Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

supremecourt.gov

141–150 of 207 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the absence of copyright, one supposes that authors would get large up-front fees for publishing, and that the fee for book 4, book 5 and so on for JK Rowling would have been quite large, so I suppose she would have done just fine. Think "Kickstarter, but for authors".

The exact opposite would happen. No publisher would pay very much for rights to a book that they cannot defend. Once that book hits the shelves, everyone with a printing press will be copying it and selling it at cost, which will undercut the first publisher because they need to include royalties in the price. They certainly aren't going to print a million copies if they aren't sure that they can sell them before som…

In the days before the Berne convention, US publishers copied British books without paying the authors, which of course made the British authors unhappy. In some cases, because there was a bit of a first mover advantage, publishers would send their agents to London to acquire copies of the plates for popular authors as quickly as possible, and were willing to pay a fee for this.

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As usual, we can look at history for answers. In the 19th century in Germany, Germany had no copyright or patent laws. There was an explosion of creativity and technological progress, and Germany became the European leader economically and technologically.

The lack of patent laws was very clearly a positive for Germany; the argument for those is IMO much weaker than for copyright. Especially for developing, backward economies (early-19th-century US, late-19th-century Germany, and contemporary China), ignoring foreign patents is very useful for speeding up technology transfer from more advanced economies; within 19th-century US there's some limited evidence for patents…

> Most of the great German authors of the period had to hold other jobs to support themselves, which made completing works slow and halting.

And yet, they were nonetheless able to be great authors. Now, contrast German authors of the 20th century, when copyright law was adopted. There's just no comparison.

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#143
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problems with the DRM route are ... well known. See the EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/drm ) and FSF ( https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/drm.html ) especially. Among other matters: - Your devices are no longer fully under your control, and don't answer to you. - Even where DRM isn't itself directly. malware (Sony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... ), it inevitably creates backdoors for…

> FWIW, my complete crap Chrome browser on my complete crap Samsung Android device refuses to allow me to screenshot this HN thread claiming it is a "DRM protected page". Just tested with Firefox on Android (Moto E4 phone). Firefox did not block taking a screenshot of this thread. Perhaps you may wish to test Firefox yourself to see if it better obey's you than Chrome does.

The problem simply should not exist.

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of patent laws was very clearly a positive for Germany; the argument for those is IMO much weaker than for copyright. Especially for developing, backward economies (early-19th-century US, late-19th-century Germany, and contemporary China), ignoring foreign patents is very useful for speeding up technology transfer from more advanced economies; within 19th-century US there's some limited evidence for patents…

> Most of the great German authors of the period had to hold other jobs to support themselves, which made completing works slow and halting. And yet, they were nonetheless able to be great authors. Now, contrast German authors of the 20th century, when copyright law was adopted. There's just no comparison.

There are MANY things that changed in that period.

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another related issue is the copyright of technical standards incorporated into law. A selection of technical standards, especially in the domain of civil engineering, the standards on fire, electrical safety, energy efficiency, and test design standards, are effectively laws. The implementation of standards is explicitly required by the laws and there's no alternative. Yet, these standards are often sold for-profit…

I'm pretty eager to see where the ASTM case lands. I'm rooting for Public.Resource.Org, but given that the DC Circuit remanded on fair use (rather than copyrightability), the court will probably consider "amount and substantiality" of the work reproduced relative to the original. Public.Resource.Org photocopied and distributed the complete standards, cover to cover, including ASTM's illustrations, logos, etc. But wha…

> I don't think it's obvious here and I worry the court will rule against them :/

Yes, ultimately, the issue of technical standard is still untested in court and remains a problem, it will take a prominent lawsuit before it's resolved.

> But what aspect of the manuals are the actual law? The technical measurements?

What Public.Resource.Org is doing is still a gray area, as you said. But I guess it will not be a total loss - if there are legal challenges in the future, they can publish a "censored" version of technical standard and defend that.

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An author's children shouldn't get jack unless the author saved royalties for them.

> An author's children shouldn't get jack unless the author saved royalties for them. This is such an obvious notion and it's not discussed nearly as often as it should. It's not like my employer will be sending my last paycheck to my children 70 years after my death...

On the other hand, your employer does not have the opportunity to accumulate your work without paying you while you are alive, then apply that accumulated work for fun and profit after your death. The "life plus X" is a Chesterton's Fence - it was originally there for a reason. The length of X has since grown to be ridiculous, yes, but posthumous publishing of works for which the creator received nothing was a thing.

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#147
Does the Court’s holding that officials cannot be “authors” have any implications for copyright in privately written documents that have been adopted as laws or regulations? Is Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Congress Int'l, Inc., 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) still good law after today?

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exact opposite would happen. No publisher would pay very much for rights to a book that they cannot defend. Once that book hits the shelves, everyone with a printing press will be copying it and selling it at cost, which will undercut the first publisher because they need to include royalties in the price. They certainly aren't going to print a million copies if they aren't sure that they can sell them before som…

In this case, the "rights" would not be those of a book publisher but those of a patron/sponsor . Being among the persons or corporate entities who e.g. J.K. Rowling officially acknowledges as the "sponsors" of her work would create a lot of clout, and with that a lot of very real value. Authors used to be funded like that before the current copyright-based system became predominant; it's not just a theoretical model…

If the model is so good, what is preventing her from doing it now? There is nothing in law saying you have to copyright your books, she could simply release it under creative commons. What even qualifies you to know what is best for authors and publishers? I love how so many people love volunteering other peoples work for free or propose they jump through hoop in some byzantine system to make money in a way that is acceptable to you.

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problems with the DRM route are ... well known. See the EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/drm ) and FSF ( https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/drm.html ) especially. Among other matters: - Your devices are no longer fully under your control, and don't answer to you. - Even where DRM isn't itself directly. malware (Sony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... ), it inevitably creates backdoors for…

I wasn't aware I was making any kind of assertion, honestly. But I think a world in which proprietary content must be totally vertically integrated with a non-owned proprietary device is at least an honest way to enforce artificial scarcity. I think the "shape" of this system represents a kind of platonic ideal that combines artificial scarcity in a free market system that values property rights. I find the idea abho…

I do this somewhat by choice. I have a mildly damaged old phone that I use as my "proprietary app device" with Spotify, Discord, etc. It allows me to sandbox their access to my life, to some extent.

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#150
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first Harry Potter book was released in 1997 and the first movie was 2001. So to satisfy that the author be compensated would not require 70 years after her death. I think most of us agree that copyright has value but its become excessive.

IMO 30 years or the death of the author, whichever occurs sooner, is long enough for the author to benefit from their work. There really isn't any difference in terms of incentive for the author between 30 years and the current life of the author + 70 years (or whatever the current term is).

The reason why +years exists is mostly for the case of inventors who die prematurely, so that their family can still reap the benefits. It's the same reason why widows can collect their partners' pensions.
Post reply on HN