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.
Wow, that sucks.
Another win for big business over the little guy! Go Disney!
Relocate the server to some small island in international waters or some country that doesn't give a Flying...ya know... about U.S. laws like North Korea.
I thought abandonware was defined as software that was no longer commercially available or supported. What's that got to do with copyright?
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
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.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
In regard to copyrights what Google's cache is very similar. So is the Google cache next on the hit list?
Has any big company ever used a Creative Commons license? Or even a non-"all rights reserved" copyright?
AnimeNEXT anime convention
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.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
One of the things that is happening in this country is that people - especially with issues outside of the sight of the mainstream - are taking their pet causes to the courts for problem solving.
I think we need to face it: the copyright extensions passed by Congress were legal. We had one of the best minds of any generation - Lessig - argue the Eldred case in front of the Surpreme Court. They remained unmoved. Why? Because the Constitution is pretty clear on the issue... Congress gets to regulate these issues as they see fit.
The courts are not the right place to fight this issue. The courts are the wrong place to fight this issue.
Congress is where this is at. They pass the laws, they pass the penalties, they make it all happen. The courts cannot and more importantly should not be used as a legislative tool.
Copyright has swung too far from the commons that defined much of what is good about this country. Congress needs to move it back.
The Courts generally can offer no relief where there is none deserved. What is happening now with the extension, DMCA, etc is *exactly* what was intended by Congress.
Since our (United States) congress is so out of control in this realm, the only way to stop this nonsense is with a constitutional amendment declaring explicit copyright terms and terms for revocation.
Perhaps slashdot (readers)could hatch a plot to make this happen. (Perhaps I'm dreaming.)
Some states provide for direct democracy by ballot initiative; other states will require more work. (Sounds like a hackers challenge to me.)
The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done shall not interrupt the one who is doing it.
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
Then who's around to actually pipe up and complain about "their" material being made available online?
but I looked over the ruling, and it said basically on all counts that the case was "dismissed with prejudice". Some of the rebuttals were of the form
1) Eldred vs. Ashcroft said this, so we can't overturn that, try to go to the Supreme Court.
2) People live longer now so copyrights should last longer (for kids and such)
3) Congress carefully considers the meaning of "promotes the progress of arts and science" every time they extend this
4) Technology increases the amount of time a given work is "valuable", (tell that to the RIAA, or anyone using an old version of Windows) and thus extending the copyright gives authors even more of an incentive to create.
My question though is that since all charges are "dismissed with prejudice" is there any grounds for an appeal?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Congress, the cause, and solution, to our copyright woes...
Has any effort been made to request of congress the creation of a statutory "safe harbor" with respect to the use of material eligible for copyright protection but otherwise abandoned? Would it hurt Disney if the law included protection from liability for those who make a good faith effort to get permission but receive no response?
For that matter, if we really want to treat IP with the same rules as physical property, then should notions about adverse possession, abandonment, and eminent domain apply?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
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...
an army of android warriors fighting for the free exchange of data by exterminating huma-- err n/m
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
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.
Oh and before you mark this REDUNDANT know that Staplrh lost rights to this original post by abandoning it after posting. I've now assumed copyright to it...
Actually, how disney makes money is:
1) Find a classic story with expired copyrights.
2) Whitewash it until it can't offend anyone.
3) Use its mass media engine to make it ubiquitous, similar to how Microsoft sole Windows 98.
4) Copyright their neutered version of the public domain work, and pay the government to keep it copyrighted in perpetuity.
It's reminiscent of how many humans take all their nourishment from their environment, yet take every measure, from coffins to embalming, to prevent giving back to it when they die.
Well at least everyone who is legal to vote in the US. Starting a little over a year from now, your local political parties will be holding meetings to determine their direction for the next election. Find out when and where they are, then show up. For the two major parties this is public knowledge posted well in advance. (third parties hold them too, but finding out when and where is more difficult)
Once you are there, start talking, but make it intelligent. Find out the format in advance each party is slightly different. Prepare some resolutions in advance.
Normally the format is someone starts by reading a prepared sentence ("Be it resolved that abortion shall be illegal"), and then the floor is open for debate. Immediately someone will jump in and say no, they disagree ("Abortion is a women's choice"). After a few minutes the chair stops discussion and calls for a vote: yes, no, abstain. (Note I specifically picked an example you are likely to hear when you go! Your resolution will not be near as controversial, so it won't get near as much debate)
At some point they then pick people to represent their local area in the state convention. Get picked! (this isn't hard, in many areas anyone who shows up gets a position if they want it, and then they pick alternates from those who couldn't make it that night but have gone to state in the past) At the state convention much the same happens, except the debates are larger.
