Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill.


arts / rec.arts.tv / SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Been Fundamentally Changed

SubjectAuthor
* SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Been Fundamentally CBTR1701
+- Re: SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Been FundamentalAdam H. Kerman
+- Re: SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Beenchromebook test
+- Re: SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Beentrotsky
`- Re: SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Been FundamentalAdam H. Kerman

1
SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Been Fundamentally Changed

<-4KcnVztV-ZAXO75nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=187823&group=rec.arts.tv#187823

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 May 2023 21:04:29 +0000
From: atro...@mac.com (BTR1701)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Been Fundamentally Changed
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Message-ID: <-4KcnVztV-ZAXO75nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2023 21:04:29 +0000
Lines: 28
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-QtzavKivyF5mKj2lrHeetUh+2vx7CcsT8eJWHBeSfLRQAfrYgoYOYOhCY23vSXNVJOlfcF/gv2fSpZ2!RFBa9xvTDFcI+8JMc00JrYk9Tr1wvkuwh3YlwdNWTAJKf0xUHPWnRS8+1HhB5QqcteMIzeXi2egm
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Lines: 10
 by: BTR1701 - Sun, 28 May 2023 21:04 UTC

In his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch called the Supreme Court's decision last
week in the Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith case a narrow one of statutory
interpretation, ostensibly doing nothing more than interpreting the breadth of
the first fair use factor ("the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes") the copyright statute lists for determining whether the use of an
existing copyrighted work is fair.

But the majority's decision, written by Justice Sotomayor, was hardly narrow;
it was a decision that fundamentally rewrote the operational axis of our
current copyright law. As a result, it does enormous damage to expressive
freedom while also creating unprecedented and uncontrollable liability risk,
even for many who may think they hold currently-valid copyrights. And it
threatens to have these seismic effects with essentially no acknowledgement by
the Court of this inevitable impact.

It produced this judicial grenade by misreading the statute, mangling prior
precedent, and ignoring the logical implications of its analysis. But much
boils down to two major errors made by the Court, which ultimately
interrelate: ignoring the role of the 1st Amendment in tempering the power of
copyright, and misunderstanding what "use" is at issue when analyzing fair
use.

Details for those interested follow:

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/25/the-warhol-decision-how-scotus-forgot-the-first-amendment-turned-copyright-into-a-liability-time-bomb/

Re: SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Been Fundamentally Changed

<u50lj6$122qa$3@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=187827&group=rec.arts.tv#187827

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ahk...@chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Been Fundamentally Changed
Date: Sun, 28 May 2023 22:45:58 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <u50lj6$122qa$3@dont-email.me>
References: <-4KcnVztV-ZAXO75nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 May 2023 22:45:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0e3e484602a6e4c28417960796887983";
logging-data="1117002"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qzUA6J7x/13UYyGwlnTz/DItfhiROs50="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Zi+x9d6ShblBvRhObZt3914u8A8=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
 by: Adam H. Kerman - Sun, 28 May 2023 22:45 UTC

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch called the Supreme Court's decision last
>week in the Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith case a narrow one of statutory
>interpretation, ostensibly doing nothing more than interpreting the breadth of
>the first fair use factor ("the purpose and character of the use, including
>whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
>purposes") the copyright statute lists for determining whether the use of an
>existing copyrighted work is fair.

>But the majority's decision, written by Justice Sotomayor, was hardly narrow;
>it was a decision that fundamentally rewrote the operational axis of our
>current copyright law. As a result, it does enormous damage to expressive
>freedom while also creating unprecedented and uncontrollable liability risk,
>even for many who may think they hold currently-valid copyrights. And it
>threatens to have these seismic effects with essentially no acknowledgement by
>the Court of this inevitable impact.

>It produced this judicial grenade by misreading the statute, mangling prior
>precedent, and ignoring the logical implications of its analysis. But much
>boils down to two major errors made by the Court, which ultimately
>interrelate: ignoring the role of the 1st Amendment in tempering the power of
>copyright, and misunderstanding what "use" is at issue when analyzing fair
>use.

>Details for those interested follow:

>https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/25/the-warhol-decision-how-scotus-forgot-the-first-amendment-turned-copyright-into-a-liability-time-bomb/

Yeah, I was planning to ask you what you thought about the majority
opinion in this after I saw the result on SCOTUSBLOG but wanted to do
additional reading first. I'll read this article.

