The 6-2 U.S. Supreme Court decision favors content owners including Hollywood studios over an unusual coalition of public interest and Internet activists including Google. At issue was whether the federal government had the right in 1994 to pass a law that extended copyright protection to works that were already in the public domain. Lawmakers acted to sync U.S. copyright law with other countries’ rules as part of a broad trade agreement known as the Uruguay Round. But the change meant that public groups lost access to works including Alfred Hitchcock’s 1932 film Number Seventeen, J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit, Prokofiev’s “Peter and the Wolf” — and about 1 million books that Google said it wanted to make available online. Those challenging the change said that the government had trampled on the First Amendment without a compelling reason. But the Supreme Court justices deferred to Congress’ right to decide the national interest. The MPAA was pleased: The ruling “demonstrates that the United States fulfills its international copyright obligations and will remain a world leader in protecting creative works, thereby helping foster their continued creation and dissemination,” Chief Policy Advisor Fritz Attaway says.







This ruling has to do with works created in foreign countries, not necessarily works created in the US. It’s a matter of respecting copyright laws of other nations just like we expect them to respect our.
The biggest mistake made in copyright law is that people no longer have to register their works before they have protection. Life would actually be simpler is everything had to be registered, as long as there is a way to prove that a specific person created the material and that it was not being stolen.
You are SO right about registration, without which copyright is reduced to either a guessing game or paying for a chain-of-title search. On the other hand, the U.S. Constitution’s provision of copyright protection “for a time” was intended to allow future generations to have free access to works and products after their creators had wrung everything out of them. In that regard, there is scant difference between the “bottom feeders” in Jerry’s post (below) and the heirs of a creator in terms of benefiting from things they had no hand in creating. Where SCOTUS also erred is in not recognizing the “work for hire” provision, which only exists in America, that cheats creators while favoring those who employ them.
This was the right decision…now these bottom feeders won’t be able to make a dime off of other people’s work. Instead of spending obscene amounts of time and money trying to make money off of other people’s work, Google should invest that time and money in creating their own content.
God knows you should be able to milk something 75 years after it was created. Or charge for TV shows to sing Happy Birthday. Grow up and stop listening to your corporate overlords.
Although it sounds like you actually are one of them.
Does that mean I can have your house after you die? I mean, according to your logic, you shouldn’t be able to own something 75 years after it is built/created.
Would Walt Disney have been able to make some of his most beloved and profitable films that were derived from public-domain works, had today’s copyright laws been in effect in the mid-20th Century?
Wait . . . which bottom feeders are you talking about? The New Media companies that make money off of other people’s work or the Old Media companies that make money off of other people’s work? Disney has been making money off of other people’s work since the Alice shorts. Disney has been making money off of other people’s works forever, but if somebody wanted to put Steamboat Willie, which is almost 85 years old, on a webpage, the riot squad comes out and their righteous indignation and hypocrisy is on full display for all to see.
Old Media has Washington tied to their bootstraps, and their rule is and will always be law.
Look up “work for hire” idiot
Project Guttenberg.
The law is designed to work really well for copyright thieves. Copyright law is not designed to benefit the rightful owners or the families of authors or the author’s estate.
It all makes perfect sense once you understand that.
I looked up the word protection in my dictionary and it said this: protection (pro coup ‘n nation) n. 1. there is no such thing as protection 2. easy money for greasy folks 3. greased palms 4. palmed stolen property 5. your government is a joke 6. satan lauging in your face but not smiling 7. fresh blood on the courtbench. also see professional hit, greed, rat and lowlife