Remember, present your resolutions as non-controversial, good ideas. Most people will not be informed, so they will abstain. Then when it gets to state the only people who care are those from /. who took my advice, and are on your side.
Now get your party elected.
The above is the grassroots processes. It is how everything is done politically in the US. The power is by following the above, forget the party boss, they are nothing compared to the millions of little guys working together to get something done.
Note that it does not matter much which party you pick. Neither major party has a monopoly on doing the right thing as far as copyrights (both have done the wrong thing countless times). Pick one you generally agree with, and fix the parts you don't. This works even better when some pick the republicans, and others the democrats. Then when congress meets in 2 years, there is strong grassroots bi-partisan support for your issue, so congress passes it so they can be reelected for doing something non-controversial.
Of course the above is ideal. In the real world reform can take years, and many will oppose you. Keep at it. Good luck.
The car in my garage that I haven't driven in 10 years is still mine, and you can't take it just because you need a car and I'm not using it.
That's because taking your car would be an act of theft, leaving you with no car. It is not the same as copying a program, whereby you would not lose anything tangible.
If a company is not selling the product anymore, then how can copying a program deny them a sale? They're not making any money off of it.
I agree that abandonware should be archived and publiclly shared. Here's a prime example: Alta-Vista Personal search engine, which was developed in 1997, and worked on win89 and win2000 flawlessly (until a win2K bug forced me to index manually) -- it was pretty quick, and did a better job than google's current desktop search. It also didn't run constantly in the background, but updated it's index at preset times.
Finding altavista personal search is almost impossible now (and it won't run on XP), but it's still useful for other WIN OSs. FOr those interested: you can get it here
I create some software.
My company collapses thus the software is no longer sold or supported.
1 year later I create a new company and I want to sell my software again.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, I don't know if this is "technical", but here's an idea:
A copyright Goodwill, or Salvation Army.
Let's say we call it the "Public Domain Foundation" or somesuch. When people are done with their intellectual property, and have squeezed every last dollar from "Doom 2, Electric Boogaloo", they can donate it to the PDF and get some tax writeoff. Just like people donate their old sneakers to Goodwill. Then the PDF declares the IP to be public domain.
Just like with the used goods charities, not everyone will donate their used stuff. A lot of people throw out their old clothes. But an awful lot do donate. Given a little PR campaign about "Recycle and reuse, get a tax break", I think a fair number of old works would be donated by publishing houses and other IP holders. Maybe the practice of donating older works to the Public Domain might catch on, and become a standard practice in industries...?
Ok, so its not as good as reducing copyright terms, but if the law is going to treat copyrights as property which effectively last forever (I'd love a car which lasts 70 years past its builder's death), we ought to play by the rules on the field. It's better than letting the copyrights go into the limbo they currently go into when their users are done with them.
...to mention the Abandonware Petition.
It pretty well sums up what I believe about this sort of thing, and there have been several thousand people who pretty much agree with me.
And I'll take the opportunity once more to thank Teresa for putting it together and hosting it.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
The United States government is divided into three branches in a system known as checks and balances. It most definitely IS the job of the courts to keep Congress in line. The courts are the only way to declare any legislation unconstitutional, and get bills/laws overturned, provided enough proof is presented. Googling for "US government checks and balances" produced a site featuring a lesson plan describing the system, and how it should work. The section labeled "The Judicial Branch" describes what the main function of the courts actually is (in a hypothetical situation, but insert any bill and it still works), outside of settling various corporate disputes and injury lawsuits.
From the site:
The Judicial Branch
The Congress is considering a bill that will make criticism of the President on the Internet's World Wide Web illegal. If the bill is approved by Congress and approved by the President, the Supreme Court must be ready to hear arguments in favor and against the bill. The Supreme Court must be ready to ask the Congress questions about the bill in order to learn facts that will lead to a decision in a lawsuit brought by the Press against the bill. The Supreme Court must develop five to seven questions it can ask lawyers on both sides. The Supreme Court will also have to vote on the constitutionality of the bill. Those in favor (there must be a minority of students taking this position even if they disagree with it) and those opposed to the bill must write a "majority" and "minority" opinion in the case.
This is a lesson plan aimed at students, so the five to seven questions thing can be ommitted, but the idea is clear- the supreme court IS HOW TO REGULATE CONGRESS. It's how the government was designed, and the most effective way to combat purchased politicians. I'd hope it's more difficult to lobby a judge (who would be appointed- no need for campaign money), than the local congressbeing (who IS elected, and has massive financial support for campaigning).
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.*Perhaps* this is because *that's the deal* that *your band* *agreed to* when *you* *signed* the *contract*. It's *the price* for a *chance* at *major label* fame and *fortune*!
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
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.
With above distinction, your view reads to me as: "because the law doesn't have the intended effect, it should be declared unconstitutional". Newsflash: this happens all the time, and laws aren't unconstitutional because of it. I read court decisions like this as saying: "Yes, maybe the law doesn't have its intended effect, but we don't deal with that. We only deal with (whether Congress has the right to put that law in place). We (the court) decide that Congress has that right".
A pity, but I can accept that. It just means that Congress/lawmaking is the place to fix this, not the courts.
For a suggestion, I quote from the Stanford article: "For the first 186 years of our Republic, copyright laws established an "opt-in" system, one in which copyrights were secured only to those who took steps to claim them. In 1976 and 1989, Congress inverted this regime, transforming copyright law into an "opt-out" system, one in which rights are granted automatically and indiscriminately unless disclaimed." (anyone know an important reason why this change was made?). Me thinks it would really serve the public to revert that change, back to an opt-in policy, where authors have to take active steps to secure copyrights. That would solve the orphaned-works problem in an instant.
Too bad, the copyright-profit industry clearly has better lobbyist teams working the Congress than the public has.
Here is a related topic which occurs regularly in the fansub circles of Anime.
A well loved anime, KOR, was not licensed for distribution in America. As a result, a fan group subtitled and released the entire series for free, using the arguement that since it wasn't licensed for sale in America, they weren't hurting anyone. This was back in the good old dual vcr and tape days. Because this was a popular anime, pretty much anyone who wanted to could get a copy of the fansubs for the price of the tapes and the time to copy them.
A few years later, a company was approached by the fans of this series, asking them to purchase the rights to distribute it in America. The company declined at first, citing the fact that since the fansubs of the anime were so prevalent, no one would have any reason to buy them. Eventually, in this case, a happy ending came about when the fans pre-ordered enough copies to make it finiacially viable to actually do the project.
However, just because this one ended in a happy note, does'nt meant they all do. The fact of the matter is, most of the time fansubers, abandonware sites, and other gray area copyright violators who aren't stealing out of a desire to not pay but out of a lack of any other avenue to get the product, end up hurting themselves in the end.
Typically what happens is that instead of reviving the product, they hammer the last nail into the coffin by removing ANY hope of the company seeing any finiacial viablity out of bringing the product back on their own.
On the other hand, damn it sure would be nice if companies couldn't horde these things as long as they do now.
Look, I want things to enter the public domain as much as the rest of you, but it looks like the copyright laws here made a decent amount of sense. Read the decision. Meanwhile, the lower courts are correctly noting that where the complaint directly conflicts with Eldred, they have to choice but to dismiss the complaint.
In a nutshell, current copyright policy looks like it was created to deal with an unmanageable system of registration, notification, and people who DID want to maintain their rights losing them. I find it interesting that we complain the US is isolationist and then reject this attempt to conform to world policy.
Finally, with regards to abandonware, the premise is that the original company is making no money off of it and "doesn't care" if it's distributed. If this is truly the case, then distribute it anyway, even if it is copyrighted. If they don't care, then no problem. If they do care, then take it down. The stuff that truly is abandoned will still be distributed, but the items that the copyright holders still have an interest in will not be.
The legal nuances only come into play if someone takes you to court, and if to reach that point generally means that not only do they significantly value the work, but you've most likely refused to resolve the situation amicably. Companies, even large ones, would much rather send a simple letter than sue someone.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
THEY'll pay for the lawyers that will defend your work from infringement.
Bullshit.
They'll pay for the lawyers that will protect *their* interests, but they won't lift a finger otherwise.
In fact, it's quite possible that the lawyers they pay will attack the *artist*.
"3) Congress carefully considers the meaning of "promotes the progress of arts and science" every time they extend this"
This is the worst one. Congress does no such thing.
Well perhaps, perhaps not. But it's not up to the court to speculate on whether the law does "promotes the progress of arts and science". They could only overrule it on this grounds, if it was quite clear that the obvious result of this extension was detrimental to the progress of arts and science. While there is some evidence to support this position, it could be argued that longer copyright protection has encouraged some publishers to continue publishing their work for longer.
Personally, I think the arguments a load of hokum, but unless I can disprove this and any similar argument, then it has to accepted as the wisdom of congress.
It stops you from making a new version of mickey mouse tho, even when walt disney will have been dead for a hundred years. Is there some line in the sand (or constitution) that says "everything before the mouse is fair game, but everything afterwards should be protected for corporate exploitation unto eternity?"
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
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
See? Microsoft isn't a monopoly. The compete with themselves!!!
What you say is true, but Congress doesn't simply pass laws saying "None of Disney's stuff will ever pass into the public domain." (Which would be bad enough...) Instead, to avoid blatantly showing who they are serving with these copyright extensions, they extend the copyright on everything published since Steamboat Willy (which is the first appearance of Mickey Mouse, if you didn't know.) The result: an impoverished "myth spring", and a gradual depletion of "free ideas" that are available.
You see, once upon a time, the idea of "intellectual property" and "copyright", would've been laughed at. I mean, when I tell you a story, I still have the story, right? Languages and numbers only become more useful with each new person who learns them. However, all knowledge is power, and many people preferred to keep that power to themselves. A fine example is the Masons, who prospered for for many years due to secret stoneworking techniques and still have a reputation for secrecy to this day.
As a way to encourage the sharing of ideas and works of art, the idea of copyright was conceived.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage artists to share their works with the public by allowing them exclusive publishing rights for a limited time, after which those works would enter the public domain.
Would Disney have been able to create Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, etc, if the inspirations for those works had not been in the public domain? Of course not, and Disney's success is one of the best arguments for the necessity of allowing works of art to pass into the public domain. Yet Mickey Mouse (and literally thousands of other works of art, published since 1928, the first appearance of Steamboat Willy) has not passed into the public domain, as would be proper. Instead, every time that mouse comes close to becoming public property, Disney lobbyists donate money to purchase another copyright extension, and more and more works that should belong to society as a whole are dragged along with Steamboat Willy.)
The public has been denied the compensation it deserves for allowing Disney the copyright in the first place, and it seems that will continue to be the case, until a sufficient number of people wake up to what we are losing in exchange for Disney's success.
Personally, I'd argue for *shorter* copyright terms, not longer.
Reasons:
1) Given the pace of modern change, it's a lot easier and faster to capitalise on an idea or product. In one month, you can have prototypes built for you and be marketing to the entire planet.
2) Kids. There's really no reason for kids of inventors/authors to benefit from super-long copyrights. If my Dad makes a pile of money from an invention or work, I'll inherit that. If he wants me to take over the business, he'll train me. I shouldn't feel entitled to a life on easy street just because an ancestor of mine was smart or lucky.
3) Cross-collaboration. Getting new inventions, methods or processes out into the wider community where they can be combined with existing ideas is of huge benefit to a modern economy. A thousand years ago, it didn't matter too much if a new castle design or plough was delayed ten years, because it would take a century or so to get to a significant fraction of the planet. Today, if you delay a year, you've lost the advantage.
I've tinkered with assorted copyright length schemes, mainly with either brutally short expiry times, or geometrically increasing extension costs (for companies which just HAVE to have one more year of owning Mickey Mouse). The major problem is that eventually it becomes cheaper for a large corporation to buy a change in the copyright law than it does to pay for another year of copyright.
Maybe if laws-for-cash was legalized and formalised somehow? Rent-a-law?
One good example of this is old 1980's video game code.
It's no longer available in its native form, and many of the companies involved no longer exist.
Under "abandonware" thinking, those programs should be free to distribute.
However, thanks to the recent retrogaming craze, a lot of company's successors are seeing a good revenue stream from those once "abandoned" titles. (For example, who ever thought we'd see Atari 2600 titles for sale again, but there they are, built into a joystick at Toys R Us.)
As far as "old movies of little value," certainly there are those who think "It's A Wonderful Life" should still be Public Domain; the current copyright holders would disagree vehemently.
And then it continues with ''Well, we have a new program that does the same thing. That will be $89.99''
One unique property that software, fiction, nonfiction, and other creative works have is that they *NEVER WEAR OUT*. Thus, old creations are direct economic competetiors to recent creations. Thus, the cheap availability of old creations in the public domain would affect and depress the market of recent creations. The copyright feudalists have done their best to keep this from happening by keeping old creations far away from the public.
Thus, copying old artistic works/abandonware could be detrimental to current creation. For instance, if copyright law was 42 years, most black&white film archives would be out of copyright --- I'd expect a lot of reruns of those instead of recent creations on TV.
Unfortunately, keeping old creations far from the public and rotting away is also destroying our cultural largess to our descendents. Under the current law, our cultural heritage will be lost. How many 80's arcade games are already lost forever? How many would have been lost forever by now without MAME?
To me, the preservation of our culture for the future is more important than an argument that the professional creation of modern cultural works would suffer a minor economic decline. Personally, I think the availability of more culture in the public domain would lead to a bit less professional creativity, but VASTLY more total creativity.
The point is not being able to give your children an inheritance. You could do that just as easily as him without excessive copyright duration, the same way as him, save the money or invest in tangible assets such as a home or property.
What excessive copyright duration does is let *YOU* spend it all before you croak and still leave your children money, whereas he cannot live as well a life as you (on the same income) and still leave his decendants as much as you can.
Any wonder he considers you greedy for wanting special rules to let you have your cake and eat it to?
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
In the article at http://www.lisnews.com/article.pl?sid=04/11/30/141 0232 this is written in the end, and I see 2 sides of the argue here.
The copyright holder wants to keep their copyrights and possibility to gain financially until their copyright on the material pass on.
The information-wants-to-be-free-activists; All information should be accessible, no matter what.
I believe that it's natural that the copyright holder defend their rights, and they should be able to decide when or if their material should be shared by anyone without their control.
Though I also believe that these copyright-holders should perhaps loosen up when it comes to defending their copyright when it comes to material that is more trivial and of common interest, and where-of this material doesn't bring them financial gain. Some "good will" would be suitable.
Perhaps there's a way to save a subset of these abandoned works. Corporations and other business entities which are regarded as separate entities from individuals fold -- often. State government give "life" to these entities through legislation, and that legislation grants the ability to own property to these entities.
So look to your state laws to find out what happens to intellectual property when these companies fold. Suggest to your local representative that these laws are amended so works that aren't reassigned through a public announcement become public domain.
In Maine, I believe for corporations, this is the relevant statute for amending (Title 13-C Sec. 1440). Notice how all assets are to be reduced to cash(!):
Assets of a dissolved corporation that should be transferred to a creditor, claimant or shareholder of the corporation who can not be found or who is not competent to receive the assets must be reduced to cash and deposited with the Treasurer of State or other appropriate state official for safekeeping in accordance with Title 33, chapter 41. When the creditor, claimant or shareholder furnishes satisfactory proof of entitlement to the amount deposited, the Treasurer of State or other appropriate state official shall pay the creditor, claimant or shareholder or that person's representative that amount. [2001, c. 640, Pt. A, 2 (new); Pt. B, 7 (aff).]
(I'm intentionally cutting that quote short)
While your suggestion may indeed be meaningful with respect to "some small island in international waters", relocating your server to a country that doesn't pay attention to United States laws (there are several of those) isn't going to help you a bit. This legal case isn't about challenging overbroad U.S. legislation (for whatever definition of "overbroad"), this is about challenging the constitutionality of recent changes to U.S. copyright law, changes that came about as a result of the United States acceeding to an international treaty, namely the Berne Convention.
Your operation handing out copies of old works still under copyright protection will be regulated by essentially the same copyright regime in any Berne Convention country where you choose to relocate. That's a little over 100 countries, probably most of the countries where you would want to relocate. If you want to put up a fight, make sure that you are fighting the right enemy (the Berne Convention, not the United States).
As for myself, I don't consider copyright by default to be much of a problem, but that's because Sweden acceeded to the Berne Convention even before I was born, and copyright by default is the general rule in Europe. It's the United States that is the latecomer in this respect.
Even if the challenge is successful on constitutional grounds, I doubt the United States could amend its copyright legislation to your liking and still be in compliance with the Berne Convention. As Kahle suggests, you would have to discriminate against your own citizens, requiring United States authors to register their works for copyright protection, while granting it automatically to foreign authors (or authors from other Berne Convention countries, to be precise). Would you accept that?
Even with automatic copyright protection, I think it should be up to the copyright holder to sue for infringement. Unfortunately, the Swedish supreme court found in one case that infringement had occurred even without a lawsuit from the proper copyright holder.