Thank you

Re: SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Been Fundamentally Changed

<408e2d32-a2c3-46f0-a8c0-90a28617db06n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=187834&group=rec.arts.tv#187834

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1a08:b0:75b:3cf2:a18a with SMTP id bk8-20020a05620a1a0800b0075b3cf2a18amr1344458qkb.10.1685318660882;
Sun, 28 May 2023 17:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2489:b0:75c:97f2:6891 with SMTP id
i9-20020a05620a248900b0075c97f26891mr1636585qkn.2.1685318660611; Sun, 28 May
2023 17:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.neodome.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Date: Sun, 28 May 2023 17:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <-4KcnVztV-ZAXO75nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=104.231.7.66; posting-account=o2cmcgoAAACqKDR0b5D3Azx-dE22zols
NNTP-Posting-Host: 104.231.7.66
References: <-4KcnVztV-ZAXO75nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <408e2d32-a2c3-46f0-a8c0-90a28617db06n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Been
Fundamentally Changed
From: chromium...@gmail.com (chromebook test)
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 00:04:20 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 1872
 by: chromebook test - Mon, 29 May 2023 00:04 UTC

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:04:44 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:

> But the majority's decision, written by Justice Sotomayor, was hardly narrow;
> it was a decision that fundamentally rewrote the operational axis of our
> current law.

“We are on a dangerous path when the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case where our fundamental rights to free speech are trampled,”

Top US court refuses to review free speech law.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/21/top-us-court-refused-to-review-anti-bds-law-heres-what-it-means

------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDhz91RwTeg

Re: SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Been Fundamentally Changed

<za4dM.3361009$iS99.660942@fx16.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=187874&group=rec.arts.tv#187874

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx16.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:102.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.1
Subject: Re: SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Been
Fundamentally Changed
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <-4KcnVztV-ZAXO75nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: gmsi...@email.com (trotsky)
In-Reply-To: <-4KcnVztV-ZAXO75nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <za4dM.3361009$iS99.660942@fx16.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 16:13:19 UTC
Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 11:13:19 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 2554
 by: trotsky - Mon, 29 May 2023 16:13 UTC

On 5/28/23 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch called the Supreme Court's decision last
> week in the Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith case a narrow one of statutory
> interpretation, ostensibly doing nothing more than interpreting the breadth of
> the first fair use factor ("the purpose and character of the use, including
> whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
> purposes") the copyright statute lists for determining whether the use of an
> existing copyrighted work is fair.
>
> But the majority's decision, written by Justice Sotomayor, was hardly narrow;
> it was a decision that fundamentally rewrote the operational axis of our
> current copyright law. As a result, it does enormous damage to expressive
> freedom while also creating unprecedented and uncontrollable liability risk,
> even for many who may think they hold currently-valid copyrights. And it
> threatens to have these seismic effects with essentially no acknowledgement by
> the Court of this inevitable impact.
>
> It produced this judicial grenade by misreading the statute, mangling prior
> precedent, and ignoring the logical implications of its analysis. But much
> boils down to two major errors made by the Court, which ultimately
> interrelate: ignoring the role of the 1st Amendment in tempering the power of
> copyright, and misunderstanding what "use" is at issue when analyzing fair
> use.
>
> Details for those interested follow:
>
>
> https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/25/the-warhol-decision-how-scotus-forgot-the-first-amendment-turned-copyright-into-a-liability-time-bomb/

What a shame, doesn't look like right wing dickhead packing of SCOTUS is
going to work out all the time.

Re: SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Been Fundamentally Changed

<u5lup6$g0q0$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=188797&group=rec.arts.tv#188797

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ahk...@chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: SCOTUS: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith - Copyright Has Been Fundamentally Changed
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 00:31:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <u5lup6$g0q0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <-4KcnVztV-ZAXO75nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 00:31:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c598c9a570135fa1f0b62d131a43ba96";
logging-data="525120"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+O6PSN3kQnvku1KwWklJm4VlZ3ZVnv/zg="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4v2jTIq0LfgNhrh1MUPrs7gG+dg=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
 by: Adam H. Kerman - Tue, 6 Jun 2023 00:31 UTC

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch called the Supreme Court's decision last
>week in the Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith case a narrow one of statutory
>interpretation, ostensibly doing nothing more than interpreting the breadth of
>the first fair use factor ("the purpose and character of the use, including
>whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
>purposes") the copyright statute lists for determining whether the use of an
>existing copyrighted work is fair.

>But the majority's decision, written by Justice Sotomayor, was hardly narrow;
>it was a decision that fundamentally rewrote the operational axis of our
>current copyright law. As a result, it does enormous damage to expressive
>freedom while also creating unprecedented and uncontrollable liability risk,
>even for many who may think they hold currently-valid copyrights. And it
>threatens to have these seismic effects with essentially no acknowledgement by
>the Court of this inevitable impact.

>It produced this judicial grenade by misreading the statute, mangling prior
>precedent, and ignoring the logical implications of its analysis. But much
>boils down to two major errors made by the Court, which ultimately
>interrelate: ignoring the role of the 1st Amendment in tempering the power of
>copyright, and misunderstanding what "use" is at issue when analyzing fair
>use.

>Details for those interested follow:

>https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/25/the-warhol-decision-how-scotus-forgot-the-first-amendment-turned-copyright-into-a-liability-time-bomb/

Richard Meyer's Op-Ed was published in the New York Times, no
restriction on reading it. He wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the
Warhol Foundation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/05/opinion/supreme-court-andy-warhol.html

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor