Well, under the pre-1976 reforms, the previous poster was right. Morally, he's definately right. A notion of a common law copyright for unpublished works is perfectly acceptable, but only if strictly limited.
Publication though, really should be distribution that is available to the general public... hell, the word roots ought to make that clear.
Re:Your lawyer is a fucking retard
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 2
Nevertheless, the original poster said: Under US law if you know of a crime but do not act to prevent it, you are considered an accomplice to that crime. This is a _very_ broad statement; it is not one that is limited to the GPL situation we've been discussing here.
And in fact, if you'd bothered to note the identity of the other respondant to my post, it was at least partially retracted! Smagoun agreed that there is no such general rule. At most, a government can pass a law that imposes a duty on a class of individuals, but of course, people outside of that class are exempted.
And the rule in the vast, vast majority of cases is one of no liability for an innocent bystander. I can watch people murder, rape, or steal with impunity if I do nothing to help. (generally -- there's some finer matters involved as well) Likewise, I can watch people die, or be crippled by grevious injury, or suffer mental trauma, and not raise a finger, and that too is acceptable.
After all, much as our initial inclination to require that aid be given beckons to us, there are better reasons to let it alone. For example, one is 'where does it end?' If someone suffers a heart attack on a busy sidewalk, does everyone in the world owe him a duty to perform CPR? What if there's more than one person -- is the 2nd guy to arrive liable for not beating the first to help? Are people on the other side of the street liable? People on the next block? In cars? In buildings? Who are already occupied with other pressing duties?
HOWEVER, I never made the claim that accessories weren't usually civilly or criminally liable! You're bitching at me for something I never said! Your complaints are, I'm afraid, all in your head. What posessed you to post about a total non-issue, I cannot even imagine.
And from someone with a three digit ID... Tsk tsk.
Although it is worth noting that government works, such as statutes, regulations, and opinions are uncopyrightable.
Re:Your lawyer is a fucking retard
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 2
Really? I never heard of this. So you're saying that, if, say, someone rapes me, and the state has a strict liability standard for rape, where I'm not required to resist in order for the rapist to be criminally liable, I'm guilty of my own rape? (because aiding and abetting prior or during the commission of a crime makes one a principal to the crime, liable just as much as the 'main' perpatrator)
Or perhaps a simpler explanation is that you have no idea of what the hell you're talking about. Civilly and criminally, totally innocent bystanders have NO RESPONSIBILITY. Only if you've somehow acted, or have acquired a duty to act which you ignore, are you liable.
Perhaps, but it is difficult to reach a different conclusion of law based upon the findings of facts, and appellate courts rarely ever overturn the trial court's facts.
Well, we like to assume that testimony is truthful by and large... but not necessarily.
The finder of fact -- usually a jury -- will take it upon themselves to decide what actually happened. If, for example, Alice accuses Bob of rape, they may decide to believe Alice and disbelieve Bob, or believe Bob (who may be the only person who can testify in his own defense!) and disbelieve Alice, or find that neither is entirely accurate, and that the reality lies somewhere in between.
They don't have to automatically assume that anything they hear is totally legit. That there's a discrepancy isn't by itself indicative of perjury though, as people's recollections may differ, evidence may be contrary or misleading, etc. Real perjury takes some effort to spot, and may require a lot of opposing evidence.
Still, while you may or may not have to testify in your defense at trial, you certainly might want to if it's important enough! I can't imagine being accused and not even being able to say to a jury that I'm innocent, which is what you propose.
No, you do not need a license to read things you own. You own CDs. You don't own the copyright to the music therein -- that's seperate. Licenses are a very novel, very sneaky, and very useless and dangerous innovation in the realm of publishing. But they're the exception and not the rule... hopefully it'll stay that way.
No, you do own it. You don't own the COPYRIGHT, which is an entirely seperate thing, but you own a copy of the music, insofar as the concept of ownership can even be extended to such a thing.
It's just like books -- you buy books, you own books, you can sell used books (even though it harms the publishing industry and authors) or loan them out, etc.
The whole licensing scam only truly began with software in the 70's because it wasn't copyrighted at the time, and has been criticized as being anachronistic and unecessary for years now. As far as the ordinary person buying music, books, movies or software is concerned, there's essentially no advantage to a EULA-like license.
