Copyright Problem

Vocaboly.com
Vocabulary builder software for SAT, TOEFL, GRE, GMAT and more

FAQ

Memberlist

Profile

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Vocaboly.com Forum Index -> alt.usage.english

Author

Message

Cece
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:21 am Post subject: Copyright Problem

Cece wrote:

Quote:

J.G.Harston wrote:
In the UK, if the author died before 1985ish, the copyright
expires 50 years after the author's death. If the author
died after 1985ish, the copyright expires 75 years
after the author's death.

In the UK, copyright expires 70 years after the author's death. When
the expiration date was 50 years after, some works went into public
domain -- but when the law was changed, those works went back under
copyright protection! Anything written by someone who was still alive
in 1935 is still protected.

That's nonsense! You can't make an event that happened in *the past*
illegal!

Example:

A UK author died in the 1920s[1]. Consequently, his work passed out of
copyright in the 1970s. In 1989 I produced a work that used part of
his out-of-copyright work. In 1996 (cf rest of thread) UK copyright
was extended to 70 years antemortum. You cannot seriously be telling
me that the work I produced seven years *earlier* is now in breach of
copyright!

[1] I'm at work, and my reference material from 16 years ago is
packed away at home, so I can't remember his name.

--
JGH

I'm not telling you that. I don't intend to tell you that, and have
no grounds to tell you that. Here's what the law has to say about use
of works between the time the copyright expired and the time it was
revived:
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19953297_en_4.htm#mdiv23

So don't worry.

BTW, if there had never been any law making an act illegal after it
had been performed, the U.S. Constitution would not have a phrase
forbidding _ex post facto_ law.

Cece

Tony Cooper
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 1:14 am Post subject: Re: Copyright Problem

On 13 Apr 2005 11:21:50 -0700, ceceliaarmstrong@yahoo.com (Cece)
wrote:

Quote:

Cece wrote:
J.G.Harston wrote:
In the UK, if the author died before 1985ish, the copyright
expires 50 years after the author's death. If the author
died after 1985ish, the copyright expires 75 years
after the author's death.

In the UK, copyright expires 70 years after the author's death. When
the expiration date was 50 years after, some works went into public
domain -- but when the law was changed, those works went back under
copyright protection! Anything written by someone who was still alive
in 1935 is still protected.

That's nonsense! You can't make an event that happened in *the past*
illegal!

You can if the event produced something that remains. For example, a
sign erected in 1990 might be illegal under 2005 laws. You might be
allowed to keep the sign up, you might be required to replace it with
a legal sign within a certain time-frame, or you might be allowed to
keep the sign up but not repair or alter it.

--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL

CyberCypher
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 4:03 am Post subject: Re: Copyright Problem

Cece wrote on 14 Apr 2005:

Quote:

Cece wrote:
J.G.Harston wrote:
In the UK, if the author died before 1985ish, the copyright
expires 50 years after the author's death. If the author
died after 1985ish, the copyright expires 75 years
after the author's death.

In the UK, copyright expires 70 years after the author's death.
When the expiration date was 50 years after, some works went into
public domain -- but when the law was changed, those works went
back under copyright protection! Anything written by someone who
was still alive in 1935 is still protected.

That's nonsense! You can't make an event that happened in *the
past* illegal!

Some countries allow ex post facto legislation. Even the USA sometimes
uses it. One of Bush's tax laws was applied ex post facto, if I
remember correctly.

--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

Areff
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:23 am Post subject: Re: Copyright Problem

Andrew Gwilliam wrote:

Quote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:59:42 GMT, J.G. Ballard wrote:

Actually, the ex post facto prohibition in the U.S. Constitution only
applies to penal statutes.

Somebody elsethread mentioned that this was from an early decision of the
US Supreme Court. I can't imagine on what basis, but interpretation of the
constitution follows a different logic than I'm used to.

Fortunately, the _Calder v. Bull_ (1798) decision is online, courtesy of
the folks up in the Ithaca flatlands:

http://tinyurl.com/3j5v5

so you can assess the Court's reasoning for yourself.

