Eldred vs. Ashcroft fails in SCOTUS

vsp · 01-15-2003, 10:24 AM

Not that I truly expected differently, but <a href="http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_COPYRIGHTS?SITE=COFOR&SECTION=HOME">the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act</a> just got upheld by the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 vote. ARRRRRRRRRRGH!

Disney (and corporations of its ilk) 1, Public Domain 0.

<a href="http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html">A few notes as to why this was important.</a>

russotto · 01-16-2003, 03:57 PM

And that's a final score, as there ain't no more appeals. Oh well.

Anyway, this is the end of any chance for copyright law to have any legitimacy. Now it's just a nasty form of corporate welfare. (and, of course, censorship).

Anyone have a digitized copy of "Steamboat Willie"? In honor of this decision I'd like to put it up on my web site for as long as it takes Disney to notice it.

MaggieL · 01-17-2003, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by russotto

Anyone have a digitized copy of "Steamboat Willie"?

There's at least a few frames of it in Lessig's "free culture" presentation"

http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/

juju · 01-17-2003, 11:27 AM

More proof that corporations are completely amoral.

Elspode · 01-17-2003, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by juju
More proof that corporations are completely amoral.

Don't think of it as being immoral, think of it as rewriting the Constitution for fun and profit! Anyway, anyone who has already made billions off of the talents of others can do it...all you need is a talented, starving musician willing to sign his future away for a few bucks up front, and you're on your way.

Griff · 01-17-2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by russotto
Anyway, this is the end of any chance for copyright law to have any legitimacy. Now it's just a nasty form of corporate welfare. (and, of course, censorship).

Yep. Talk about your axis of evil...

juju · 01-17-2003, 03:56 PM

I'm curious.. does being amoral mean that you're immoral? I suppose it should, since not caring about the (moral) rules doesn't mean they don't apply to you. But if you ignore the existance of said rules, then from your perspective, you don't even believe in evil and thus cannot be evil.

Just trying to figure out if I can get away with going around calling corporations evil or not. It sure would be fulfilling, but then again I'd hate to be called on it and be wrong.

russotto · 01-21-2003, 12:51 PM

I believe in this context "amoral" means that their actions are not influenced by any moral code.

richlevy · 01-28-2003, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elspode

Don't think of it as being immoral, think of it as rewriting the Constitution for fun and profit! Anyway, anyone who has already made billions off of the talents of others can do it...all you need is a talented, starving musician willing to sign his future away for a few bucks up front, and you're on your way.

Actually, it was completely Constitutional. The Supreme Courts point was 'You, the American people, let your elected official prostitute themselves and give away what belongs to you in order to acquire the funds to convince you to vote for them. There is nothing in the Consitution which can protect the American people from their own apathy and stupidity when it comes to selecting their elected officials.' I really wish that one of the justices had seen fit to put it in those words.

01-15-2003, 10:24 AM	#1
vsp Syndrome of a Down Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: West Chester Posts: 1,367	Eldred vs. Ashcroft fails in SCOTUS Not that I truly expected differently, but <a href="http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_COPYRIGHTS?SITE=COFOR&SECTION=HOME">the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act</a> just got upheld by the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 vote. ARRRRRRRRRRGH! Disney (and corporations of its ilk) 1, Public Domain 0. <a href="http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html">A few notes as to why this was important.</a>

01-16-2003, 03:57 PM	#2
russotto Professor Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 1,788	And that's a final score, as there ain't no more appeals. Oh well. Anyway, this is the end of any chance for copyright law to have any legitimacy. Now it's just a nasty form of corporate welfare. (and, of course, censorship). Anyone have a digitized copy of "Steamboat Willie"? In honor of this decision I'd like to put it up on my web site for as long as it takes Disney to notice it.

01-17-2003, 11:27 AM	#4
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	More proof that corporations are completely amoral.

01-17-2003, 03:56 PM	#7
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	I'm curious.. does being amoral mean that you're immoral? I suppose it should, since not caring about the (moral) rules doesn't mean they don't apply to you. But if you ignore the existance of said rules, then from your perspective, you don't even believe in evil and thus cannot be evil. Just trying to figure out if I can get away with going around calling corporations evil or not. It sure would be fulfilling, but then again I'd hate to be called on it and be wrong.

01-21-2003, 12:51 PM	#8
russotto Professor Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 1,788	I believe in this context "amoral" means that their actions are not influenced by any moral code.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)