...if the inheritance rate is 20% and the work has 10 years left of copyright, that length should be reduced to only 8 years.
The only problem with this is that the current term is the life of the author + 70 years, so there will always be 70 years left on the copyright when the author dies. Even if the term is taxed down to 50 years, with 20 year extensions every 20 years it will still never expire.
The Constitution permits Congress to secure exclusive rights to authors for limited times.
Since when is 100+ years with 20 year extensions every 20 years "limited"? If the term of copyright is going to be extended another 20 years every time the copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire, then the term is for all practical purposes forever. Or is this just a gimmick congress is using to get around the "limited" clause and still have eternal copyright?
I say they should revert back to the original term of copyright for 14 years, and charge a fee that cubes every time the holder wants to extend it. $10 for the first extension, $1000 for the second, $1 billion for the third...
How far back does this robbery of the public domain extend? All the way back to Adam and Eve? And does this include recorded music, out-of-print books, magazines, newspapers, personal letters, and things donated to the public domain too?
t doesn't do the public any good (they can't hear the music), it doesn't do the performers any good (they can no longer afford to play the music), it doesn't do the composers any good (they're all dead anyway), it doesn't help the heirs (they'll get only pennies), it doesn't do arrangers any good (it's now illegal to make new arrangements), it even hurts the movie industry because there are now no previous works they can build new or derivative works on (they're all locked up under copyright).
All this law is going to accomplish is to turn a vast array of classics into orphaned works, to be locked away and lost forever. Everybody loses, nobody wins.
What the **** does Monster Cable define a "rouge site" as?
Monster Cable has been a troll ever since I knew there was such a thing as Monster Cable. They've sued everything and everybody from a Mom and Pop clothing store to Walt Disney for using the bare word "Monster" in some commercial context. For Disney it was because the title of the movie, "Monsters Inc." And now they're wanting to shut down what they consider to be "rogue sites" - and for what? and on what legal basis?
Somebody needs to serve a cease and desist order on Monster Cable for filing frivolous lawsuits!
Re: Re: Re: Transcript of the Supreme Court's Golan v. Holder argument.
There should be a law against forum shopping. I believe this is how a lot of bad precedents get their start. Look for a judge who will give you just what you want, no matter how unreasonable it is, and, Voila! Bad precedent. And no matter how hard you try, you can't get rid of it.
It's all about greed and always has been. The entertainment industry isn't satisfied with just their share, they want it all. Pretty soon they'll be suing us for infringement for having friends over to watch a movie (publicly displaying) and/or for playing a DVD more than one time. And the term of copyright will be forever.
Greed knows no limits. It is insatiable. It cannot be satisfied. The more a greedy person gets, the more he wants. J. Getty I think it was, then the richest man in the world, was once asked, if he could have anything in the world he wanted, what would it be? His reply:"More money."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
Only that's not illegal, dumbass.
It's a civil offense.
If this be so, how come every DVD you play displays a warning notice that you can get up to five years in prison and a zillion dollar fine for infringing the producer's copyright?
Vandalia Heritage Foundation can claim copyright on their own photos, but not on somebody else's. The copyright on anyone else's photos belongs to whoever took the pictures.
As to the trespassing charge, maybe he took the interior pictures through a broken window, and didn't go inside at all. Besides, does Vandalia own the building? If not I don't see where they have any standing to bring trespassing charges.
Claiming rights not granted by copyright law is copyright abuse, and is a prosecutable crime just as much as infringing someone else's copyright.
I thought stuff that was already in the public domain was not patentable. If these diagnostic procedures whoever is patenting are already in the public domain and have been in use for over a year, then this is prior art which can be used to invalidate the patent. Otherwise everybody could patent everything under the sun and the whole economy would melt down in a sea of patent litigation while only the lawyers would get rich.
Oh! It's already happening. Just one more manifestation of the greed that seems to be sweeping the world. "I want it all, and you can't have any of it," seems to be the prevailing attitude.
But who says they will only award the minimum in a default? He/she might just let go with one of those $150K rounds, or maybe a $1.5M daisy cutter. Remember Jammie Thomas?
She was a lobbyist for the RIAA? Judging copyright cases? A very big conflict of interest, indeed.
I guess next they'll start suing people for infringement for playing copyrighted music at a private party or watching copyrighted movies with friends over.
I wonder... are private letters now covered by copyright, seeing anything reduced to any kind of fixed medium (baby scribbles on the wall) is automatically copyright? You can be sued for infringement for reading a letter from your mum?
Right on. If legislators keep extending the term of copyright to infinity no more works will ever enter the public domain unless explicitly donated, the media they are recorded on will rot to dust, the works will be lost forever and all others will be denied the opportunity to build on them. (One of the ways which culture is shaped is by building on the works of others once they are in the public domain.)
Thus all culture will ultimately become whatever the labels/authors dictate it will be, and the rest will be lost forever.
(Oh, we still have Edison cylinder records, if anyone can find them and something to play them on. They've been donated to the public domain. Not much else has.)
Can the labels or anyone else seize and put their copyright on stuff that has been explicitly donated to the public domain? I'm sure they would if they could.
@TAC: Do you have any details of the EU's retroactive extension of copyrights and sacking of the public domain? I have heard about it but have not seen any details concerning this action, other than that the extension of time was 20 years.
Copyrights, as originally established, were for a limited time -- I believe for 14 years with one optional renewal -- to give the authors of the copyrighted works a chance to benefit from them. Now with the term of copyright being extended backwards and forwards every time someone's copyright is about to expire, copyrights will never expire and the term of copyright will be de facto forever. What's your opinion on this?