Shit, there's loads of computer stores in that area. If you're looking for cables, try Redmond Cable -- if they don't have it, they will MAKE IT FOR YOU. I got some good, wierd, SCSI cables I needed from them once.
And of course, RePC, in Seattle, south of Safeco Field is awesome for used gear.
No, multiple backups are permitted under U.S. copyright law. I refer you to 17 U.S.C. 117(a) (2002), which reads in pertinent part:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:...
that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
(emphasis mine)
It is impossible to construe the phrase "all archival copies" as being in the singular. Precisely how many archival copies are permitted may be yet undefined. It may be absolutely unbounded. But it's at least two.
It is entirely possible that the designers of bnetd have never played the game. A good cleanroom reverse engineering effort would go through great pains to keep itself in the clear. The enforceability of the license may also be at issue, particularly if the dev team was located in a different country. Contracts aren't enforceable merely because both parties agree to them.
Generally tort damages are compensatory, in this case paying the cost of whatever harm they caused _to the computer, et al_. Which is to say, virtually nothing. Maybe a nominal award of a dollar, just to indicate that it was wrongful.
What anyone looking to pursue this wants are punative damages. That is a hefty award above the amount actually owed, in order to discourage such behavior in the future from both the immediate offender, and from similar potential ones who can imagine themselves getting sued next.
Torts are simply how individual people make people who in some way injured them pay up. It's different from criminal law, where the government seeks to punish someone, but the victim gets nothing.
If I came to your house and broke your leg, it's fair that I should have to pay your doctor's bill. You'd have to sue me under a tort claim of battery to get that money. I don't go to jail however, unless the government wants to pursue me. And if I go to jail and you didn't sue, you get nothing but the satisfaction of knowing I'm locked up.
If I came to your house and broke your TV, it's fair that I should have to pay to replace it. You'd have to sue under a tort claim of conversion.
If I merely bang it up, in such a way that it works, but not very well, I have to pay to get it fixed. You'd sue me under tresspass to chattels. Likewise if I took it and brought it back -- I should owe you for the time it was gone.
This is basically what's being attempted here.
It'll probably work, I just don't imagine it'll work well.
Apparently it does, as per the AOL cites above. And furthermore, in the more commonplace instance where someone interferes with your personal property (e.g. keys your car) trespass to chattels is used to recover damages from that person.
Lots of our law dates back all the way to the Norman Conquest. The _damages_ on the other hand, would merely be however much it costs to repair the harm to the car. Perhaps if this was a person who did this constantly, there'd be some punative damages, though it's a bit unlikely.
Of course, if you take offense to having to use a common law provision that's so old, you're free to pay for it out of your own pocket and let them get off scot-free.
I believe, for example, that much of US property law is derived from English law....
Oh yes. Believe me, you haven't lived until you've had to take a class on property law. There's nothing more fun than tracing out a long hypothetical, working out who has remainders, and who has reversions, and who has executory interests. And God forbid that you should forget that a remainder never follows a fee simple defeasable! Why? Because some English judges in the 16th century or thereabouts said so, that's why! Don't ask stupid questions!
Anyway, when we broke from England, all states, IIRC, passed laws that incorporated the English common law as it existed at that time into the state's law, making it binding precedent. Tresspass to Chattels is a pretty standard law and used frequently. I can't imagine why we wouldn't have it.
I've studied British (and Canadian, and Australian) cases in every class I've taken so far, with the exception of Civil Procedure, which is uniquely American. The general logic is the same in all of the English-speaking countries. I imagine that they do the same with American cases, where they're especially enlightening on a particular subject.
Well, trespass to chattels is still in the Common Law in the US. Given that it is merely the legal right to claim damages from someone who has interfered with or damaged your personal property, I see little that's fundmentally wrong with it. People make claims under this law all the time; it works.
Just because it doesn't date from after the ratification of the Constitution that doesn't make it bad.
No, it shouldn't. Were that the case, the ability to make a new derivative work would be ruined. That will not stand.
There's value in being able to take a story like the Odyssey and Illiad, and being able to reuse elements from them in crafting another work -- such as the Aenid. Disney does this all the time. Those guys didn't independently develop Snow White, or Cinderella. Nevertheless, there's value in the new derivative work.
