Talk:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

These problems are impeding cultural developments. <--- Can you state in what way is this legal problem impeding Wikimedia in particular?--Hillgentleman | |2007年02月08日( Thu ), 07:02:19+07:02

  • moved the text that is why we... to the next paragraph.--Hillgentleman | |2007年02月08日( Thu ), 07:02:43+07:02
    Your changes are fine as I have reviewed. Thank you.--Jusjih 12:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


I've completed the page with some critical analysis. So far, my opinion is that the "rule of the shorter term" applies, because there is no strong evidence that USC ment to introduce a "shorter term exception". Further contributions are welcome, of course. Michelet-密是力 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis is wrong, as I had already explained at length here. Also see Rule of the shorter term, and, most importantly, for the official view see Circular 38a and Circular 38b: Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the URAA from the U.S. Copyright Office. The text, as it stands now, is highly misleading and just expresses your own misunderstandings. Lupo 06:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not a judge to decide which opinion is correct, but you both should sign the live petition if you have not done so.--Jusjih 02:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) seems very effective on issues like this, however I searched their web-pages and didn't find anything about it. Their web-site is: --Chrisbak 02:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Lupo's analysis is debatable and misleading. I would consider a decision like s:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. far more influential than a mere office circular. It is to be noted too that whatever the circular says, it is not the US Government that has standing to pursue one of these cases. Eclecticology 20:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Vote on Commons[edit] -- 22:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Effectiveness of online petitions[edit]

Excuse me, but this seems like a really ineffective method of political activism. While I wholeheartedly agree with initiatives to open up the public domain, I do not believe this is the way to go about it at all. What we need is on-the-street activism and public outreach. We need to reach out to the many sympathetic people who are just completely unaware of public domain issues.--Pharos 23:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have to completely agree. Such petitions are completely meaningless to congressional leaders, and I doubt that one being started on Meta will have any effect upon even a single vote. Far better would be to set up a lobbying effort on a specific bit of legislation that is modifying copyright law, and to either try to support, oppose, or help get a member of congress to sponsor legislation that may have the more favorable changes to law that you desire. And if you want to help organize such an effort, get voting American citizens (and Wikimedians!) to send letters to their own congressional representatives in the districts where they live! This is so very important, and will get far more support. Better yet, have them not just e-mail, but to send a normal post office letter that is hand written and expresses the ideas in their own words to their own congressional representatives.... both in the Senate as well as the House.
For those that aren't U.S. citizens, a plea such as this might be useful to those who are Americans to try and persuade their representatives on the federal level, but you must keep in mind who your audience really is at that point. Most congressmen could care less about people out side of their district, much less outside of the USA. Can you vote for them? If the answer is "yes", they might listen. If not, it really doesn't matter in the long run. --Roberth 18:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have more effective ideas, please write them under "Action alert".--Jusjih 13:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Moral rights and U.S. Law[edit]

This petition says that U.S. copyright law has technical limits regarding "'moral rights' (to which US had no experience) get out of hand".

Moral rights simply aren't a part of U.S. law at all. Period. This isn't that the USA doesn't have experience with this, but it isn't even something that the U.S. Constitution even allows room for. The U.S. Constitution is quite clear about the purpose of copyright and patent law:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" (Article I, Section 8, paragraph 8)

While certainly congressional action has been to ignore the "limited times" concept, and to completely ignore the "promotion of the progress of science and useful arts", this is pretty much the extent that any law regarding copyright within the USA must fit. And Federalist papers together with other early documents by early leaders of the USA in regards to copyright show that it was meant only for a way that allowed authors and inventors the ability to earn a modest income off of their ideas.

Author's "moral rights" simply don't exist at all in U.S. law, both because it is generally unneeded as copyright laws cover most applications of these moral rights anyway, and because the presumption that copyrighted works eventually belong to the public domain. Meaning you are free to use and reuse, remix, adapt, or change ideas that belong to others.

Moral rights do exist in US law, just not in copyright law (or at least not fully in copyright law). See the Wikipedia article on [1] --Jeffmcneill (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It is ironic that of all of the organizations that benefit the most from the public domain; remixing, rehashing, and transforming ideas and story concepts; it is the Walt Disney Corporation. In the case of "The Lion King", Disney didn't even acknowledge that most of the basic story line come from the William Shakespeare play "Hamlet". --Roberth 16:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait. Our petition under "Reclaim the Rule of the Shorter Term Petition" does not talk about moral rights. Moral rights are under "Historical background", which is not a part of the petition.--Jusjih 13:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?[edit]

I am not legally minded, so could you please explain all this to me, in simple terms? Tcrow777 04:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Some works might be copyrighted in the USA where our Wiki sites are based even if they are in the public domain in their source countries. If you have not done so, please sign the attached petition at that is not a Wiki site. This is simple, isn't it?--Jusjih 13:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• So I know that is not esay to get a job at USA , but we can't become worn out , we gotta go deeply lookin' for job, There's a saying that say : If you look you'll find. Zacarias O Celebridade (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Petitiononline is a joke[edit]

I stated this over on en:Talk:Public Domain Enhancement Act, but online petitions generally do not carry any weight because anybody can sign. I have Yahoo Mail Plus and can create an infinite amount of throwaway addresses, and PO gives very little control over the signatures and/or IP addresses; I know this because the organizers at said their petition was hosted by PO but they moved it because people were venting and saying bad things about George Lucas. I'd recommend contacting the representatives yourself. Hbdragon88 04:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)