Internet Archive Loses Copyright Fight 412
tiltowait writes "As reported on LISNews.com, the Internet Archive has lost a copyright lawsuit which challenged the Congressional lengthening of copyright terms and conditions. The ruling has implications for abandonware and other copyright-eligible materials that have no active owner. Brewster Kahle plans to appeal the decision." The decision is available. As we noted in an earlier story, the Eldred case challenged the length of copyright expansion, this one challenged the breadth, and so far, this one is going about as well as the Eldred case did. Stanford has an overview of the case.
Google's cache next? (Score:5, Interesting)
Creative Commons (Score:2, Interesting)
Constitutional Amendment? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps slashdot (readers)could hatch a plot to make this happen. (Perhaps I'm dreaming.)
Some states provide for direct democracy by ballot initiative; other states will require more work. (Sounds like a hackers challenge to me.)
Revisit the TripsForJudges website and ... (Score:1, Interesting)
But if it's abandonware.... (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Eldred vs. Ashcroft said this, so we can't overturn that, try to go to the Supreme Court.
2) People live longer now so copyrights should last longer (for kids and such)
3) Congress carefully considers the meaning of "promotes the progress of arts and science" every time they extend this
4) Technology increases the amount of time a given work is "valuable", (tell that to the RIAA, or anyone using an old version of Windows) and thus extending the copyright gives authors even more of an incentive to create.
My question though is that since all charges are "dismissed with prejudice" is there any grounds for an appeal?
Congress... (Score:5, Interesting)
Has any effort been made to request of congress the creation of a statutory "safe harbor" with respect to the use of material eligible for copyright protection but otherwise abandoned? Would it hurt Disney if the law included protection from liability for those who make a good faith effort to get permission but receive no response?
For that matter, if we really want to treat IP with the same rules as physical property, then should notions about adverse possession, abandonment, and eminent domain apply?
right, now EVERYONE do your part (Score:5, Interesting)
Well at least everyone who is legal to vote in the US. Starting a little over a year from now, your local political parties will be holding meetings to determine their direction for the next election. Find out when and where they are, then show up. For the two major parties this is public knowledge posted well in advance. (third parties hold them too, but finding out when and where is more difficult)
Once you are there, start talking, but make it intelligent. Find out the format in advance each party is slightly different. Prepare some resolutions in advance.
Normally the format is someone starts by reading a prepared sentence ("Be it resolved that abortion shall be illegal"), and then the floor is open for debate. Immediately someone will jump in and say no, they disagree ("Abortion is a women's choice"). After a few minutes the chair stops discussion and calls for a vote: yes, no, abstain. (Note I specifically picked an example you are likely to hear when you go! Your resolution will not be near as controversial, so it won't get near as much debate)
At some point they then pick people to represent their local area in the state convention. Get picked! (this isn't hard, in many areas anyone who shows up gets a position if they want it, and then they pick alternates from those who couldn't make it that night but have gone to state in the past) At the state convention much the same happens, except the debates are larger.
Remember, present your resolutions as non-controversial, good ideas. Most people will not be informed, so they will abstain. Then when it gets to state the only people who care are those from /. who took my advice, and are on your side.
Now get your party elected.
The above is the grassroots processes. It is how everything is done politically in the US. The power is by following the above, forget the party boss, they are nothing compared to the millions of little guys working together to get something done.
Note that it does not matter much which party you pick. Neither major party has a monopoly on doing the right thing as far as copyrights (both have done the wrong thing countless times). Pick one you generally agree with, and fix the parts you don't. This works even better when some pick the republicans, and others the democrats. Then when congress meets in 2 years, there is strong grassroots bi-partisan support for your issue, so congress passes it so they can be reelected for doing something non-controversial.
Of course the above is ideal. In the real world reform can take years, and many will oppose you. Keep at it. Good luck.
Most Useful Abandonware (Score:2, Interesting)
Finding altavista personal search is almost impossible now (and it won't run on XP), but it's still useful for other WIN OSs. FOr those interested: you can get it here
Re:Abandonware, ahh.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Relocate (Score:4, Interesting)
Ryan Lackey did a presentation at Defcon 11 which can be viewed here [64.233.161.104].
About That Time Again... (Score:5, Interesting)
It pretty well sums up what I believe about this sort of thing, and there have been several thousand people who pretty much agree with me.
And I'll take the opportunity once more to thank Teresa for putting it together and hosting it.
p
Re:Abandonware is still copyright-eligible (Score:4, Interesting)
A few years ago, I installed MAME and a copy of the ROMs from a site and played it a bit for nostalgia's sake. (It's plain awful by non-1983 standards! :) Like a fool, I didn't keep a copy. The last time I looked (not very hard) I didn't find it because sites have gotten cautious about copyrights on old ROMs.
So, one of the few people that might care about those ROMs can't get a copy even though my initials are fourth down on the high-score list. All because of submarine IP that never really goes away unless the owner is absolutely completely gone or someone explicitly puts it into the public domain. (As I recall, in 1983 the laws were in flux as to copyright applying to ROMs at all.)
Yeah, yeah, this is Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
In a nutshell, current copyright policy looks like it was created to deal with an unmanageable system of registration, notification, and people who DID want to maintain their rights losing them. I find it interesting that we complain the US is isolationist and then reject this attempt to conform to world policy.
Finally, with regards to abandonware, the premise is that the original company is making no money off of it and "doesn't care" if it's distributed. If this is truly the case, then distribute it anyway, even if it is copyrighted. If they don't care, then no problem. If they do care, then take it down. The stuff that truly is abandoned will still be distributed, but the items that the copyright holders still have an interest in will not be.
