Login/New-Account | Search | Submit a Story! | Greplaw!??
 
GrepLaw
- About
- FAQ
- Discussions
- Messages
- Topics
- Authors

- Preferences
- Older Stuff
- Past Polls
- Submit Story
- XML/RSS

GrepLaw
This site is a production of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Please email if you have questions, contributions, or ideas about improving this site.

F & F
Family

Friends

 
Taiwan Rejects US Copyright Extension
posted by md on Friday October 11, @10:35PM
from the dept.
Copyright miladus writes "The US is apparently seeking to export Copyright Extension. Taiwan has rejected US demands to extend copyrights on works from 50 to 70 years according to a story on Siliconvalley.com. Taiwan is the first country the US has chosen to discuss the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Taiwan intellectual property laws are generally inline with international standards. One student is quoted in the story as saying:" Why should we be blamed for pursuing knowledge?" It will be interesting to see if the US will choose to pressure other countries to go along with the Sony Bono Act."

Copyright on Campus Gets Complicated | User Victorious in Aussie Spammer's Blocklist Suit  >

 

 
GrepLaw Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
  • miladus
  • Siliconvalley.com
  • More on Copyright
  • Also by md
  • This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Taiwan Rejects US Copyright Extension | Login/Create an Account | Top | 5 comments | Search Discussion
    Threshold:
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    International Copyright Law (Score:1)
    by TomWiles on Saturday October 12, @02:26PM (#378)
    User #396 Info
    One of the arguments presented by the Government to the Supreme Court was that the extention and retroactive features of the law were necessary to bring US Copyright law in line with International Copyright Law. They also argued (correctly I think) that this is an area where the Consitution does give Congress discression.

    The above referenced article implies that the law under review does in fact go far beyond current Internationally accepted Copyright protections. If the above referenced article is correct (and I personally believe that it is), then the testimony and arguments presented before the Supreme Court may have been pushing the truth.

    The fact that the US Government is PRESSURIZING other sovergn nations to increase their copyright restrictions to bring them in line with our new law implies that (on this point at least) they are trying to mislead the Supreme Court.

    TOM
    Re:International Copyright Law (Score:1)
    by dmoynihan on Sunday October 13, @12:38AM (#379)
    User #517 Info | http://www.blackmask.com/

    Sounds like a backhanded move to try and keep Australian Gutenberg [gutenberg.net.au], a life+50 website, from proliferating.

    Of course, if I hadn't heard about this, I might still be stuck trying to find an Aussie (or Canadian, or Kiwi--life+50 nations all!) ISP that wasn't just reselling U.S. bandwidth.

    But thanks to this effort made to coerce one of our key strategic allies and trading partners into following our own bad laws, I now have another place to look for Rod's permanent home [geocities.com].

    Thanks for the info, copyright police!

    To be precise (Score:1)
    by Murphy's Law on Monday October 14, @11:27AM (#385)
    User #174 Info | http://grep.law.harvard.edu/
    The arument for the CTEA was harmonization with European copyrights which are generally life+70. The '76 term extension harmonized us with the minimum requirements of the Berne Convention. It'll be interesting to see if the US continues to press for life+70 if the CTEA is struck down.I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, however the sig limit is too small to contain i
    Copyright term in international law (Score:1)
    by Kim Weatherall on Sunday October 13, @10:25PM (#381)
    User #391 Info
    Article 12 of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) - one of the WTO Agreements - requires a copyright term of no less than life + 50 years. When it was argued that the life + 70 years was 'in line with international law', this refers to the term in the European Union, which is life + 70 (when they harmonised, Germany had life plus 70 I think, which is why the higher term). Not quite misleading the court. But I worry about pressure from the US on all the other countries to increase the term, particularly when it makes bilateral trading agreements with other countries that depend on reaching a 'satisfactory level' of intellectual property protection. Experience indicates that a 'satisfactory level' is sometimes above the level required by such agreements as TRIPS.
    Go Taiwan! (Score:1)
    by LuYu on Saturday October 19, @05:32AM (#398)
    User #460 Info | http://grep.law.harvard.edu/

    At least somebody is thinking straight. Life+50 copyrights are wrong, but life+70 copyrights are even worse.

    It is really disgusting that the US is exporting its unconstitutional and controversial laws to other countries. However, I had some friend that worked in the "American Institute" (the US's not-an-embassy embassy in Taiwan) in 1995, and they told me that their work was primarily arguing for greater "intellectual property" enforcement. At the time, I thought they were doing good.

    That was before I learned that most of the copyright laws enacted in the last century violate the copyright clause in one way or another :(

    Anyway, it's nice to know that somebody is not rolling over and taking it from behind like Congress. Corruption should not be the number one US export... It's embarrassing.

    "I will believe you are not an animal when you do not eat, sleep, urinate, or defecate for one month."

    Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition. - Isaac Asimov

    [ home | contribute story | older articles | past polls | faq | authors | preferences ]