It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court weighs legality of putting public domain works back under copyright

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Supreme Court weighs legality of putting public domain works back under copyright


arstechnica .com

The Supreme Court on Wednesday considered whether Congress violated the Constitution when it took thousands of works by foreign authors out of the public domain. As Chief Justice Roberts described it: "One day I can perform Shostakovich; Congress does something, the next day I can't. Doesn't that present a serious First Amendment problem?"

In the 2003 case of Eldred v. Ashcroft, the high court ruled that the Constitution allowed Congress to retroactively extend the terms of in-copyright works.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
en.wikipedia.org




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Normally, I would have a rant about this, which I would subject you to, unmercifully.

But I know that many copyright holders believe you can never have too much protection; and I would rather not get into the tiresome debate of the exceptions to the rules.

In this case a retroactive restoration of copyright clearly indicates that more than justice was in the mix. The same as when the big telecommunications companies broke existing laws to spy on us, and were 'retroactively' given immunity by Congress.

In this case the pressure to accommodate the retroactive change was diplomatic. No concessions about the protection of intellectual property would have been accepted by other countries, such as Zimbabwe, unless their current public domain works were retroactively reinstated as copy-written (and thus compensation was immediately 'due.')

Once again, as i s becoming more and more common, international treaties are setting US law.


But Justice Antonin Scalia was skeptical. "it seems to me Congress either had the power to do this under the Copyright Clause or it didn't," he said. "I don't think that powers that Congress does not have under the Constitution can be acquired by simply obtaining the agreement of the Senate, the President, and Zimbabwe."


With this I agree... but he was not in the majority. Apparently neither am I.

In the final analysis - this is about revenue to third-party holders of the works of others.... and that is where my rant would have been.

I should expect that soon, their will be no 'public' domain. Only presumed property.



arstechnica .com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 6-10-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
law - 'do whatever you want with that artistic crap, but dont dare touch big pharma patents'



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 

I think you're right about the problems this raises. This is a specific case and I wonder, more and more, if the increasing practice of amending the Constitution by treaty will cause fatal problems.

Can "hate speech" treaties be far behind? What about labor laws, gun control, states' rights? They all could be drastically changed by adopting treaties now existing.

Thanks for bringing it up, but no thanks for worrying me even more.

Oh, UniverSoul? I have no idea what you're talking about. What pharmaceutical case has been affected this way? Do you think this case gives more or less protection to musicians (or keeps it the same)? Does that matter to you? Please try to explain yourself if you want your thought to be discussed.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
The anti-copyrite movement is about to get a severe reality check and the UnReguLated ("URL") Internet will no longer exist.

Wasn't it neat to download new songs or movies instead of buying them? The entire "Internet" nickname for "URL" wire communications was a creation of elderly judges christening computer wire communications a "new and wholly new medium" in an obvious error made by a Supreme Court Justice who was twenty-five when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan.

Wikileaks proved criminals have made wire communications no longer anything but an easily abused medium. It is time to REGULATE the content communicated by wires called the Internet as was mandated since 1934 or fifty years before "the Internet" nickname for wire communications existed.

USC 47 ยง232 ends the very existence of Wikileaks and pornography communications to the anonymous. It is too late to save Playboy magazine but free pornography will soon be gone.

Adult filtration was never anything but a hoax. Free Speech online was never anything but free pornography and is why "the Internet" became the slang for wire communications where computers were the apparatus on either end of the wires.

I have standing to sue the FCC and have already asked the Eighth Circuit to order regulation of wire communications disguised as "the Internet". This regulation will either occur or result in an appeal to the Supreme Court or ANOTHER lawsuit.

Copyrite is a natural right and should not last longer than the life of the original artist. I have called the entire Copyrite Act unconstitutional for trespassing on inalienable human rights since first created by a book publisher and a professional lawyer who opted out of the revolutionary war in order to pursue law.

The Ninth Amendment secures the right to be secure in original art when combined with the Fifth amendment.
www.curtisneeley.com...



new topics

top topics
 
7

log in

join