Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[...]Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
Tech Dirt ^ | Jun 22 2010 | Mike Masnick

Posted on 06/22/2010 12:14:39 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat

Warning: this one is depressing if you believe in the public domain. You may recall that last year, a district court made a very important ruling on what appeared to be a minor part of copyright law. The "Golan" case asked a simple question: once something is officially in the public domain, can Congress pull it out and put it back under copyright? The situation came about because of (yet another) trade agreement that pulled certain foreign works out of the public domain. A district court had initially said that this move did not violate the law, but the appeals court sent it back, saying that the lower court had not analyzed the First Amendment issue, and whether this was a case where the inherent conflict between the First Amendment and copyright law went too far to the side of copyright by violating the "traditional contours of copyright law." Getting a second crack at this, the district court got it right -- and was the first court to point out that massively expanded copyright law can, in fact, violate the First Amendment.

(Excerpt) Read more at techdirt.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: bigmedia; copyright; copyrightlaw; cultureofcorruption; publicdomain; retroactive
Once it's in the public domain doesn't necessarily mean it stays there. First Congress does as much as it can at the behest of corporations to make sure nothing ever falls into the public domain, and now they want to be able to re-copyright stuff that's already in the public domain, being used by others in the true spirit of constitutional copyright.
1 posted on 06/22/2010 12:14:40 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Copyright was never meant to last forever..............


2 posted on 06/22/2010 12:23:39 PM PDT by Red Badger (No, Obama's not the Antichrist. He's just some guy in the neighborhood.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

When copyright laws make no sense, people (me) will start to ignore them.


3 posted on 06/22/2010 12:27:13 PM PDT by sand lake bar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

It’s already happened before.

It’s A Wonderful Life was public domain and went back under copyright. And not just the “colorized” version.

And yes, copyright was NEVER supposed to be eternal.

Our nation’s 20th century cultural tradition is pwned by Big Media’s monopoly. They stay in business with contemporary box office product targeted to insult this nation and the pre-1968 Establishment. How many antiwar films did they make while Bush was President? How many weren’t box office flops? Hollywood will tank a film in production out of spite. They will write a protected star/director’s losses against a smaller film’s budget expenses.

If they didn’t have 70+ years of product to market and merchandise, they would be more accountable to their box office receipts of today.

They’ve extended the terms of copyright numerous times over those 70 years too. The public never approved of these “renegotiations”.

Hollywood owns the US legislature.


4 posted on 06/22/2010 12:44:29 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Well, there goes my free online bible reading every day.


5 posted on 06/22/2010 1:01:44 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (No Romney,No Mark Kirk (Illinois), not now, not ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

It’s A Wonderful Life is still technically in public domain as its copyright expired. The problem is that to make the movie they had to buy film rights for a story called The Greatest Gift, which is still in copyright. That makes the story of It’s A Wonderful Life in part a derivative work.

Normally the copyright of the source would expire before the derivative work, making this not a problem. But IAWL is only in public domain because the studio forgot to renew copyright on it, but the author of the original story did renew his copyright.

I still wish you had to renew copyrights.


6 posted on 06/22/2010 1:28:06 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

7 posted on 06/22/2010 1:28:16 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

I thought IAWL was a bit of a boxoffice dud and that it was allowed to lapse into public domain, and then it found a “cult” life in perpetual television broadcasts because it was in the public domain (so every channel programmed it in the Christmas season since it was a “freebie”).


8 posted on 06/22/2010 1:37:31 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Apparently the owner of the underlying copyright just didn’t feel like enforcing it for a period. And unlike trademark, you can’t lose copyright due to non-enforcement — it’s yours until you transfer it or until it expires. Of course these days, expiration will be about a microsecond before the heat death of the universe, qualifying for the “limited times” definition the Supreme Court agrees with.


9 posted on 06/22/2010 2:16:42 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

IMO, the interweb thingy is going to moot most copyright as we have traditionally known it. There’s just too many holes to plug up.

They tried and tried with music last decade - Napster, etc. Any sixth grader can today find any song ever recorded and download it within 30 seconds. Movies are almost to that point.


10 posted on 06/22/2010 2:22:12 PM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: abb

Yep, that’s the amazing thing. Everything of any value is available online or will soon be available online to people interested in downloading it.


11 posted on 06/22/2010 3:08:52 PM PDT by BenKenobi (I want to hear more about Sam! Samwise the stouthearted!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

When boiled down, information of any type - news, music, video, print, pictures, whatever - has no value unless you can control when/how it is distributed. That’s how the publishers and networks made money prior to the internet age.

That’s all gone now.


12 posted on 06/22/2010 3:25:39 PM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Copyright law in this country isway beyond insane.

I hearily recommend Project Gutenberg Austrailia for many titles, appropriately enough, George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm among them, that are in the public domain there, but not in this once free land.

13 posted on 06/22/2010 3:50:14 PM PDT by zeugma (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson