Justice Elena Kagan recused, said Congress’ move to re-copyright the works to comport with an international treaty was more important
I am really tired of the arguments that sacrifice sovereignty for globalist endeavors. Our laws are supposed to provide a framework of government for American people and businesses, not ensure the rights of foreign works. The rights of US citizens should be the foremost concern of a US legislator and when it comes to satisfying a treaty compromising those rights the treaty or international precedence should be thrown out the window. I feel like I am now living in bizarro world where no right is safe. I mean the fact that public domain, the resting place for IP is no longer the end of the line is about as strange an interpretation of public domain as one could come up with. They are laying the same groundwork for this international treaty argument on gun rights as well.
The rights of US citizens should be the foremost concern of a US legislator and when it comes to satisfying a treaty compromising those rights the treaty or international precedence should be thrown out the window.
Article VI of the Constitution explicitly disagrees with you: "[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In other words, the sovereignty was explicitly sacrificed when the treaty was entered into-- and that's the way the Framers intended it.
Well, first of all, the justices are not legislators, they belong to the judicial branch whose job it is to interpret and apply the law that exists. Including treaties that have been signed.
Interesting issue. I wonder if it would be possible for a country to set up an extremely long copyright term (with a huge administrative fee) that would have to be respected under US law (and other adopters of the treaty).
I'm sure many music/movie studios and authors would gladly pay $100K to copyright each of their works internationally for 500 years...
Creative thinking, but I'd have to disagree with your conclusion. The present value of the additional years of copyright would be very low, especially taking into account 1. the probability that the work will still be a source of value 100 years (not the exact number, but for the sake of argument) in the future and 2.The possibility of changes in the local jurisdiction or US law over that time.
Your idea would mean paying 100k for the possibility of receiving some additional value 100 years in the future. The first 100 years of value are already protected under US law.
tl;dr; There are some foreign works that are still copyrighted overseas, but the copyright has expired in the US. This ruling allows the Congress to reinstate the copyrights for particular works so that the copyrights apply for the full length of their term in the local country that they were originally created/copyrighted in.
Is there any limit to what it does past this? If the intention is to fit in with the worldwide agreement by doing what you describe, it should be written in a way that it can't be used to extend Mickey Mouse's protection or something shortly before it.
What surprised me most about the article is that Lawrence Golan, one of the plaintiffs, implied that his orchestra had not been paying licensing fees for works by Prokofiev and Shostakovich. Are they really playing from unedited copies of the original manuscript?
For those unfamiliar, in the classical music world, musicians almost always play from editions of the original work. Those editions are eligible for copyright protection as derivative works of the original. As a result, if you perform a Kalmus edition of a work by Bach, you would owe Kalmus royalties, even though the original work by Bach is in the public domain.
Obviously, since much of the classical music repertoire was composed before 1923, anyone is free to make their own editions of popular works, provided they have access to the actual original. In practice, however, very few do. This is because creating a definitive edition of a musical work without misprints is painstaking work that requires considerable amounts of time and expertise.
While we can argue about whether the benefits from said restriction are worth the costs, it's clearly the case that copyright is intended to restrict expression and necessarily does so.
That quote is a perfectly accurate statement of what the Constitution says. Copyright inherently restricts freedom of expression, to the extent that reproducing work is a form of expression. The Framers wrote both the Copyright Clause and the 1st Amendment into the Constitution and left the courts to balance the two clauses, which is exactly what happened here.
That is utter insanity. And only two Justices understand. This is a dark day for the U.S., and the vast majority of the population neither knows nor cares.
(US Citizen) The title of this post is a bit misleading and I'm having a hard time seeing why there's a problem or disagreement here.
The ruling was specifically focused on foreign works as they relate to the Berne Convention. This international treaty binds signatory nations to the copyright protections provided in countries where the original art was created. It would apply to both US copyright holders to protect their works abroad and foreign copyright holders where their works are used here.
The Wikipedia page on the Berne Convention has some really interesting facts on this treaty and you should read it before voicing opposition to the SCOTUS ruling or claiming "American Exceptionalism" is being run over by a truck. This is not a bad ruling and the 6-2 vote suggests 1 judge appointed by a liberal President agrees with the argument. Ne, if you get into the opinion (link below) you'll find that two conservative appointees dissented while the remaining justices agreed (sans Kagan who recused). The point is that this was hardly a "party line" or ideological divide.
