Re: [License-discuss] Golan v. Holder
The Supreme Court long ago made clear that patents and copyrights are a matter of almost unlimited discretion for Congress. The *one* thing the Constitution makes clear about patents and copyrights - that they are to be effective for a limited time - Congress has demonstrated that they do not intend to be limited by, and the Court does not take efforts to make them seriously. They probably wouldn't sit still for Congress completely eliminating Fair Use due to First Amendment concerns, but if they wanted to institute a sweat-of-the-brow doctrine to protect telephone directories tomorrow, the Supremes wouldn't say boo. MW -Original Message- From: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Chris Travers Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 1:28 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Golan v. Holder Is it just me or does Golan more or less read out of the Constitution any functional requirements regarding copyright law and read the copyright/patent clause basically as delegating unlimited power to Congress in this regard? I mean can Congress now start allowing telephone directories to be copyrighted, since we no longer care about promoting the progress of anything? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Golan v. Holder
Chris Travers scripsit: > Is it just me or does Golan more or less read out of the Constitution > any functional requirements regarding copyright law and read the > copyright/patent clause basically as delegating unlimited power to > Congress in this regard? Perhaps not *just* you, but certainly not me. It pretty much follows on Eldred, and whereas I think Eldred was wrongly decided because of its nose-in-the-tent effect, that's not happening here. Why should an Malaysian author receive no protection for his pre-1989 works in the U.S. because his government couldn't be bothered to sign an international copyright agreement? Copyright terms are insanely long and getting longer, but that does not mean they should be applied inequitably. These works only fell into the public domain for essentially technical reasons such as this. > I mean can Congress now start allowing telephone directories to be > copyrighted, since we no longer care about promoting the progress of > anything? The U.K. has the same "utilitarian" view of copyright we do, and yet phone directories are copyrightable there, because they have accepted the sweat-of-the-brow doctrine that our courts rejected. There is still plenty of scope for national law at the boundaries of copyright, even with near-universal Berne applicability. Note to David: You're right, but Larry and I were speaking of U.S. law only. -- You know, you haven't stopped talking John Cowan since I came here. You must have been http://www.ccil.org/~cowan vaccinated with a phonograph needle.co...@ccil.org --Rufus T. Firefly ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Golan v. Holder
John Cowan wrote: EULAs are not copyright licenses: they do not grant the right to copy, distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or prepare derivative works. Whilst that is largely true, it is country dependent. They grant a right to copy within the computer, which is subject to a specific exemption in the US. In the UK the actual right that is infringed is to use the software. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Golan v. Holder
Chad Perrin scripsit: > I don't think that Congress would try to limit licenses to individually > named licensees, though, as someone else suggested. It would destroy > commercial EULAs as surely as it would destroy copyleft licensing. EULAs are not copyright licenses: they do not grant the right to copy, distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or prepare derivative works. -- With techies, I've generally found John Cowan If your arguments lose the first round http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Make it rhyme, make it scan co...@ccil.org Then you generally can Make the same stupid point seem profound! --Jonathan Robie ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Golan v. Holder
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:28:24PM -0800, Chris Travers wrote: > > Is it just me or does Golan more or less read out of the Constitution > any functional requirements regarding copyright law and read the > copyright/patent clause basically as delegating unlimited power to > Congress in this regard? I mean can Congress now start allowing > telephone directories to be copyrighted, since we no longer care about > promoting the progress of anything? That's what Congress and the Supreme Court have a tendency toward doing over generational drift in every respect -- copyrights, patents, interstate commerce, eminent domain, and so on. This should come as no surprise by now. I don't think that Congress would try to limit licenses to individually named licensees, though, as someone else suggested. It would destroy commercial EULAs as surely as it would destroy copyleft licensing. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Golan v. Holder
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Colleagues, > > > > I commend for your reading pleasure the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Golan > v. Holder, 565 U. S. (2012), which holds broadly that Congress can > restore the copyrights of works previously in the public domain in order to > conform to the requirements of the Berne Convention. > > > > See http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf and 17 U.S.C. > 104A. This 6-2 decision was written by the court's copyright expert, Justice > Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It relies heavily on the court's earlier decision in > Eldred v. Ashcroft, which some of you may remember from a few years ago and > which affirmed Congressional power to extend copyright terms. > > > > Besides being a well-written summary of the purposes of copyright and the > balance struck by copyright law, the Golan decision emphasizes again for us > that the public domain isn't quite as safe as licenses. Is it just me or does Golan more or less read out of the Constitution any functional requirements regarding copyright law and read the copyright/patent clause basically as delegating unlimited power to Congress in this regard? I mean can Congress now start allowing telephone directories to be copyrighted, since we no longer care about promoting the progress of anything? Best Wishes. Chris Travers ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Golan v. Holder
Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > Besides being a well-written summary of the purposes of copyright and the > balance struck by copyright law, the Golan decision emphasizes again for us > that the public domain isn't quite as safe as licenses. If it comes to that, Congress could change the law to say that all copyright licenses are invalid unless the licensees are specific named legal persons. That would pretty much destroy the whole FOSS movement. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan One time I called in to the central system and started working on a big thick 'sed' and 'awk' heavy duty data bashing script. One of the geologists came by, looked over my shoulder and said 'Oh, that happens to me too. Try hanging up and phoning in again.' --Beverly Erlebacher ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