--
I'm comparatively normal for a guy raised in Brooklyn.
- Alvy Singer

J.G. Ballard
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:59 am Post subject: Re: Copyright Problem

In article <Xns9638667049E82seednews@139.175.55.249>,
CyberCypher <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:

Quote:

That's nonsense! You can't make an event that happened in *the
past* illegal!

Some countries allow ex post facto legislation. Even the USA sometimes
uses it. One of Bush's tax laws was applied ex post facto, if I
remember correctly.

Actually, the ex post facto prohibition in the U.S. Constitution only
applies to penal statutes.

Also, some weirdness in the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, which was
updated later to comply with the WIPO treaty allowed some works which
had lost protection to be "renewed" and regain protection. IIRC. It's
been a few years since I took my Copyright class.

J.G.B. g

Andrew Gwilliam
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 5:10 am Post subject: Re: Copyright Problem

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:59:42 GMT, J.G. Ballard wrote:

Quote:

In article <Xns9638667049E82seednews@139.175.55.249>,
CyberCypher <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:

That's nonsense! You can't make an event that happened in *the
past* illegal!

Some countries allow ex post facto legislation. Even the USA sometimes
uses it. One of Bush's tax laws was applied ex post facto, if I
remember correctly.

Actually, the ex post facto prohibition in the U.S. Constitution only
applies to penal statutes.

Somebody elsethread mentioned that this was from an early decision of the
US Supreme Court. I can't imagine on what basis, but interpretation of the
constitution follows a different logic than I'm used to.

--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm"

Areff
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 5:36 am Post subject: Re: Copyright Problem

Martin Ambuhl wrote:

Quote:

Since Usery v. Turner Elkhorn
Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1 (1976) we have had a "rational basis" test for
retroactive civil laws.

And the "rational basis" test in practice means "anything goes" (NTTAWWT).

--
I'm comparatively normal for a guy raised in Brooklyn.
- Alvy Singer

Martin Ambuhl
Guest

J.G. Ballard wrote:

Quote:

This has been true since Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798).
However, Marshall's decision in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87
(1810) could be read to apply the ex post facto prohibition to takings;
and Burgess v. Salmon, 97 U.S. 381 (1878) held that taxes on tobacco
could not be applied retroactively. Since Usery v. Turner Elkhorn
Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1 (1976) we have had a "rational basis" test for
retroactive civil laws.

Robert Lieblich
Guest

Areff wrote:

Quote:

Martin Ambuhl wrote:
Since Usery v. Turner Elkhorn
Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1 (1976) we have had a "rational basis" test for
retroactive civil laws.

And the "rational basis" test in practice means "anything goes" (NTTAWWT).

Right. Except when it doesn't.

If you think "rational basis" hard to define, take a bite of
"political question."

--
Liebs

Andrew Gwilliam
Guest

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:52:01 -0400, Robert Lieblich wrote:

Quote:

Areff wrote:

Martin Ambuhl wrote:
Since Usery v. Turner Elkhorn
Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1 (1976) we have had a "rational basis" test for
retroactive civil laws.

And the "rational basis" test in practice means "anything goes" (NTTAWWT).

Right. Except when it doesn't.

If you think "rational basis" hard to define, take a bite of
"political question."

"That would be an ecumenical matter!"

--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm"

J.G. Ballard
Guest

In article <AtG7e.5837$go4.963@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@earthlink.net> wrote:

Quote:

Ah... "Rational basis" review, under which (almost) everything
survives. I've often believed that the multi-tier standards under the
Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause were
outcome-determinative. If you want a law to survive, you define the
question in terms of "rational basis" review. If you don't like the
law, you form the question in terms of "fundamental rights" or "suspect
class" (or "quasi-suspect" class, whatever the hell that means); then
you get to apply your elevated standard of scrutiny in order to
invalidate the law.

But, I'm being cynical.

J.G.B.

	Vocaboly.com Forum Index -> alt.usage.english	All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Office Forum Access Forum Electronics Exchange Server
Powered by phpBB