Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Upholds Removal of Works From Public Domain
langelgjm writes "While much of the web is focused on the SOPA and PIPA blackout, supporters of the public domain today quietly lost a protracted struggle that began back in 2001. The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, rejected the argument that Congress did not have the power to convey copyright upon works that were already in the public domain. The suit was originally filed to challenge provisions that the U.S. adopted when signing the TRIPs agreement. Justices Breyer and Alito dissented, arguing that conveyed copyright on already existing works defied the logic of copyright law. Justice Kagan recused herself. The text of the opinions is available here (PDF)."
this court won't do to rob ordinary citizens of property?
Currently hooked on AMP
So, if Congress so wishes... they can apply copyright to anything in the public domain.
Shakespear here we come!
The fifth amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. We need an amendment that prohibits the taking of public property for private use without just compensation.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It's sort of strange that of all the international treaties, this is the one that is going to be enforced in the US. /not that I agree with it at all.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
The US has created a system that is terrified that someone, somewhere, is not making money in perpetuity on property they did not create.
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
"What do all men with power want? More power." -- The Oracle (from The Matrix).
Ideas are the most valuable commodity on the market today. Maintaining and increasing wealth is a simple matter of maintaining and increasing control over that which is valuable.
There is no principle of justice or reason which will not be trampled underfoot in the name of increasing the power of the aristocracy.
The only way to get the aristocracy to treat the rest of the world reasonably is to force them to do so. Appeals to fairness or practicality will not make them budge. The rest of us have a numbers advantage but that only helps when we are organized enough to use it. If you want reasonable copyright terms, you will have to force their hand. Count on it.
Seriously, WTF?
Don't we have something in the constitution about, I dunno, ex post facto laws?
What about all those people who copied or derived from formerly public domain works that are now under copyright again?
Wrong! The purpose of copyright is to make money for our Corporate Overlords.
Shouldn't that make this an Ex Post Facto law? Again, making it unconstitutional?
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Actually, you'll get into a legal fight and whoever has the most money to throw at congress will wind up owning both versions.
hasn't been in the Senate since 2004.
Dog is my co-pilot.
SCOTUS is supposed to overturn laws that are unconstitutional.
They are NOT supposed to overturn laws just because they are bad.
SCOTUS ruled that congress putting public domain items back under copyright is NOT unconstitutional... because it isn't.
You may not care for the outcome, but the Supreme court isn't there to prevent Congress from doing stupid shit. The only people you have to blame for this is Congress and whichever President didn't veto it.
paintball
Disney literally built their empire on PD works. Most of their best-loved and most successful movies come from work that predates copyright--their original classics (Snow White, Pinocchio, and Cinderella), the films that sparked their revival in the late 80s/early 90s (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin), and many others.
FUCK THEM, and the lawmakers they buy. Read that old paper you swore to uphold: Article I, Section 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Key words there:
Fuckers, it's not even halfway down the page. PD did exactly what it was supposed to do: things that weren't in copyright were available for (in this case) Disney to do wonderful things with. Now, art will be relatively inaccessible from 1928 on.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
What an amazingly wonderful social order the west is, when its governments are able to rob citizens blind and then blame each of their independent internal departments, none of which are singularly responsible for said robbery.
Get off your high horses vis a vis China, Islam, South American socialism etc. Your system is more broken than anything.
...putting public domain items back under copyright is NOT unconstitutional... because it isn't.
Well, at least two justices disagree with you, so it's reasonable to argue that they made the wrong decision here.
This is what the consitution has to say regarding copyright:
The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
To me this means that any copyright law which does not promote the progress of science and/or useful Arts is unconstitutional. So you would have to make the case that moving these works out of the public domain accomplishes that.
Only if you can be punished for the copying that you did whilst it was still in the public domain.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
SCOTUS ruled that congress putting public domain items back under copyright is NOT unconstitutional... because it isn't.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
1) It doesn't promote Science or useful Arts. It subtracted from them, by taking something out of the public domain.
2) If something can be placed back under copyright, it's not a limited Time.
That's unconstitutional enough for me.
It exists because it is a very efficient and convenient way to quickly share large amounts of data. Several companies make use of it, including Blizzard Entertainment.
Please don't promote the idea that it is only used for exchanging media without permission of the copyright holder.
No, but if someone got the work as public domain (with a public domain notice attached) and were never told that it had magically become NOT public domain, then sent someone else a copy (believing it to STILL be public domain), that is about half-way between entrapment and ex post facto. This gets even WORSE when businesses (big or small) USED these public domain works as part of their identity (logos, etc) or murchandise (t-shirts, pins, stickers, emblems). Imagine if snow white, pocahontas and cinderella suddenly became owned by some guy in Florida, Disney would be SCREWED if they continued selling those before finding out.
How the hell do they expect to inform every person that has a copy of the ex-public-domain works and tell them "By the way, your logo is now illegal because the clouds you used in the background are now copyrighted".