Before the Berne Convention, national copyright laws usually only applied for works created within each country. Consequently, a work published in United Kingdom (UK) by a British national would be covered by copyright there, but could be copied and sold by anyone in France. Likewise, a work published in France by a French national could be copyrighted there, but could be copied and sold by anyone in the UK. Dutch publisher Albertus Willem Sijthoff, who rose to prominence in the trade of translated books, wrote to Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands in 1899 in opposition to the convention over concerns that its international restrictions would stifle the country's print industry.
The United States initially refused to become a party to the Convention, since that would have required major changes in its copyright law, particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of the general requirement for registration of copyright works and elimination of mandatory copyright notice. This led to the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952 to accommodate the wishes of the United States. But on March 1, 1989, the U.S. Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 was enacted, and the United States Senate ratified the treaty, making the U.S. a party to the Berne Convention, and making the Universal Copyright Convention nearly obsolete.
Editorial. I believe in American exceptionalism on a number of fronts including some trade issues. But, the notion that any individual or group of people from one country can merely disregard the copyrights of and profit from works created in another is ludicrous. I feel bad for the plantiffs -- the orchestra members who brought the suit. They have been treated unfair, not by the SCOTUS, but by a general failure of US enforcement of foreign copyright as provided by the treaty.
My main problem with the way that copyright law has been "harmonized" between different countries is that the "harmonization" is always done by increasing the copyright restrictions of the freer country, rather than by loosening the copyright restrictions of the less-free country. It's like a ratchet, always pushing for more and longer copyright restrictions.
I'm a bit puzzled by the reasoning, though. "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."
OK so they made their decision on the basis of there being a treaty... Does this mean that any time you want to sidestep an actual examination of the merits of an argument in the Supreme Court you just need to ensure there's an international treaty in your favour? How does the US become party to a treaty, in any case? I'm guessing it has something to do with Congress. This seems like a bit of circular reasoning.
Berne convention only constrains a life+50 copyright. For example, in Canada (signee of the Berne convention), Prokofiev (dead 1953)'s works are in the public domain.
So why would Berne convention force USA to remove "Peter and the Wolf" from public domain?
Justice Breyer can’t by any reasonable measure be described as a “conservative” Justice relative to the current Court, and “conservative appointee” is a pretty useless (or in this case grossly misleading) label.
While this might be frustrating on the surface, this is exactly the sort of thing that should be decided by the lawmakers. You might personally dislike what the US legislative branch has become, but if you follow that it is acting in the interests of the citizens who elected them, this is the correct decision.
I beg to differ, the Constitution clearly specifies why copyright should exist: "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."
How does retroactively adding copyright to public domain works in anyway "promote" it's already been accomplished. This the same argument that was used Eldred vs. Ashcroft where this argument also failed. It was a bad ruling then and it's a bad ruling now.
If we want to have this decided by the lawmakers then we should amend the Constitution to grant this power.
Copyright terms should be reduced to the original 14 years, if not less, retroactively. Copyrights should be non-renewable. Obtaining copyright should require registering each work with the copyright office. There should be an annual fee for maintaining a copyright that is proportional to the revenue received from the copyright. There should additionally be stiff penalties for asserting copyright when you do not actually have it.
[+] [-] kls|14 years ago|reply
I am really tired of the arguments that sacrifice sovereignty for globalist endeavors. Our laws are supposed to provide a framework of government for American people and businesses, not ensure the rights of foreign works. The rights of US citizens should be the foremost concern of a US legislator and when it comes to satisfying a treaty compromising those rights the treaty or international precedence should be thrown out the window. I feel like I am now living in bizarro world where no right is safe. I mean the fact that public domain, the resting place for IP is no longer the end of the line is about as strange an interpretation of public domain as one could come up with. They are laying the same groundwork for this international treaty argument on gun rights as well.
[+] [-] michael_dorfman|14 years ago|reply
Article VI of the Constitution explicitly disagrees with you: "[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In other words, the sovereignty was explicitly sacrificed when the treaty was entered into-- and that's the way the Framers intended it.
[+] [-] Volpe|14 years ago|reply
Can anyone from the US really make this point with a straight face.
A little hypocritical to say the least.
[+] [-] EGreg|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dreamux|14 years ago|reply
I'm sure many music/movie studios and authors would gladly pay $100K to copyright each of their works internationally for 500 years...
