do with the US Constitution’s prohibition on ex post facto laws. It isn’t constitutional in the US to criminalize behavior retroactively.