By the same logic, copyright should not be extended after a work has already been created. The contract is "completed" when the work is created. You should get the deal on the table when the work is created.
While it is a difference, it is a difference without a distinction. If a published work is not covered by copyright, then it is in the public domain. It isn't important how it got into the public domain. In the US, a work has been traditionally put under copyright when it is "fixed." Granting a copyright 50 years (as an example) after fixation, after it has been in the public domain, is a change in the traditional contours of copyright.
We are not talking about the right to make another person's speech. That is one of the biggest logical fallacies of the Supreme Court's Eldred decision. Golan talks about the work that the orchestra puts into the work. When they perform the work, they are performing an act of original expression (which can get a copyright). That is the speech that is being prevented. They could freely add their expression to works in the public domain. Now they either can't do what they could before or they are at least constrained.
Re: Who says THEFT can't be POPULAR? Computers make it easy.
Your reasoning does not flow. These are the complaints that have been processed so far. We don't know how many people already have a 2nd warning in the queue or how many of these people have not be caught in the net yet. We don't know how many of those 650,000 are false positives; people who were caught in the net but never actually infringed.
So, 3.12 million people at, say an average of $60 a month. That is $187 million a month. That comes out to $2.25 billion dollars are year that the ISPs will be losing under this scenario. We'll see how long a "voluntary" agreement will last under those conditions.
First of all, it is not theft because by taking it, it does not deprive you of it. It might deprive you of some income, but that is speculative at best and is not related to that actual property you are accusing these people form taking.
Now, just sit back and think about what you are advocating. You are going to piss off a lot of people. Because Intellectual Property is a legal fiction (could be called part of a societal contract), if you piss off enough people, society can take it away from you. 650,000 people who have been accused , some based on faulty data, and not convicted, can start to cause a stink.
Long story short, if you want to keep your precious intellectual property "rights," you better not piss too many people off. In fact, the fact that 650,000 people are not respecting those rights might be a sign that they are already slipping through your fingers.
You seems to upset that the judge dares to call a duck a duck when he sees it. He is refusing to let Righthaven hide what they are truly doing behind legalese. There are several aspects of the deal that show that Righthaven was just being used as a liability shield for the original content owners.
Well.... technically, they are not copyright infringers until they are held liable for infringement. There are good arguments that their actions are fair use and thus they are not infringers.
It is almost a shame that more cases did not go to the merits so more uses could be declared fair uses (and thus not infringing). However, I can understand why the defendants would not want to spend the time or the money to prove their point.
One of the exclusive rights of a patent is use. Anyone who uses a product with an infringing patent can be sued. So, technically, Apple could sue purchasers of the Samsung Galaxy. It is generally scene as counter productive and it would be hard to take all the users to court, so they mainly focus on the supplier.
It is not a condition per se. If sent a valid DMCA request, Google will process it. True, if you don't want it to be published, then don't send one. However, since Google will not have received a valid DMCA takedown request, there is nothing for them to be liable for. It is more of a consequence than a condition.
I do get your chilling effects argument, and I don't think the irony should be lost on anyone. I would like to think that that it is Google's way of making a point.