I'm sorely hoping that the Eldritch case will go well so that I can work to create a brand new Mickey Mouse cartoon. He's a good character, you can do some good stuff with him. Disney _isn't_, but what I'd like to see is everyone, including them, doing so.
Like it or not, our cultural icons are locked up in copyright schemes now. We used to have trickster characters like Odysseus, Loki, and Coyote. Now we have Bugs Bunny, and it is impossible for our culture to thrive as it did in the past by retelling and changing the stories about him, like we did with the others since time immemoriable.
The justification -- the sole justification -- for copyright is the benefit reaped by the public, not in mere commerce. The abandonware people are doing the right thing. Were it left to business, our history would be wiped out in order to favor their own positions in the present. It's as bad as strip mining.
Hm, so by that justification, if I made a game that directly competed with Blizzard's, I'd be justified in ordering them to shut down, because they're depriving me of potential profit that I can use to make additional games?
No, potential profit is NOT a factor here. Rather, Blizzard's rights must be actually, not potentially infringed upon. Furthermore, their reactions should be limited to those who have actually performed the offensive act.
Providing an alternative network is analagous to the legal act of manufacturing and selling VCRs, which can be used to watch television legally received, but without watching the ads, which can lead to a deprivation of profit by the broadcaster. Or to devising a computer that can run software as though it were actually made by IBM, even when it is not, depriving IBM of potential revenues for their own, offical computers. Do you find either of these objectionable? Why should this be any different, given that there are demonstrable legitimate uses?
But why? The only particularly interesting thing that sets the C.J. apart is that he sets the assignments for who writes opinions, if he's in that majority. And there are a few functions related to impeachment hearings, and to his circuit.
It's a _nice_ position, I'm sure, but there's little difference between Justices in the way that there are between the President and Vice President.
Title 17, section 117(a)(2) of the U.S. Code explicitly makes the making of backup copies (plural) legal for the owner of a copy of a piece of software (as distinct from the owner of the copyright).
It's hotly debated as to whether or not EULAs are valid, and could thereby limit it, but there's almost certainly no license here that would impair that natural and unrestricted right.
The issue is whether in order to do that, the user can circumvent a prevention measure, whether the GBA cartridge design qualifies as such a measure, and whether the law is constitutional to begin with.
Fortunately, this case stands a decent chance of playing out in the 9th circuit, and they can be fairly liberal guys.
Who's the future Chief Justice? It's likely not Scalia -- the normal practice is to appoint a new C.J., not to promote anyone from within. Rhenquist is quite unusual in that he used to be an associate justice. That's only happened three or four other times, IIRC.
Oh yes they are. But don't feel too bad -- I'm an artist myself.
Look for the basis of copyright law in the world... and you won't find one. It's not a natural right, like free speech, it's a positive right, created out of whole cloth by governments, if they so choose. The concept wasn't even around until circa 1700.
So each government makes their own law -- where did ours come by? The Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 8. Note the language there -- "to promote the progress of science and useful arts...."
Consider what your goals, as a reader are, and what your goals as an author are, and how both sides might come to an agreement that benefits both alike in ALL respects.
Particularly since authors that aren't especially creative (Shakespeare, Disney) can still be productive by rewriting and reinterpreting existing creative works. In fact, if you _REALLY_ wanted to emphasize creativity, you'd grant property rights in words, and thereby destroy the ability of people to even understand one another.
Creativity is not good in itself. Repetition isn't either. Both both, taken in moderation, may be found useful.
That's why it's a public goal.
Do you want more? When I get rolling people complain about the length of the post, so I'm hesitant to do so.
No, firstly, authors are easily paid prior to the creation of a work. You'll find that this sort of practice was quite commonplace, and in fact still happens. I've done plenty of work on comission.
Secondly, I support copyright law, it is the specific nature of the law at hand that I am concerned with. Copyright is intended to maximize the public goals relating to the progress of our society. The _means_ by which we accomplish this is copyright. Where the means impair the ends, the system is in need of reform.
Frankly, I don't really care how long copyright terms are -- provided that they benefit the public more by being that length, whatever it is, than they would by being even one second shorter or longer. I suspect that this varies depending on the type of work involved, and is typically around 20 years, but I'm open to suggestions.
