Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
That doesn't even have to explicitly be for anything 'concocted' within our borders? Re-Copyright shake
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Carr
United States
Barre
Vermont
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gulp

sauron
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
To be fair, the Court ruled this way because they felt that while works being in the public domain is important, that shouldn't trump international treaties.

Quote:
The court, however, was sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ argument. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Ginsburg said “some restriction on expression is the inherent and intended effect of every grant of copyright.” But the top court, with Justice Elena Kagan recused, said Congress’ move to re-copyright the works to comport with an international treaty was more important.

For a variety of reasons, the works at issue, which are foreign and produced decades ago, became part of the public domain in the United States but were still copyrighted overseas. In 1994, Congress adopted legislation to move the works back into copyright, so U.S. policy would comport with an international copyright treaty known as the Berne Convention.....

.....The majority, however, rebuffed charges that a decision in favor of Congress’ move would amount to affording lawmakers the right to legislate perpetual copyright terms.

“In aligning the United States with other nations bound by the Berne Convention, and thereby according equitable treatment to once disfavored foreign authors, Congress can hardly be charged with a design to move stealthily toward a regime of perpetual copyrights,” Ginsburg wrote.


From Groggy's link above in Wired Magazine online.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright...

What this does is to merely underscore the need for the US and the rest of GATT to come to some sort of comprehensive agreement over IP and copyright protections.

Darilian

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Montgomery
United States
Joliet
Illinois
flag msg tools
Dear Geek: Please insert the wittiest comment you can think of in this text pop-up. Then times it by seven.
badge
The Coat of Arms of Clan Montgomery - Scotland. Yes, that's a woman with the head of a savage in her hand, and an anchor. No clue what it means, but it's cool.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I can see the two competing interests, here, but when our Supreme Court has upheld "life of the author plus 95 years" laws as "not unlimited as to time" just to make sure Mickey Mouse doesn't enter the public domain, we have much larger things to worry about in the copyright sphere. As usual, the guys with the money are calling the shots.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Schroth
United States
Middletown
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
To be fair, the Court ruled this way because they felt that while works being in the public domain is important, that shouldn't trump international treaties.

Quote:
The court, however, was sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ argument. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Ginsburg said “some restriction on expression is the inherent and intended effect of every grant of copyright.” But the top court, with Justice Elena Kagan recused, said Congress’ move to re-copyright the works to comport with an international treaty was more important.

For a variety of reasons, the works at issue, which are foreign and produced decades ago, became part of the public domain in the United States but were still copyrighted overseas. In 1994, Congress adopted legislation to move the works back into copyright, so U.S. policy would comport with an international copyright treaty known as the Berne Convention.....

.....The majority, however, rebuffed charges that a decision in favor of Congress’ move would amount to affording lawmakers the right to legislate perpetual copyright terms.

“In aligning the United States with other nations bound by the Berne Convention, and thereby according equitable treatment to once disfavored foreign authors, Congress can hardly be charged with a design to move stealthily toward a regime of perpetual copyrights,” Ginsburg wrote.


From Groggy's link above in Wired Magazine online.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright...

What this does is to merely underscore the need for the US and the rest of GATT to come to some sort of comprehensive agreement over IP and copyright protections.

Darilian



The copyright clause gives Congress the power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by granting copyrights. It does NOT give Congress the power "to make international treaties easier to work out" by granting copyrights. So no matter how much Congress might want to agree to this treaty, the Constitution does not give them that power. It is the supreme law of the land, overriding any treaties. And the Constitution makes it explicitly clear than any copyright laws must have the purpose of "promoting science and useful Arts".

Since the works in question have already been created, granting them a new copyright can do nothing to promote their creation. It's like paying someone for doing a job that has already been done for free.

I'm not exactly shocked at this ruling, since if SCOTUS had any clue about the copyright clause they would have struck down all of the many retroactive copyright extensions for the same reasons. They lack even a basic understanding of the purpose of copyright.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Montgomery
United States
Joliet
Illinois
flag msg tools
Dear Geek: Please insert the wittiest comment you can think of in this text pop-up. Then times it by seven.
badge
The Coat of Arms of Clan Montgomery - Scotland. Yes, that's a woman with the head of a savage in her hand, and an anchor. No clue what it means, but it's cool.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually, believe it or not, there is ample case law to suggest that a treaty (which only requires the White House and the Senate to ratify) could actually trump our own laws and statutes. As a rule, Congress tries to keep the two in congruence, as in this case.

Whether a given action by the government is constitutional or not is, of course, left to the SCOTUS - but IIR my Constitutional Law classes correctly, treaties - whether they follow our existing laws or not - are binding on the United States despite any of our laws to the contrary. I remember specifically discussing in class if that meant that a treaty could be a President's way around the House of Representatives, an eventuality that thankfully remains hypothetical.

I think our intellectual property protections have gotten way out of hand, personally. The idea is to protect the U.S.'s most valuable asset (IP)from international pilfering. The problem is that all these laws and treaties meant to protect our nation's intellectual property have a two-fold negative effect: (1) it ends up punishing our own citizens far more often than actually protecting our IP overseas, and (2) these treaties will come back to bite us in the a$$ one day when we are no longer the world's powerhouse of intellectual property.

