April 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

« Peer-to-Peer Networks in the News | Main | Grokster Certiorari Briefs »

November 09, 2004

Comments

"Here, we have a minority party giving up rights they are entitled to under Australian law to avoid a conflict of law litigation that may ultimately end up in their own favor."

They are not giving up a right, they are simply not forbidden to publish the work. Unless you count freedom of speech as that right, but I am not sure Australians have a codified right to freedom of speech. In most jurisdictions (IANAL), there is no explicit right to a public domain. Perhaps there should be. If countries can agree not to bomb precious buildings, perhaps the same can be done for creative works.

"works ... under copyright protection"

Works are not protected by copyright. Works are damaged by copyright, as the Gone With The Wind case so neatly demonstrates.

"I think the proper way to resolve this discrepancy should be by negotiation of international treaties and/or adoption of international conventions like WIPO"

Which is what is already happening--the one-finger-whole-hand approach: 'harmonize' your copyright law with that of other countries, but overextend a little to 'protect' your 'special cases'. Then when these 'special cases' (The King for the US, for instance) are about to return to their well-earned safe place in the public domain, start hollering blue murder and pressure the other countries into 'harmonizing' and overextending their copyright laws.

I guess our glorious leaders asked themselves: what would the maffia do?

The comments to this entry are closed.