Shades of Monster Cable suing anybody and everybody who used the generic work "Monster" in any kind of commercial context. They even sued Disney over the movie, "Monsters Inc."
On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Copyright to... heirs?
The only problem with this is that the current term is the life of the author + 70 years, so there will always be 70 years left on the copyright when the author dies. Even if the term is taxed down to 50 years, with 20 year extensions every 20 years it will still never expire.
On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since when is 100+ years with 20 year extensions every 20 years "limited"? If the term of copyright is going to be extended another 20 years every time the copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire, then the term is for all practical purposes forever. Or is this just a gimmick congress is using to get around the "limited" clause and still have eternal copyright?
I say they should revert back to the original term of copyright for 14 years, and charge a fee that cubes every time the holder wants to extend it. $10 for the first extension, $1000 for the second, $1 billion for the third...
On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain
Kidnap of the Public Domain
t doesn't do the public any good (they can't hear the music), it doesn't do the performers any good (they can no longer afford to play the music), it doesn't do the composers any good (they're all dead anyway), it doesn't help the heirs (they'll get only pennies), it doesn't do arrangers any good (it's now illegal to make new arrangements), it even hurts the movie industry because there are now no previous works they can build new or derivative works on (they're all locked up under copyright).
All this law is going to accomplish is to turn a vast array of classics into orphaned works, to be locked away and lost forever. Everybody loses, nobody wins.
On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain
Re STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!
On the post: Monster Cable Claims EBay, Craigslist, Costco & Sears Are 'Rogue Sites'
Re: Copyright maximalists
Ultimately they'll reap what they have sown.
On the post: Monster Cable Claims EBay, Craigslist, Costco & Sears Are 'Rogue Sites'
Monster Cable = Monster troll
Monster Cable has been a troll ever since I knew there was such a thing as Monster Cable. They've sued everything and everybody from a Mom and Pop clothing store to Walt Disney for using the bare word "Monster" in some commercial context. For Disney it was because the title of the movie, "Monsters Inc." And now they're wanting to shut down what they consider to be "rogue sites" - and for what? and on what legal basis?
Somebody needs to serve a cease and desist order on Monster Cable for filing frivolous lawsuits!
On the post: Hollywood Applauds The Destruction Of The Public Domain... Even As Hollywood Exists Thanks To The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Transcript of the Supreme Court's Golan v. Holder argument.
On the post: Hollywood Applauds The Destruction Of The Public Domain... Even As Hollywood Exists Thanks To The Public Domain
End of the public domain
Greed knows no limits. It is insatiable. It cannot be satisfied. The more a greedy person gets, the more he wants. J. Getty I think it was, then the richest man in the world, was once asked, if he could have anything in the world he wanted, what would it be? His reply:"More money."
On the post: Owners Of Old, Abandoned Hotel Threaten Guy Who Photographed It With Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
So? They're his pictures, not Vandalia's. He has the legal right to do whatever he wants with them.
On the post: Owners Of Old, Abandoned Hotel Threaten Guy Who Photographed It With Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
If this be so, how come every DVD you play displays a warning notice that you can get up to five years in prison and a zillion dollar fine for infringing the producer's copyright?
On the post: Owners Of Old, Abandoned Hotel Threaten Guy Who Photographed It With Copyright Infringement
Re:
As to the trespassing charge, maybe he took the interior pictures through a broken window, and didn't go inside at all. Besides, does Vandalia own the building? If not I don't see where they have any standing to bring trespassing charges.
Claiming rights not granted by copyright law is copyright abuse, and is a prosecutable crime just as much as infringing someone else's copyright.
On the post: Do Patents On Medical Diagnostics Violate The First Amendment?
Patenting stuff in the public domain
Oh! It's already happening. Just one more manifestation of the greed that seems to be sweeping the world. "I want it all, and you can't have any of it," seems to be the prevailing attitude.
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re: Re:
(Sarcasm)
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re: Re:
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Lobbyist for the RIAA?
I guess next they'll start suing people for infringement for playing copyrighted music at a private party or watching copyrighted movies with friends over.
I wonder... are private letters now covered by copyright, seeing anything reduced to any kind of fixed medium (baby scribbles on the wall) is automatically copyright? You can be sued for infringement for reading a letter from your mum?
Yes, I'm being sarcastic.
On the post: EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain, Retroactively Extends Copyright
Re: real purpose of copyright law
Thus all culture will ultimately become whatever the labels/authors dictate it will be, and the rest will be lost forever.
(Oh, we still have Edison cylinder records, if anyone can find them and something to play them on. They've been donated to the public domain. Not much else has.)
On the post: EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain, Retroactively Extends Copyright
Extending copyright
On the post: That Anonymous Coward's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
Copyrights, as originally established, were for a limited time -- I believe for 14 years with one optional renewal -- to give the authors of the copyrighted works a chance to benefit from them. Now with the term of copyright being extended backwards and forwards every time someone's copyright is about to expire, copyrights will never expire and the term of copyright will be de facto forever. What's your opinion on this?
On the post: Summit Entertainment Sues Guy Who Registered Twilight.com In 1994 For Trademark Infringement
Trademark infringement?
On the post: If Your Business Strategy Relies On Suing Others, You're Not A Business, You're A Leech On The System
Re: propaganda
Hey! Let's cut the ad hominem attacks, please.
Next >>