Arguing over public domain? Why of course! They've already bribed ("campaign contributions") and the courts (tripsforjudges.org) to allow them to copyright works that have been in the public domain for years. In the case of the Wizard of Oz, over a century! On January 18th of this year the Supreme Court gave them the go-ahead to plunder the commons like the ordinary pirates and thieves they are:
"Yesterday the United States Supreme Court issued a truly regrettable decision in the much anticipated copyright case Golan v. Holder. At issue in this case was nothing short of whether the United States Congress has the authority to restore copyrights in works that were in the public domain, or in other words whether Congress has the authority to strip works from the public domain and grant copyright protection. In one of the more intellectual dishonest decisions I have ever read, the U.S. Supreme Court, per Justice Ginsburg, determined that Congress can pretty much do whatever it is that they want with respect to copyrights. Removing works from the public domain and restoring copyright protection is said to be a power granted to the Congress under the Constitution, and there are no legitimate First Amendment concerns.
To all those who can read the Constitution it has to be clear that the Supreme Court?s decision in Golan v. Holder is absurd. It is a ridiculous decision that lacks intellectual honesty and defies common sense. ..."
Corporations don't care if the SCOTUS is being absurd, as long as they can make an easy buck by claiming to be the creators of someone else's work.
Just another of the many instances of the corruption that has taken hold on this country at ALL levels.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
"no" combined with "abridging" seem absolute to me. When they take the oath of office the elected Representatives must swear by the current oath of office, enacted in 1884:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. "
"support and defend" does NOT mean modify to align with current Socialist ideologies. To suggest that the Right of free speech is a "privilege" that can be handed out at the whims of some elitist "thinkers" is to be a domestic enemy to the Constitution, one who has mental reservations or is being evasive. Those politicians should be recalled from office and tried for treason.
It is OBVIOUS that Universal (IF it is indeed the copyright holder -- claiming to be doesn't make it so), not having sued ABC following the 1980 show, approved of the 2020 report BECAUSE it mimed their claim that the recording industry was in trouble because the public had access to sources of music which RIAA members did not meter, i.e., they couldn't erect a tollbooth at the end of that driveway.
Now that history has proven the 1980 claim to be bogus, and the 1980 claim is in no way different from their current bogus claim that the Internet is killing their business, Universal issued a DMCA take down notice to YouTube knowing that the poster doesn't have the financial clout to fight an RIAA bully in court. But, when people stand up and fight the RIAA and its members the RIAA loses: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=riaa+lost+cases
The RIAA members GREED is killing their own business. They rape and plunder both ends of their business model, exploiting the artists and over-charging the consumers.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..."
Alienate: "to cause to be withdrawn or diverted"
"Unalienable" rights are those which CANNOT be withdrawn, diverted, nullified or otherwise removed from the practices of all men. That is, a government CANNOT MORALLY, LEGALLY or ETHICALLY SEPARATE the exercise of those rights from men. Such rights are not granted by the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights, or ANY government, they are GIFTS from the Creator. Indeed, government is granted its limited power from the people it governs.
You are not alone in misunderstanding the source of human rights or the limitations of the power of government. Unfortunately too many in the legislative, judicial and executive branches, and some political organizations and social groups, think they hold the power to grant or remove any or all rights from the people.
Thus, we have "hate" laws alienating free speech if it "offends" a "protected" class. A child cannot read a certain book in school because someone might confuse the teachers, principal and school board with Congress and thus believe, by some fuzzy logic, that a state authorized religion has been created by the simple act of that child reading that book, even though no one had been confused by such for over 200 years. The gun control laws alienated the 2nd Amendment until SCOTUS reversed decades of twisted logic with their June, 2009 ruling against the District of Columbia, which didn't stop the political powers in D.C from ignoring the SCOTUS ruling and continue with suppression as usual. The combined effects of the RICO Act, the PATRIOT ACT and the Homeland Security Act have essentially destroyed the remaining 10 Amendments to the Bill of Rights. Only the 3rd Amendment remains inviolate, but who knows for how long? So now you can be charged with being a "terrorist", but you are not allowed to face your accusers, see the evidence used to accuse you, you cannot even tell your wife or other family members you've been charged, and you have to prove yourself innocent instead of the state having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. Oh, the trial is in a "special court" with a "special judge". In other words, a Kangaroo Trial stacked against you. A perfect weapon to silence political enemies or stifle debate. That's why all the pre-election campaign rhetoric about the PATRIOT ACT disappeared after the election, as evidenced by the DHS sending out bulletins to law enforcement agencies around the country describing ONE HALF of the population (vets returning from Iraq and members of conservative political parties) as "potential" terrorists!
Congress. Regardless of party, nearly ALL members have their hands out to accept bribes (a.k.a. "Campaign Contributions"), and thus sell their office, during their 24/7/365 re-election campaign. They spend so little time working for the People that taking bribes reduces their job to one of just taking orders from the highest briber. When they retire or move over to a corporate job they convert their "war chest" to personal funds. Most Congressmen start their first term with a net worth which is usually less than $500K. By the end of their second term their network is $5M. All on less than $200K/yr.
The only problem with replacing them is that those who can afford to run for office have an identical set of morals and ethics. We just trade one crook for another. It doesn't bode well for our country if there aren't enough hon
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by GreyGeek.
