Slashdot Mirror
Internet Archive Loses Copyright Fight
tiltowait writes "As reported on LISNews.com, the Internet Archive has lost a copyright lawsuit which challenged the Congressional lengthening of copyright terms and conditions. The ruling has implications for abandonware and other copyright-eligible materials that have no active owner. Brewster Kahle plans to appeal the decision." The decision is available. As we noted in an earlier story, the Eldred case challenged the length of copyright expansion, this one challenged the breadth, and so far, this one is going about as well as the Eldred case did. Stanford has an overview of the case.
For an article on how to join a PAC that is concerned with fighting this sort of thing. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65651,00 .html?tw=wn_tophead_1
Software is subject to copyright law.
The law states that copying, distributing, etc. that material, even if it is abandoned and unsupported, is illegal. But there are many individuals who want to use, modify, develop, etc. those materials who are presently prevented from doing so by the law.
If abandoned material was no longer encumbered by copyright, people with an interest could do new and creative things with those materials. Instead, though, the law acts to stifle and constrain new advances and developments, rather than to encourage them.
It preserves the rights of ignorance and suppression, rather than allowing and encouraging creativity, invention, and development.
What's that got to do with copyright?
The argument goes something like this:
Consumer: "I'd like ProgramX, please."
Producer: "I'm sorry, we stopped making ProgramX a few years ago."
Consumer: "Oh, well where can I purchase a copy then?"
Producer: "I'm sorry, you cannot purchase a copy of ProgramX."
Consumer: "What if I copy ProgramX from a friend who has it then?"
Producer: "Copying ProgramX is illegal, because it denies us a sale."
Consumer: "But where can I buy ProgramX?"
Producer: "I'm sorry, you cannot purchase a copy of ProgramX."
Or something like that.
Or even worse, the company has gone out of business but the copyrights have passed on to stockholders or other creditors in a chain with more begats than the Bible, and who knows where the rights are now. It's probably safe to do things with it, but there'll always be an IP submarine waiting out there for the right moment to strike. (Just look at how junk patents are acquired from mostly-dead companies by litigious b-tards.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Bambi was released in 1942. The Bambi copyright was not secured until 1926. Disney fought and won on the issue of a "timely renewal" of the coyright in 1954. Amelia Translation Project
I guess that you're not in the US. (or in fact, in just about any country I can think of)
Here, companies are perfectly able to own copyrights, both as authors under the work for hire doctrine currently codified in 17 USC 201 and 101, and through assignments from other authors as provided for in 17 USC 204.
In fact, I don't recall that it's ever been impossible for companies to own copyrights. The work for hire doctrine dates back over a century, and assignments to another who would then become the copyright proprietor were possible.
Licensure is also an option, as you note. But it's hardly the only one!
And of course, corporate ownership of copyrights is a totally pedestrian idea throughout the world. I can't think of any place that doesn't allow it altogether. Perhaps you know of one?
It would probably be a good idea for you to do some learnin' on this subject before you post about it again.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
From FindLaw.com...
The CTEA extended the term of protection by 20 years for works copyrighted after January 1, 1923. Works copyrighted by individuals since 1978 got "life plus 70" rather than the existing "life plus 50". Works made by or for corporations (referred to as "works made for hire") got 95 years. Works copyrighted before 1978 were shielded for 95 years, regardless of how they were produced.
Any other thought that need to be straightened out?