Slashdot Mirror
Kahle v Ashcroft Appeal Filed
An anonymous reader writes "Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive has announced that the appeal of Kahle vs. Ashcroft has been filed.
Here is the appeal.
Kahle vs. Ashcroft concerns the constitutionality of changing from an opt-in copyright system (which existed for almost 200 years in the US) to the current opt-out system, where every doodle on a piece of paper is copyrighted for 95 years. Yes, they used the word doodle in their appeal.
Previous stories here, here, and here."
You mean this comment is my own property for 95 years just because I wrote it...
Stay back fools and don't quote me. You'd better believe I'll protect my rights!
I personally fail to see any reason to change mid-stride like this anyways. Was the old opt-in copyright law in some way broken?
If you want something copyrighted, you should be responsibile to take care of it. I don't give a shit about your Intellectual Property or otherwise if you can't be bothered to copyrighted.
Individuals: Life of the author + 70 years ( 302(a))
Joint Works: Life of the last surviving author + 70 years ( 302(b))
Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works (where identity is not revealed) and Works Made for Hire: 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first ( 302(c))
Anonymous or Pseudonymous Works (where identity is revealed by filing): Life of the author + 70 years or life of the last surviving author +70 years ( 302(c))
Taken from here.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Judges shouldn't legislate from the bench.
They don't. They make judgements based on their interpretation of the law. That's what they're hired for. The phrase "legislate from the bench" is just NewSpeak thrown about to gather support from various groups when they don't agree with a ruling.
A 1999 page is completely accurate when it comes to copyright *duration*, as terms have not been altered since 1998.
In fact, mine has significantly more (correct, for the record) detail regarding anonymously created works. In addition, Lolly is incorrect - works published between 1951 and 1977 all receive the 28+67 extension, not 64-77 as she claims.
It's all in here. Which, if you had read it recently, you would know has not been amended since the Bono Act in 1998.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
It could be lowered back down again to life of the author + 50 years, but would be inpractical to lower it further.
The reason for this is the Berne Convention, which states that all signed parties had to provide at least a minimum of lifetime + 50. Any nation can provide more but not less.
The U.S. would not only have to pass legislation to change it. But they would have to back out of the Berne convention. Backing out of the Berne convention would (I think) have the side effect of getting the plantifs what they want, and returning the U.S. to an opt-in copyright system.
IANAL, so I very well may be wrong about that, but even if I am, it would at least remove one major hurdle to getting the U.S. back to an opt-in system.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.