Forum - View topicAnswerman - Why Would A Japanese Publisher Restrict Exports?
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Kadmos1
 Posts: 13552 Location: In Phoenix but has an 85308 ZIP |
|
||
American patents last 20 years. Copyright has gotten out of control. Here's a rant on how estates and corporations here have actually been abusing said system: Even when a work becomes public domain in the USA, there are still ways to perpetual copyright: trademarking the name, for example. The 2012 case of Golan v. Holder copyright restored many public foreign works here that were still copyrighted in their native countries. Also, even domestic works can get re-copyrighted, even if there was failure to renew its copyright. A famous case was "It's A Wonderful Life" became public domain in 1975 because a clerical error failed to renew the copyright. But it got a re-copyright of sorts here. Look up the 1990 Stewart V. Abend case. Republic Pictures (the successor to a film company that had the movie copyrights until 1975) had the films rights to the book that the movie is based off of and the music rights, so they did a copyright restoration of sorts to the film in 1993 by citing Abend. An Information Tech Law Wiki article (itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Stewart_v._Abe...) summarizes the SCOTUS ruling for this case. Through some library acquisitions and company mergers, the film is now under copyright by Paramount Pictures. Under current copyright law, the soundtrack copyrights, provided no extensions are made, will expire in Feb. 2067. By this, I take it that the film with the music will be public domain (again) in Feb. 2067. As long as a the rights holder is still making money from that work through other rights (music, privacy, publicity) then those works are not actually public domain. In terms of IP, I define a work being in 'public domain" here as when the rights holders can no longer legally make any money off of any the IP rights coming from that work. Now, I can handle a derivative work (like a colorized version but maximalists doing digital restorations should not count) since at least an initial work is public domain. Even if all the, you still can't title a book "Tarzan" without asking ERB, Inc. This is because that name is trademarked. As such, it acts as a perpetual copyright. How else have our copyrights laws become screwed up? Say 1 of the Weissmuller Tarzan movies is out of film copyright but still has the music copyrights. If IP infringement is deemed theft by many people, then re-copyrights and the trademarking a public domain name is "public domain infringement" and thus stealing form the public. Congress is forbidden from passing ex post facto laws (retroactive laws) as indicated by the 3rd clause of Article I, Section 9 of our great Constitution. The 1st clause of Article I, Section 10 bars states from doing the same. However, SCOTUS (whose copyright rulings I usu. question unless it's about fair use or favoring the public domain) ruled in 1798's Calder v. Bull that ex post facto applies to only criminal. Were it civil, those term extensions would be barred. I feel it also applies to civil. Also, I think that the only way to deal with constitutionally-violating acts is for a few Congress members and at least 1 SCOTUS judge to be impeached. |
|||
|
|||
omiya
 Posts: 1825 Location: Adelaide, South Australia |
|
||
So you are saying that the attempt is to prevent physical copies escaping Japan enabling them to be bootlegged in South East Asia? |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group