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)."

Comments

Is there nothing...

[wealthychef]

this court won't do to rob ordinary citizens of property?

Re:Is there nothing...

[schroedingers_hat]

Don't worry, they'll force their laws on your country, too with 'free trade' agreements and treaties..

Re:Is there nothing...

[FairAndHateful]

Don't worry, they'll force their laws on your country, too with 'free trade' agreements and treaties..

The article indicates that this law/judgement was to comply with an international treaty. Something about works that were in the public domain in the US that were still copyrighted in other countries. Looks like this came to the US from the other side this time. Doesn't make it make a lot of sense.

Fifth Amendment?

[Hatta]

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.

Well that's only a little shit

[viperidaenz]

The copyright terms should be fixed at the moment a work is granted copyright. Future laws should have no power to change when an existing work is transferred to the public domain.
In these specific cases however I'd vote on the side of the court. The copyright terms granted to the works were those in effect in the country they were produced, so should be respected.
Retroactively extending copyright should be outlawed and all extensions should be revoked.

Re:Terrible

[jd]

Which, in effect, means there is no public domain, since this means there is retroactive copyright. Which is rather a frightening concept given how much has been put out in the public domain for the express purpose of nobody owning it.

No, there is not

[Brain-Fu]

"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.

Re:No, there is not

[PopeRatzo]

There is no principle of justice or reason which will not be trampled underfoot in the name of increasing the power of the aristocracy.

Because it's not enough that they are rich and have power. They must also see to it that everyone else is poor and powerless.

For these people, being rich and powerful is no fun unless you have a sufficient supply of poor and weak people. For comparison, you see.

There is an ugly, pathological strain at the top. It's like the scum that forms on a pond. Without stirring things up every once in a while, this scum grows unabated.

There was a great presentation at TED not too long ago about income disparity, how it makes a society sick. The greater the income and wealth disparity, the more depression, the more addiction, the more crime, the more unhappiness. And of course, when you have great disparity, you have less and less social mobility. That's why countries like Denmark and Finland and Sweden and Germany and others have greater social mobility than the US. If you are poor in the US, you are very likely to stay poor. If you live over there, you have a greater chance of moving up. That's why you hear people say, "If you want to live the American Dream, move to Denmark" (or Finland, etc).

I really believe it's time that the people who have wealth and power are overdue for a lesson in social responsibility. These lessons are seldom very pleasant, but it didn't have to go this way. They really believed, since the "Reagan Revolution" that there would be no end to their party of theft and destruction.

Mitt Romney-types like to talk about "creative destruction". I think he's due for a lesson in what "creative destruction" means.

Re:No, there is not

[geekoid]

And you are wrong.
Please. you have no clue what corruption is like in Peru, and many other countries.

When was the last time you had to pay off the cable guy on top of your normal payment? when was the last time you had to slip an extra hundred to get your water turned on?

When was the last time the police came to you house so sell you 'protection'?

Please.

Re:No, there is not

[PopeRatzo]

and 'everyone's equal' societies require repressive regimes to enforce such unnatural states.

Did someone mention "everyone's equal" societies? Or are you constructing some sort of straw man?

but communism is unworkable.

Again, did someone mention "communism"? I think you may be having an argument with yourself.

What I was talking about is a boundary condition where income and wealth disparity is no longer a by-product of "liberty" but rather a by-product of an oligarchic tyranny.

I'm sure there's someone, somewhere who will discuss "communism" with you, but if you're trying to reply to me, you're way off the mark.

Re:No, there is not

[JoshuaZ]

Let me suggest a different, more optimistic narrative. Back in 2000 during the ongoing Bush-Gore legal fights, I was in a conversation with my brother and a mutual friend of ours whose family had emigrated from Venezuela. My brother expressed that he was appalled at what was happening and how it was making an absolute laughingstock out of the US. Our friend disagreed and said (slight paraphrase): "You don't understand. In much of the world, this would be solved by fighting in the streets until one's sides army faction gained ascendancy. This is being resolved with paperwork not bullets. This is the height of civilized behavior."

The situation here is similar. A 6-2 legal decision that allows in some limited circumstances some works in the public domain is pretty good behavior. The comparison to make is having members of the government come around at gunpoint and take property they want to give to their friends. We can disagree with a court case, but the fact that these sorts of things are decided by the courts shows how far we've come. This is by no means perfect, and what Bush and Obama have done with Guantanamo and other issues shows that we need to remain vigilant and constantly fight against the slide into violence and tyranny. But that doesn't mean either that we should lose perspective about where our society stands.

Civil disobedience is the only option

[mangu]

As Heinlein said:

"But I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; If I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am responsible for everything I do."

  ("The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", 1966)

BitTorrent exists for a purpose.

Two can play at that game

[Nugoo]

Well, that's it. I no long feel guilty about copyright infringement. If you can't keep your end of the bargain, why the fuck should I?

Looks like I'll have to change my sig, too.

Re:Bush Nominees

[forkfail]

Chief Justice Roberts was appointed by Bush. So, one of the Bush appointees - the Chief Justice - went for the ruling.

Alito was also appointed by Bush - so you're right there.

Breyer was appointed by Clinton.

So - yeah. I see the BushCo folks haven't gotten any better grasp of facts since Bush was in office.

But I'm sure you'll find your reality basis soon. It's probably north, south, east, west of here...

Re:Terrible

[rockman_x_2002]

That does appear to be the case. Oh there's still public domain as a sort of status, however temporary. But this renders anything in public domain into what's essentially a nebulous limbo until someone comes along and stakes claim to it to re-up the copyright on it.

Naturally it would be in the best interest for a public domain interest group to form and keep a watchful eye on all works entering into public domain, staking claim to said works as soon as it fall into public domain, then immediately releasing it under a sort of GNU-type license that everyone can have free access to the work(s) in question.

After all, as long as someone has a claim to it, especially if it's a collective group for the express purpose of keeping public domain items free for general use by the public, doesn't that still accomplish what public domain has for all these years anyway? It's just a way of working around this new ruling to render it the same.

Re:Immigration

[Anonymous Coward]

According to New Zealand’s former prime minister, Robert Muldoon: ‘New Zealanders who leave for Australia raise the IQ of both countries’

If copyright is "Intellectual Property"...

[thisissilly]

...then why aren't we charging copyright holders Property Tax?

Bah. This was the correct decision.

[raehl]

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.

Re:Bah. This was the correct decision.

[gambino21]

...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.

Re:Bah. This was the correct decision.

[therefore]

No. This would be ex post facto: Something that was once in the public domain, and legal for anyone to copy, and you copied it when legal, say, in 1990. Congress passed a law in 2012 that not only made it illegal to copy it in the future but retroactively made your 1990 act illegal. That would be unconstitutional. That is not what happened. That said, there are constitutional questions (just read the dissent).

Re:Bah. This was the correct decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.