GreyGeek’s Techdirt Profile

greygeek

About GreyGeek




GreyGeek’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 14th, 2012 @ 7:58pm

    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 Courtís 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.

  • Oct 4th, 2011 @ 6:14pm

    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.