4 ms·
From a legal layman's perspective, this should be wrong. For simplicity, let's consider a work of porn that has absolutely no "artistic value" whatsoever (judgi
by Jun8 15y ago
From a legal layman's perspective, this should be wrong. For simplicity, let's consider a work of porn that has absolutely no "artistic value" whatsoever (judging this will not be objective, but let us assume we can do it). I unequivocally believe that you should be able to copyright this work, because it's your creation.
The main point here is not whether a work has artistic value but if it has any value at all (if not, nobody cares anyway). You should not be able to say: "You work is not artistic so I'm gonna copy it and torrent it".
- nirvana 15y agoIf someone were to claim that it has no value whatsoever, then that would be immediately rebutted by the act of copying it or tormenting it and sharing it with others. Every person who downloads it shows that it has some value- at the very least, to satisfy the curiosity that caused them to download it in the first place, if they were to then immediately discard it.
- pbhjpbhj 15y agoValue is not the test for whether something is a work for copyright purposes.
- njharman 15y agocopyright is not a "creation" right. It is a use(performance) and distribution right. It didn't use to be before Sonny Bono Act IRRC (and shouldn't) be automatic. You should have to apply for this monopoly right.
- Jun8 15y agoFully agree that it shouldn't be automatic, that would be too stifling. But you could be able to do it, no creation should be un-copyrightable.
- westicle 15y agoEven if it does not promote the progress of science or the useful arts? On what basis then should it be copyrightable?
- pbhjpbhj 15y agoCopyright is automatic because the USA joined the Berne convention and harmonised with the rest of the world. If it were not automatic then it would unfairly favour the rich.
- nokcha 15y agoThe argument advanced by plaintiff isn't merely that the work lacks artistic value but that the work is "obscene" under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), which means that it is illegal to distribute said work for sale in or affecting interstate commerce under Title 18 USC § 1465 ("Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution") (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1465.shtml http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1465.shtml). Obscenity is still considered an exception to the protection of the First Amendment. (For clarification, I am not saying that obscenity should not be protected; I am merely reporting the current state of the law under Supreme Court jurisprudence.)
- roguecoder 15y agoExcept that copyright isn't something the government generally has the right to enforce: it infringes on free speech and and free expression. It is legal because the constitution specifically makes provision for it in certain cases (limited time, though the courts ruled it doesn't have to be a reasonable limited time, and to support science and the useful arts.) In all other cases, copyright laws would be unconstitutional.
- Natsu 15y agoSo far the track record of finding copyright laws unconstitutional is not good. Eldred and Golan both lost, and in Golan Ginsburg wrote "some restriction on expression is the inherent and intended effect of every grant of copyright" in the majority opinion. If you're saying that's not how it should be, I sympathize.
- vidarh 15y agoHe's not saying he thinks it is unconstitutional. He's saying that the US government can only grant copyright because the copyright clause carved out a right for them to do so, as copyright protections violate free speech and free expression and so without the specific exception provided by the copyright clause, they would have no way of passing copyright law without violating at least the first amendment.
- Natsu 15y agoThe problem with that is that the Supreme Court doesn't seem to have any problem with that, unfortunately.
- bilbo0s 15y agoYou are arguing the question of value...The Constitutional clause she is referencing is really speaking on 'utility'. Just a nitpick I know...but I suspect that is the strategy this woman is hoping will get her by.