RE: [Videolib] Round one on Copyright case

Mark W. Kopp (iu8film@iu08.org)
Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:27:02 -0500

OK... I have to think that if a Judge threw a case out without so much
as a hearing, there's lots of room for conspiracy theory.

That said, anyone wanna clarify for me, the jist of the argument here?
If these are "orphan" works, why NOT allow access to them. This doesn't
affect anything MY center does, bit I AM curious why the proposed law is
so loathed by so many.

Unfortunately, a resident of a STATE turned BLUE. (winks at Jessica)

Mark
****************************************************************

Well Jed as I predicted the thing REALLY got tossed and though I know it
will appealed I think there is zero chance of it getting anywhere. It
may not be good law but it is the law

>From The Chronicle For Higher Education
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Judge Dismisses Challenge to 4 Laws That Archivists Say Skew Concept of
Copyright By ANDREA L. FOSTER

A federal judge has ruled against legal scholars and archivists who
challenged current copyright law in hopes of making it easier to archive
old literature and films on the Internet, where they would be available
free to the public. The case, Kahle v. Ashcroft, pitted two archive
groups -- the Internet Archive,
a nonprofit digital library, and the Prelinger Archives, which preserves
films -- against the U.S. Justice Department. The archivists argued that
four copyright laws are collectively keeping people from gaining access
to "orphan" works: out-of-print books, old films, and academic articles
that have little or no commercial value.

The laws that the archivists fault are the Copyright Act of 1976, the
Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the Copyright Renewal Act
of 1992, and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. A
central part of the archivists' argument is that laws granting copyright
protection to all works, even those for which the creators have not
sought protection, have radically altered the "traditional contours of
copyright."

But Judge Maxine M. Chesney, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, disagreed with that claim and dismissed the case
without hearing
arguments on it. In an opinion based in part on the U.S. Supreme Court's
2003 decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft (The Chronicle, January 16, 2003),
Judge Chesney wrote that laws that abolished the requirement that works
be registered to receive copyright protection do not "alter the scope of
copyright protection, but merely determine the procedures necessary to
obtain or maintain such protection."

Lawrence Lessig, a prominent expert on law and technology, handled the
challenge for the archivists, along with two other legal scholars. All
three are affiliated with Stanford Law School's Center for Internet &
Society.

Jennifer S. Granick, executive director of the center, said on Monday
that the judge got it wrong.

"If you have a law that says you don't have to apply for copyright
protection," said Ms. Granick, "that clearly is about scope." The
plaintiffs plan to appeal the ruling.

Proud Resident of a BLUE STATE

Jessica Rosner
Kino International
333 W 39th St. 503
NY NY 10018
jrosner@kino.com
212-629-6880

_______________________________________________
Videolib mailing list
Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib

_______________________________________________
Videolib mailing list
Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib