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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
What's that got to do with copyright?
Very simply, copyright deals with whether the material is owned, not with whether it is distributed or not.
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.
I have the legal right not drive my car, and I have the legal right not to distribute my software. My availing myself of these rights does not in any way confer rights to my things upon you.
Thus, you cannot distribute my copyright protected material over the internet, even though I am not doing so myself.
KFG
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.
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.
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
...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!
A few years ago, I installed MAME and a copy of the ROMs from a site and played it a bit for nostalgia's sake. (It's plain awful by non-1983 standards! :) Like a fool, I didn't keep a copy. The last time I looked (not very hard) I didn't find it because sites have gotten cautious about copyrights on old ROMs.
So, one of the few people that might care about those ROMs can't get a copy even though my initials are fourth down on the high-score list. All because of submarine IP that never really goes away unless the owner is absolutely completely gone or someone explicitly puts it into the public domain. (As I recall, in 1983 the laws were in flux as to copyright applying to ROMs at all.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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
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.
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
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.
I was involved in producing one of the first classic arcade collection for PC.
It was a NIGHTMARE!!!
Since many of the titles we were interested were produced by defunct companies, it was impossible to track down proper copyright owners to license the game. We were able to finally track down copyright owners for the titles we really wanted, but some of the titles had to be abandoned because we could not verify who had the proper copyright.
Even with identified copyright holders we had problems with other people challenging their ownership. Very, very confusing.
Again, if a copyright is valuable enough, then the owner should protect it and license it accordingly. But there are numerous copyrights that are hopelessly lost or disputed (where no one can prove clear ownership) that should become public domain by default.