I am afraid it is not that unusual for a case like this to be tossed without
a hearing because the judge believed the premise of the case was in direct
contradiction of the recent supreme court ruling upholding the last
copyright extension ( as well as other cases). She read the papers of course
but since the believed ON ITS FACE the argument had no merit she tossed it.
Problem is I guess the definition of an "orphan" work. If these works were
legal orphans they would in fact have NO copyright and it would not be an
issue but in fact they have copyrights that the owners basically don't care
or even know about it but it is not the same thing.
FYI it was not a proposed law but a rather unique interpretation or in my
view argument against the current law
I am not saying this is GOOD or even right but just the law and it is simply
not likely to change. In order to protect Mickey Mouse et al the big guys
are going cast a wide net and protect everything they can from going PD.
I guess I posted it because I got so tired of earlier posts suggesting that
this case would change things. Alas academics and librarians are not the
constituents of the powers that be , now more than ever.
Proud Resident of a BLUE STATE
333 W 39th St. 503
NY NY 10018
> From: "Mark W. Kopp" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Reply-To: email@example.com
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:27:02 -0500
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: RE: [Videolib] Round one on Copyright case
> 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)
> 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
> 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 &
> 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
> Videolib mailing list
> Videolib mailing list
Videolib mailing list
Tracking #: 1A90AD0EEDE24C4AAFB98045EB31A7E305D19D58
Videolib mailing list