The legal nuances only come into play if someone takes you to court, and if to reach that point generally means that not only do they significantly value the work, but you've most likely refused to resolve the situation amicably. Companies, even large ones, would much rather send a simple letter than sue someone.
Like Cracker Jacks! (Score:1, Interesting)
There are many examples of this.
Folks should be listening for new slang on the streets, and make some small investments in copyrighting it.
If I was still young, I would have BLING copyrighted, as well as JING.
Use WIPO to take over whoever might have BLING.com and then resell jewelry using my Amazon.com affiliation.
Woo hoo -- Don't we love the modern world.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=
Re:One person's "abandonware" is not another's... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was involved in producing one of the first classic arcade collection for PC.
It was a NIGHTMARE!!!
Since many of the titles we were interested were produced by defunct companies, it was impossible to track down proper copyright owners to license the game. We were able to finally track down copyright owners for the titles we really wanted, but some of the titles had to be abandoned because we could not verify who had the proper copyright.
Even with identified copyright holders we had problems with other people challenging their ownership. Very, very confusing.
Again, if a copyright is valuable enough, then the owner should protect it and license it accordingly. But there are numerous copyrights that are hopelessly lost or disputed (where no one can prove clear ownership) that should become public domain by default.
Re:Here's the deal! (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, being a musician myself, I will not sign with a label as they are now. New means of distribution are growing, and that is truly what they fear. Not possible lost sales due to personal sharing, but the rise of distribution and marketing channels independent of their control. That control is why artists up until now and for some time to come will be at a disadvantage. At least until the alternate channels mature.
Strat
Re:Abandonware is still copyright-eligible (Score:3, Interesting)
The law is correct and moral if you believe in fascism, since the copyright as it is benefits the corporations and their state and that is the goal of fascism. It is neutral if you believe in despotism or monarchy, as the king is within his/her rights to sell the public domain though there is no mandate to do so.
Under most other moral philosophies, copyright will generally appear outlandish, especially the extreme version will live under today.
Communists: A command economy completely sweeps the rug from the only potential economic argument in favor of copyrights (that it encourages production). Since people should receive according to need and not according to commercial success of their works, copyrights would be unfair under communism.
Free-Market Capitalists: Copyrights are government granted monopolies and restrictions on trade. Both of those only lead to higher prices, lower production (of copies) and inefficiency.
Utilitarians: Copyrights reduce the benefit derived from a work to society as a whole, as fewer people will use it and there is more overhead such as legal teams, marketing departments, DRM, and other non-socially beneficial spending. The theory that copyrights foster production has been shown to be often overstated and often even reversed, as is the case with copyrights on databases.
Most Religions: Most religions promote sharing and are against greed. Essentially no religion promotes copyright and copyright is a foreign concept to most religions (exception: Scientology - but they're a cult, not a real religion). That copyrights and DRM prevent their followers from editing works to fit their moral values (by removing nudity, consumerism, sex, violence, etc) is another point against copyrights. Copyrights also reinforce the very coporations who push said smut and consumerism.
Libertarians: Copyrights are an infringement on the right to do business between consenting parties and are a government sanctioned monopoly.
Liberals: Copyrights are extremely unfair by taking from many poor people and giving mostly to rich businessmen and lawyers as well as their enormous structural costs. They also require draconian measures to be enforced and effective enforcement would add to prisons which already have way too many pot smokers. Limiting the exlusive rights of copyright to for-profit uses and making copyrights non-transferable might turn liberals in favor of them, since it would become a business to business issue and copyrights could be used to prevent companies from profiting off of an artist's work without permission.
Intellectuals: Copyrights place direct restrictions, controls, and costs on the spread of knowledge and the arts. Most great discoveries have not been made in the pursuit of money. Many valuble works have been lost and will be lost because it is illegal to make copies of deteriorating or rare works. Copyright has no provisions against plagarism.
Artists: Copyrights severly limit the material they can copy from. It is extremely rare for an artist to make a living off of copyright royalties. Copyrights can be used by record labels, movie companies, software houses, and other companies to prevent the artist from using, giving, or expanding on their creations without the corporation's consent.
Environmentalists: Copyrights go against dematerialization by artificially making information expensive relative to physical goods and require far more shipping and packaging that the alternatives. Any advertising-based system is bad because it promoted consumption and waste, and copyright facilites advertising. Copyrights strengthen corporations, which are the enemy of the environment.
Hedonists: Copyrights prevent us from getting what we want, only slightly countered because copyright will make a small number of successful hedonists very rich.
Have I missed any major philosophies?
Abandoned works by Folded Corporations & LLC's (Score:2, Interesting)
So look to your state laws to find out what happens to intellectual property when these companies fold. Suggest to your local representative that these laws are amended so works that aren't reassigned through a public announcement become public domain.
In Maine, I believe for corporations, this is the relevant statute for amending (Title 13-C Sec. 1440). Notice how all assets are to be reduced to cash(!):
Assets of a dissolved corporation that should be transferred to a creditor, claimant or shareholder of the corporation who can not be found or who is not competent to receive the assets must be reduced to cash and deposited with the Treasurer of State or other appropriate state official for safekeeping in accordance with Title 33, chapter 41. When the creditor, claimant or shareholder furnishes satisfactory proof of entitlement to the amount deposited, the Treasurer of State or other appropriate state official shall pay the creditor, claimant or shareholder or that person's representative that amount. [2001, c. 640, Pt. A, 2 (new); Pt. B, 7 (aff).]