I don't know about Scalia. This doesn't seem to be one of his pet issues, and his general stance is in, more or less, trying to set the clock back to 1789... when copyrights were minimal.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, under the pre-1976 reforms, the previous poster was right. Morally, he's definately right. A notion of a common law copyright for unpublished works is perfectly acceptable, but only if strictly limited.
Publication though, really should be distribution that is available to the general public... hell, the word roots ought to make that clear.
Nevertheless, the original poster said: Under US law if you know of a crime but do not act to prevent it, you are considered an accomplice to that crime. This is a _very_ broad statement; it is not one that is limited to the GPL situation we've been discussing here.
And in fact, if you'd bothered to note the identity of the other respondant to my post, it was at least partially retracted! Smagoun agreed that there is no such general rule. At most, a government can pass a law that imposes a duty on a class of individuals, but of course, people outside of that class are exempted.
And the rule in the vast, vast majority of cases is one of no liability for an innocent bystander. I can watch people murder, rape, or steal with impunity if I do nothing to help. (generally -- there's some finer matters involved as well) Likewise, I can watch people die, or be crippled by grevious injury, or suffer mental trauma, and not raise a finger, and that too is acceptable.
After all, much as our initial inclination to require that aid be given beckons to us, there are better reasons to let it alone. For example, one is 'where does it end?' If someone suffers a heart attack on a busy sidewalk, does everyone in the world owe him a duty to perform CPR? What if there's more than one person -- is the 2nd guy to arrive liable for not beating the first to help? Are people on the other side of the street liable? People on the next block? In cars? In buildings? Who are already occupied with other pressing duties?
HOWEVER, I never made the claim that accessories weren't usually civilly or criminally liable! You're bitching at me for something I never said! Your complaints are, I'm afraid, all in your head. What posessed you to post about a total non-issue, I cannot even imagine.
And from someone with a three digit ID... Tsk tsk.
Although it is worth noting that government works, such as statutes, regulations, and opinions are uncopyrightable.
Really? I never heard of this. So you're saying that, if, say, someone rapes me, and the state has a strict liability standard for rape, where I'm not required to resist in order for the rapist to be criminally liable, I'm guilty of my own rape? (because aiding and abetting prior or during the commission of a crime makes one a principal to the crime, liable just as much as the 'main' perpatrator)
Or perhaps a simpler explanation is that you have no idea of what the hell you're talking about. Civilly and criminally, totally innocent bystanders have NO RESPONSIBILITY. Only if you've somehow acted, or have acquired a duty to act which you ignore, are you liable.
Perhaps, but it is difficult to reach a different conclusion of law based upon the findings of facts, and appellate courts rarely ever overturn the trial court's facts.
Well, we like to assume that testimony is truthful by and large... but not necessarily.
The finder of fact -- usually a jury -- will take it upon themselves to decide what actually happened. If, for example, Alice accuses Bob of rape, they may decide to believe Alice and disbelieve Bob, or believe Bob (who may be the only person who can testify in his own defense!) and disbelieve Alice, or find that neither is entirely accurate, and that the reality lies somewhere in between.
They don't have to automatically assume that anything they hear is totally legit. That there's a discrepancy isn't by itself indicative of perjury though, as people's recollections may differ, evidence may be contrary or misleading, etc. Real perjury takes some effort to spot, and may require a lot of opposing evidence.
Still, while you may or may not have to testify in your defense at trial, you certainly might want to if it's important enough! I can't imagine being accused and not even being able to say to a jury that I'm innocent, which is what you propose.
No, you do not need a license to read things you own. You own CDs. You don't own the copyright to the music therein -- that's seperate. Licenses are a very novel, very sneaky, and very useless and dangerous innovation in the realm of publishing. But they're the exception and not the rule... hopefully it'll stay that way.
No, you do own it. You don't own the COPYRIGHT, which is an entirely seperate thing, but you own a copy of the music, insofar as the concept of ownership can even be extended to such a thing.
It's just like books -- you buy books, you own books, you can sell used books (even though it harms the publishing industry and authors) or loan them out, etc.
The whole licensing scam only truly began with software in the 70's because it wasn't copyrighted at the time, and has been criticized as being anachronistic and unecessary for years now. As far as the ordinary person buying music, books, movies or software is concerned, there's essentially no advantage to a EULA-like license.