Return of the Robber Barons
Arguing over public domain? Why of course! They've already bribed ("campaign contributions") and the courts (tripsforjudges.org) to allow them to copyright works that have been in the public domain for years. In the case of the Wizard of Oz, over a century! On January 18th of this year the Supreme Court gave them the go-ahead to plunder the commons like the ordinary pirates and thieves they are:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/01/19/supreme-court-oks-public-domain-works-being-copyrighted/id=21867/
"Yesterday the United States Supreme Court issued a truly regrettable decision in the much anticipated copyright case Golan v. Holder. At issue in this case was nothing short of whether the United States Congress has the authority to restore copyrights in works that were in the public domain, or in other words whether Congress has the authority to strip works from the public domain and grant copyright protection. In one of the more intellectual dishonest decisions I have ever read, the U.S. Supreme Court, per Justice Ginsburg, determined that Congress can pretty much do whatever it is that they want with respect to copyrights. Removing works from the public domain and restoring copyright protection is said to be a power granted to the Congress under the Constitution, and there are no legitimate First Amendment concerns.
To all those who can read the Constitution it has to be clear that the Supreme Court?s decision in Golan v. Holder is absurd. It is a ridiculous decision that lacks intellectual honesty and defies common sense. ..."
Corporations don't care if the SCOTUS is being absurd, as long as they can make an easy buck by claiming to be the creators of someone else's work.
Just another of the many instances of the corruption that has taken hold on this country at ALL levels.
Re: ... the First Amendment is not an absolute
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
"no" combined with "abridging" seem absolute to me. When they take the oath of office the elected Representatives must swear by the current oath of office, enacted in 1884:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. "
"support and defend" does NOT mean modify to align with current Socialist ideologies. To suggest that the Right of free speech is a "privilege" that can be handed out at the whims of some elitist "thinkers" is to be a domestic enemy to the Constitution, one who has mental reservations or is being evasive. Those politicians should be recalled from office and tried for treason.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use
It is OBVIOUS that Universal (IF it is indeed the copyright holder -- claiming to be doesn't make it so), not having sued ABC following the 1980 show, approved of the 2020 report BECAUSE it mimed their claim that the recording industry was in trouble because the public had access to sources of music which RIAA members did not meter, i.e., they couldn't erect a tollbooth at the end of that driveway.
Now that history has proven the 1980 claim to be bogus, and the 1980 claim is in no way different from their current bogus claim that the Internet is killing their business, Universal issued a DMCA take down notice to YouTube knowing that the poster doesn't have the financial clout to fight an RIAA bully in court. But, when people stand up and fight the RIAA and its members the RIAA loses: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=riaa+lost+cases
The RIAA members GREED is killing their own business. They rape and plunder both ends of their business model, exploiting the artists and over-charging the consumers.
Re: 1st Amendment
@btr1701:
"No rights are absolute ..."
Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..."
Alienate: "to cause to be withdrawn or diverted"
"Unalienable" rights are those which CANNOT be withdrawn, diverted, nullified or otherwise removed from the practices of all men. That is, a government CANNOT MORALLY, LEGALLY or ETHICALLY SEPARATE the exercise of those rights from men. Such rights are not granted by the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights, or ANY government, they are GIFTS from the Creator. Indeed, government is granted its limited power from the people it governs.
You are not alone in misunderstanding the source of human rights or the limitations of the power of government. Unfortunately too many in the legislative, judicial and executive branches, and some political organizations and social groups, think they hold the power to grant or remove any or all rights from the people.
Thus, we have "hate" laws alienating free speech if it "offends" a "protected" class. A child cannot read a certain book in school because someone might confuse the teachers, principal and school board with Congress and thus believe, by some fuzzy logic, that a state authorized religion has been created by the simple act of that child reading that book, even though no one had been confused by such for over 200 years. The gun control laws alienated the 2nd Amendment until SCOTUS reversed decades of twisted logic with their June, 2009 ruling against the District of Columbia, which didn't stop the political powers in D.C from ignoring the SCOTUS ruling and continue with suppression as usual. The combined effects of the RICO Act, the PATRIOT ACT and the Homeland Security Act have essentially destroyed the remaining 10 Amendments to the Bill of Rights. Only the 3rd Amendment remains inviolate, but who knows for how long? So now you can be charged with being a "terrorist", but you are not allowed to face your accusers, see the evidence used to accuse you, you cannot even tell your wife or other family members you've been charged, and you have to prove yourself innocent instead of the state having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. Oh, the trial is in a "special court" with a "special judge". In other words, a Kangaroo Trial stacked against you. A perfect weapon to silence political enemies or stifle debate. That's why all the pre-election campaign rhetoric about the PATRIOT ACT disappeared after the election, as evidenced by the DHS sending out bulletins to law enforcement agencies around the country describing ONE HALF of the population (vets returning from Iraq and members of conservative political parties) as "potential" terrorists!
Is the Republic dead?
The HEART of the problem is ...
Congress. Regardless of party, nearly ALL members have their hands out to accept bribes (a.k.a. "Campaign Contributions"), and thus sell their office, during their 24/7/365 re-election campaign. They spend so little time working for the People that taking bribes reduces their job to one of just taking orders from the highest briber. When they retire or move over to a corporate job they convert their "war chest" to personal funds. Most Congressmen start their first term with a net worth which is usually less than $500K. By the end of their second term their network is $5M. All on less than $200K/yr.
The only problem with replacing them is that those who can afford to run for office have an identical set of morals and ethics. We just trade one crook for another. It doesn't bode well for our country if there aren't enough hon