[+] [-] akikuchi|14 years ago|reply
Your idea would mean paying 100k for the possibility of receiving some additional value 100 years in the future. The first 100 years of value are already protected under US law.
[+] [-] dangero|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tobylane|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esonderegger|14 years ago|reply
For those unfamiliar, in the classical music world, musicians almost always play from editions of the original work. Those editions are eligible for copyright protection as derivative works of the original. As a result, if you perform a Kalmus edition of a work by Bach, you would owe Kalmus royalties, even though the original work by Bach is in the public domain.
Obviously, since much of the classical music repertoire was composed before 1923, anyone is free to make their own editions of popular works, provided they have access to the actual original. In practice, however, very few do. This is because creating a definitive edition of a musical work without misprints is painstaking work that requires considerable amounts of time and expertise.
[+] [-] ndefinite|14 years ago|reply
Justice Ruth Ginsburg said “some restriction on expression is the inherent and intended effect of every grant of copyright.”
[+] [-] anamax|14 years ago|reply
While we can argue about whether the benefits from said restriction are worth the costs, it's clearly the case that copyright is intended to restrict expression and necessarily does so.
[+] [-] rayiner|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jellicle|14 years ago|reply
It's all up to Lessig now.
[+] [-] flyt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] B0Z|14 years ago|reply
The ruling was specifically focused on foreign works as they relate to the Berne Convention. This international treaty binds signatory nations to the copyright protections provided in countries where the original art was created. It would apply to both US copyright holders to protect their works abroad and foreign copyright holders where their works are used here.
The Wikipedia page on the Berne Convention has some really interesting facts on this treaty and you should read it before voicing opposition to the SCOTUS ruling or claiming "American Exceptionalism" is being run over by a truck. This is not a bad ruling and the 6-2 vote suggests 1 judge appointed by a liberal President agrees with the argument. Ne, if you get into the opinion (link below) you'll find that two conservative appointees dissented while the remaining justices agreed (sans Kagan who recused). The point is that this was hardly a "party line" or ideological divide.
The official opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf
Some worthy quotations from the Wikipedia page found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protec...
Before the Berne Convention, national copyright laws usually only applied for works created within each country. Consequently, a work published in United Kingdom (UK) by a British national would be covered by copyright there, but could be copied and sold by anyone in France. Likewise, a work published in France by a French national could be copyrighted there, but could be copied and sold by anyone in the UK. Dutch publisher Albertus Willem Sijthoff, who rose to prominence in the trade of translated books, wrote to Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands in 1899 in opposition to the convention over concerns that its international restrictions would stifle the country's print industry.
The United States initially refused to become a party to the Convention, since that would have required major changes in its copyright law, particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of the general requirement for registration of copyright works and elimination of mandatory copyright notice. This led to the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952 to accommodate the wishes of the United States. But on March 1, 1989, the U.S. Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 was enacted, and the United States Senate ratified the treaty, making the U.S. a party to the Berne Convention, and making the Universal Copyright Convention nearly obsolete.
Editorial. I believe in American exceptionalism on a number of fronts including some trade issues. But, the notion that any individual or group of people from one country can merely disregard the copyrights of and profit from works created in another is ludicrous. I feel bad for the plantiffs -- the orchestra members who brought the suit. They have been treated unfair, not by the SCOTUS, but by a general failure of US enforcement of foreign copyright as provided by the treaty.
Just my $0.02
[+] [-] surrealize|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lusr|14 years ago|reply
OK so they made their decision on the basis of there being a treaty... Does this mean that any time you want to sidestep an actual examination of the merits of an argument in the Supreme Court you just need to ensure there's an international treaty in your favour? How does the US become party to a treaty, in any case? I'm guessing it has something to do with Congress. This seems like a bit of circular reasoning.
[+] [-] tallanvor|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ernesth|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|14 years ago|reply
So James Joyce should be PD in the US this year! Good news!
[+] [-] jacobolus|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] turbulence|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] casca|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dantheman|14 years ago|reply
How does retroactively adding copyright to public domain works in anyway "promote" it's already been accomplished. This the same argument that was used Eldred vs. Ashcroft where this argument also failed. It was a bad ruling then and it's a bad ruling now.
If we want to have this decided by the lawmakers then we should amend the Constitution to grant this power.
[+] [-] 1010011010|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markbao|14 years ago|reply