Stealing from the Public Domain.

[TuringAI]

I present to you one link that explains how the U.S. is Indian Giving in terms of works that can no longer be uniquely owned.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/2320049908.shtml

Isn't the idea that you can put works that are in the public domain, and thus owned by anyone who comes across them, back into private hands contrary to the "all actions are final" mindset of Capitalism?

[Nyronus]

I'm not worried so much about diddling with the Public Domain like the author of the article was. That's small beans.

What I'm really worried about was the explanation that basically stated Congress can run rough-shod over IP law if they feel like it. The implication is that congress can violate any law if it feels like if it is in the "interest of the government." The author is more than valid to cry out in terror at this, what with pundits crying for unlimited majority rule and for the crushing of the necks of industry and censorship. "Government Interest" is probably the single most un-objective and horrible basis for any law ever.

If trust-busting leads to censorship, I hate to see where this absolute travesty goes.

[Grames]

The dispute is over the works of Shostakovich in the case at hand. Shostakovich (25 (or 12?)September 1906 – 9 August 1975)lived in the Soviet Union and did not have the benefit of U.S. copyright laws. If he had lived in the U.S. his work would still be under copyright under the life + 70 years term for copyrights created by the Mickey Mouse Protection Act (a.k.a. The Sonny Bono Copyright Protection Act). U.S. participation in the Berne Convention and the Uruguay Round agreements prompted Congress to pass a law (17 U.S.C. 104A or 'URAA' )granting copyright protection to works previously denied such protection due to technical reasons (the 3 reasons listed are failure to comply with formalities, lack of subject matter protection, lack of national eligibility). URAA specifically excludes restoring copyrights to works the entered the public domain through the expiration of the term of protection (from the embedded court opinion at the link). URAA gives some short protections to people who relied ("reliance parties") on the public domain status of a copyright restored work in creating their own works.

I don't see anything wrong with this in principle. The government has an interest in expanding the recognition of rights as broadly as possible, including intellectual property rights. That government interest is also in my interest.

[DavidOdden]

Isn't the idea that you can put works that are in the public domain, and thus owned by anyone who comes across them, back into private hands contrary to the "all actions are final" mindset of Capitalism?

You don't seem to understand what "public domain", or "own" refers to. Something that is "in the public domain" is not owned by anyone.

[TuringAI]

You don't seem to understand what "public domain", or "own" refers to. Something that is "in the public domain" is not owned by anyone.

If someone can copy something with impunity, without penalty, and only be responsible for the effort they put forth in doing so, I'd say they owned it.

In that sense, then if everybody can legally produce as many copies as they want, then everybody owns it.

[DavidV]

You don't seem to understand what "public domain", or "own" refers to. Something that is "in the public domain" is not owned by anyone.

This is true, but publishing books, even public domain ones, is expensive, and for the government to suddenly declare the legal thing you have invested resources in to be illegal, is in effect destroying that property.