The purpose behind patents and copyrights is that the government needs to encourage the creation of art, invention, and other intangible but important advancements. By protecting a creator's art or invention for a *limited time*, creators and inventors will more freely experiment and develop inventions that they own a monopoly on for a short time, allowing them to profit - but the arrangement is a bargain: we as a society say "Create this thing for us and we will protect your interests to let you make money; however, what you have to do for us is to release it to public ownerships within a given period of time so that we can all enjoy your invention."

The last part of the agreement is not coming to fruition: the owners keep successfully lobbying Congress to extend the time periods. Copyrights used to be life of the author plus 15 years, I think. Where this as worked out relatively well are drug companies - Claritin being a recent example.

The true idea Constitutionally is that Congress should provide *just enough* incentive to encourage the creation of works and inventions that otherwise would not be created or invented without some type of protections. After a time period, those works and inventions then become freely useable by all (serving a public good and encouraging further works and inventions based on the prior ones). Can anyone argue that any copyrighted work would not have been created without a 95 year protection? Such an argument approaches ridiculousness.

What is happening now is that the patent and copyright laws are being used to STIFLE creativity and invention because the owners of the patents and copyrights want to continue to profit off their works in perpetuity, when that was NEVER the promise or plan to begin with. Wait and see . . . this treaty is an end-run around U.S. copyright law: these companies will copyright their works in another, more friendly country, and bring the work back over here and claim the treaty as their perpetual protection regardless of what U.S. copyright laws have to say about it.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Schroth
United States
Middletown
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
cmontgo2 wrote:
Actually, believe it or not, there is ample case law to suggest that a treaty (which only requires the White House and the Senate to ratify) could actually trump our own laws and statutes. As a rule, Congress tries to keep the two in congruence, as in this case.

Whether a given action by the government is constitutional or not is, of course, left to the SCOTUS - but IIR my Constitutional Law classes correctly, treaties - whether they follow our existing laws or not - are binding on the United States despite any of our laws to the contrary. I remember specifically discussing in class if that meant that a treaty could be a President's way around the House of Representatives, an eventuality that thankfully remains hypothetical.


Please note that I said treaties cannot override the Constitution, not that they cannot override our laws. So if we signed a treaty that said we would start imprisoning people for speaking out against the King of Thailand (he's notoriously sensitive about that sort of thing) it would not be binding, because it would go against the Constitutional right to free speech. Likewise, this treaty should meet the same fate, because it goes against the copyright clause (and goes against the 1st amendment too). But when the body in charge of determining if something is Constitutional or not is determined to ignore this, it doesn't really matter.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Montgomery
United States
Joliet
Illinois
flag msg tools
Dear Geek: Please insert the wittiest comment you can think of in this text pop-up. Then times it by seven.
badge
The Coat of Arms of Clan Montgomery - Scotland. Yes, that's a woman with the head of a savage in her hand, and an anchor. No clue what it means, but it's cool.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BagelManB wrote:
cmontgo2 wrote:
Actually, believe it or not, there is ample case law to suggest that a treaty (which only requires the White House and the Senate to ratify) could actually trump our own laws and statutes. As a rule, Congress tries to keep the two in congruence, as in this case.

Whether a given action by the government is constitutional or not is, of course, left to the SCOTUS - but IIR my Constitutional Law classes correctly, treaties - whether they follow our existing laws or not - are binding on the United States despite any of our laws to the contrary. I remember specifically discussing in class if that meant that a treaty could be a President's way around the House of Representatives, an eventuality that thankfully remains hypothetical.


Please note that I said treaties cannot override the Constitution, not that they cannot override our laws. So if we signed a treaty that said we would start imprisoning people for speaking out against the King of Thailand (he's notoriously sensitive about that sort of thing) it would not be binding, because it would go against the Constitutional right to free speech. Likewise, this treaty should meet the same fate, because it goes against the copyright clause (and goes against the 1st amendment too). But when the body in charge of determining if something is Constitutional or not is determined to ignore this, it doesn't really matter.


We're saying the same thing.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Schroth
United States
Middletown
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
cmontgo2 wrote:


We're saying the same thing.


If you didn't feel you were posting information that went against what I'm saying, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you prefaced it with "Actually, believe it or not".
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Montgomery
United States
Joliet
Illinois
flag msg tools
Dear Geek: Please insert the wittiest comment you can think of in this text pop-up. Then times it by seven.
badge
The Coat of Arms of Clan Montgomery - Scotland. Yes, that's a woman with the head of a savage in her hand, and an anchor. No clue what it means, but it's cool.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BagelManB wrote:
cmontgo2 wrote:


We're saying the same thing.


If you didn't feel you were posting information that went against what I'm saying, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you prefaced it with "Actually, believe it or not".


You didn't talk about how SCOTUS actually decides what is and is not constitutional, so I threw that into the post - along with some vague memories of a Con Law class about end-running the House of Representatives. I really don't want to debate or defend why I used a transitional phrase, though. Sorry.

Edit: BTW, it wasn't my intention to have come across snarky or uppity in any of my posts . . . so apologies if that's the way it came across.

For anyone wanting to know more about the treaty provisions of the U.S. Constitution, there is an excellent (if a bit dated) article on it that really lays out the background behind the theory that a treaty might actually trump the U.S. Constitution - ironically enough, no Supreme Court case has ever held one way or the other on the issue . . .

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.