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.

Comments

Abandonware, ahh..

[Staplerh]

As a long-time consumer of abandonware, this is horrible news. If the product is not available for sale, I would aruge that common sense dictates that the public sharing of the product hurts nobody as the copyright is not being actively protected! The persecution of Abandonware when the programme is still available for purchase as part of a 'legacy' series is understandable, but otherwise it is rediculous.

Besides, the ability to play the games that I once oggled over in PC Gamber but couldn't afford is really quite something.

Re:Abandonware, ahh..

[rcw-work]

Just because something is no longer for sale to the public DOES NOT mean the copyright should no longer apply, thus taking control away from the owner/creator.

Copyright isn't just about giving control to the copyright holder. It's a deal struck between authors and society. Authors agree to produce work for society, society agrees to give the author a fair chance at compensation for their work.

One could easily make the argument that when an author refuses to distribute their product, they aren't living up to their side of the deal.

Of course that's not how the law reads right now, but a simple majority can change that.

Re:Abandonware, ahh..

[RealAlaskan]

Just because something is no longer for sale to the public DOES NOT mean the copyright should no longer apply, thus taking control away from the owner/creator.

Sorry, wrong. That may be the way the law is currently interpreted, but that is clearly not the way the law should be interpreted.

What follows is U.S. specific: that's appropriate, since the decision is also.

Our constitution gives Congress the right to extend monopolies to artists, authors and inventors, for limited periods, to serve the public interest. The ultimate aim is to enhance the public domain. I'd say that allowing a copyright owner the ability to exercise dog-in-the-manger style control, by intent or by apathy, is clearly unconstitutional. If the courts disagree, they're following in the grand old tradition of Dred Scott. The courts have been wrong before.

The copyright is not dependent upon the owners ability/desire to distribute it.

That is probably true, but if so, it is an accident of law, not The Way God Commanded It.

Copyright is not a natural right like your right to not be murdered. Copyright is a deal we make with authors, because we think we're better off for it. If we aren't better off, if the authors aren't holding up their end of the deal, we have right to change things around. Copyright should be called copyprivilage.

Damn that Mickey Mouse

[stretch0611]

Its ironic that the company that probably benefits the most (Disney) from the copyright extension owes it existence to the lack of long copyrights 50 years ago. Lots of the older "Disney Classics" were based on books with expired copyrights. Disney never would have been able to remake Cinderella if the book they adapted it from had a copyright as long the laws allow today.

Intellectual property is different

[JohnnyX]

Intellectual property, e.g. copyright, is a legal fiction along the same lines as "corporate personhood". The mistake it appears the courts and the legislature are making is to imbue intellectual property with the same sanctity as actual physical property.

Now I'm a Libertarian who works in an idea business, so I understand the utility of intellectual property, but it seems reasonable that the law should require an actual rights-holder to affirm their rights and/or create a process by which someone who wanted to republish abandoned intellectual property could give notice to the purported rights-holder. If there was not a negative response in say, 60 days, the person would get the rights to publish the work.

Just a thought.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...killer Benihana shrimp...

Darth Vader is on-topic

[frankie]

the deal is that you get to see it when the copyright expires

That's a very interesting theory. The REALITY is that our dear Congress keeps saying "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further" every few years.

Ever since the Bono Act, we are living in an age of perpetual copyright. I do not expect any current copyright to expire in my lifetime. It's far less likely to happen than Social Security being solvent in 2040.

Re:What about this scenario?

[SeattleGameboy]

That would all depend on whether or not you or your company owned the copyright.

If your company owned the copyright, and that company ceases to exist, then now that copyright is in limbo - which is exactly what this lawsuit is trying to address.

If you owned the copyright and not the company, then nothing has happened to the copyright and you can sell your wares as before under any new arrangement.

Even if company goes bankrupt, its IP (copyright) can be sold off and the new buyer would own the copyright.

So your scenario is already covered. It makes no sense to protect abandoned copyrights. It makes about as much sense as protecting abandoned cars on the highway.