Too difficult. Writing it in clay, then baking it would work better. ;)
Shit, there's loads of computer stores in that area. If you're looking for cables, try Redmond Cable -- if they don't have it, they will MAKE IT FOR YOU. I got some good, wierd, SCSI cables I needed from them once.
And of course, RePC, in Seattle, south of Safeco Field is awesome for used gear.
It is entirely possible that the designers of bnetd have never played the game. A good cleanroom reverse engineering effort would go through great pains to keep itself in the clear. The enforceability of the license may also be at issue, particularly if the dev team was located in a different country. Contracts aren't enforceable merely because both parties agree to them.
Generally tort damages are compensatory, in this case paying the cost of whatever harm they caused _to the computer, et al_. Which is to say, virtually nothing. Maybe a nominal award of a dollar, just to indicate that it was wrongful.
What anyone looking to pursue this wants are punative damages. That is a hefty award above the amount actually owed, in order to discourage such behavior in the future from both the immediate offender, and from similar potential ones who can imagine themselves getting sued next.
Torts are simply how individual people make people who in some way injured them pay up. It's different from criminal law, where the government seeks to punish someone, but the victim gets nothing.
If I came to your house and broke your leg, it's fair that I should have to pay your doctor's bill. You'd have to sue me under a tort claim of battery to get that money. I don't go to jail however, unless the government wants to pursue me. And if I go to jail and you didn't sue, you get nothing but the satisfaction of knowing I'm locked up.
If I came to your house and broke your TV, it's fair that I should have to pay to replace it. You'd have to sue under a tort claim of conversion.
If I merely bang it up, in such a way that it works, but not very well, I have to pay to get it fixed. You'd sue me under tresspass to chattels. Likewise if I took it and brought it back -- I should owe you for the time it was gone.
This is basically what's being attempted here.
It'll probably work, I just don't imagine it'll work well.
Apparently it does, as per the AOL cites above. And furthermore, in the more commonplace instance where someone interferes with your personal property (e.g. keys your car) trespass to chattels is used to recover damages from that person.
Lots of our law dates back all the way to the Norman Conquest. The _damages_ on the other hand, would merely be however much it costs to repair the harm to the car. Perhaps if this was a person who did this constantly, there'd be some punative damages, though it's a bit unlikely.
Of course, if you take offense to having to use a common law provision that's so old, you're free to pay for it out of your own pocket and let them get off scot-free.
I believe, for example, that much of US property law is derived from English law....
Oh yes. Believe me, you haven't lived until you've had to take a class on property law. There's nothing more fun than tracing out a long hypothetical, working out who has remainders, and who has reversions, and who has executory interests. And God forbid that you should forget that a remainder never follows a fee simple defeasable! Why? Because some English judges in the 16th century or thereabouts said so, that's why! Don't ask stupid questions!
Anyway, when we broke from England, all states, IIRC, passed laws that incorporated the English common law as it existed at that time into the state's law, making it binding precedent. Tresspass to Chattels is a pretty standard law and used frequently. I can't imagine why we wouldn't have it.
I've studied British (and Canadian, and Australian) cases in every class I've taken so far, with the exception of Civil Procedure, which is uniquely American. The general logic is the same in all of the English-speaking countries. I imagine that they do the same with American cases, where they're especially enlightening on a particular subject.
Well, trespass to chattels is still in the Common Law in the US. Given that it is merely the legal right to claim damages from someone who has interfered with or damaged your personal property, I see little that's fundmentally wrong with it. People make claims under this law all the time; it works.
Just because it doesn't date from after the ratification of the Constitution that doesn't make it bad.
Common law can be great stuff, in moderation.
Well, it's legally right. Check out Title 17, Section 117(a)(2) of the United States Code.
And it's morally right. It preserves information, which is a morally good thing in 99.44% of situations.
No, it shouldn't. Were that the case, the ability to make a new derivative work would be ruined. That will not stand.
There's value in being able to take a story like the Odyssey and Illiad, and being able to reuse elements from them in crafting another work -- such as the Aenid. Disney does this all the time. Those guys didn't independently develop Snow White, or Cinderella. Nevertheless, there's value in the new derivative work.
I'm sorely hoping that the Eldritch case will go well so that I can work to create a brand new Mickey Mouse cartoon. He's a good character, you can do some good stuff with him. Disney _isn't_, but what I'd like to see is everyone, including them, doing so.
Like it or not, our cultural icons are locked up in copyright schemes now. We used to have trickster characters like Odysseus, Loki, and Coyote. Now we have Bugs Bunny, and it is impossible for our culture to thrive as it did in the past by retelling and changing the stories about him, like we did with the others since time immemoriable.
The justification -- the sole justification -- for copyright is the benefit reaped by the public, not in mere commerce. The abandonware people are doing the right thing. Were it left to business, our history would be wiped out in order to favor their own positions in the present. It's as bad as strip mining.
Hm, so by that justification, if I made a game that directly competed with Blizzard's, I'd be justified in ordering them to shut down, because they're depriving me of potential profit that I can use to make additional games?
No, potential profit is NOT a factor here. Rather, Blizzard's rights must be actually, not potentially infringed upon. Furthermore, their reactions should be limited to those who have actually performed the offensive act.
Providing an alternative network is analagous to the legal act of manufacturing and selling VCRs, which can be used to watch television legally received, but without watching the ads, which can lead to a deprivation of profit by the broadcaster. Or to devising a computer that can run software as though it were actually made by IBM, even when it is not, depriving IBM of potential revenues for their own, offical computers. Do you find either of these objectionable? Why should this be any different, given that there are demonstrable legitimate uses?
But why? The only particularly interesting thing that sets the C.J. apart is that he sets the assignments for who writes opinions, if he's in that majority. And there are a few functions related to impeachment hearings, and to his circuit.
It's a _nice_ position, I'm sure, but there's little difference between Justices in the way that there are between the President and Vice President.
Is there something else you're thinking of?
Title 17, section 117(a)(2) of the U.S. Code explicitly makes the making of backup copies (plural) legal for the owner of a copy of a piece of software (as distinct from the owner of the copyright).
It's hotly debated as to whether or not EULAs are valid, and could thereby limit it, but there's almost certainly no license here that would impair that natural and unrestricted right.
The issue is whether in order to do that, the user can circumvent a prevention measure, whether the GBA cartridge design qualifies as such a measure, and whether the law is constitutional to begin with.
Fortunately, this case stands a decent chance of playing out in the 9th circuit, and they can be fairly liberal guys.
Who's the future Chief Justice? It's likely not Scalia -- the normal practice is to appoint a new C.J., not to promote anyone from within. Rhenquist is quite unusual in that he used to be an associate justice. That's only happened three or four other times, IIRC.
Oh yes they are. But don't feel too bad -- I'm an artist myself.
Look for the basis of copyright law in the world... and you won't find one. It's not a natural right, like free speech, it's a positive right, created out of whole cloth by governments, if they so choose. The concept wasn't even around until circa 1700.
So each government makes their own law -- where did ours come by? The Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 8. Note the language there -- "to promote the progress of science and useful arts...."
Consider what your goals, as a reader are, and what your goals as an author are, and how both sides might come to an agreement that benefits both alike in ALL respects.
Particularly since authors that aren't especially creative (Shakespeare, Disney) can still be productive by rewriting and reinterpreting existing creative works. In fact, if you _REALLY_ wanted to emphasize creativity, you'd grant property rights in words, and thereby destroy the ability of people to even understand one another.
Creativity is not good in itself. Repetition isn't either. Both both, taken in moderation, may be found useful.
That's why it's a public goal.
Do you want more? When I get rolling people complain about the length of the post, so I'm hesitant to do so.
No, firstly, authors are easily paid prior to the creation of a work. You'll find that this sort of practice was quite commonplace, and in fact still happens. I've done plenty of work on comission.
Secondly, I support copyright law, it is the specific nature of the law at hand that I am concerned with. Copyright is intended to maximize the public goals relating to the progress of our society. The _means_ by which we accomplish this is copyright. Where the means impair the ends, the system is in need of reform.
Frankly, I don't really care how long copyright terms are -- provided that they benefit the public more by being that length, whatever it is, than they would by being even one second shorter or longer. I suspect that this varies depending on the type of work involved, and is typically around 20 years, but I'm open to suggestions.
I don't know about Scalia. This doesn't seem to be one of his pet issues, and his general stance is in, more or less, trying to set the clock back to 1789... when copyrights were minimal.
He might surprise you.