Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court to review first-sale doctrine in copyright law (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It varies for medium (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, Cassandra Waites, gerrilea

    and for when changes in the law happened. What I'm thinking of in particular is sound recordings, or, in the law "phonorecords".  This comment is from the top of my head, so it is possible that this date is wrong, but recordings made prior to 1973 (at least sometime in the early 70's) are not subject to federal copyright law. Rather, they are subject to state copyright protection. Usually that is stricter than federal law, and, in some cases, does not expire. Ever.

    "Human beings can be beautiful or more beautiful, they can be fat or skinny, they can be right or wrong, but illegal? How can a human being be illegal?" - Elie Wiesel

    by HugoDog on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 07:03:00 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  see my comment below. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ozsea1, gerrilea

      The answer is to stop feeding them our money.

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 07:17:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HugoDog, gerrilea

      ... this is why I didn't specifically mention sound recordings in the diary.  I am no lawyer, let alone a copyright specialist, but I recall reading or hearing that copyright law related to sound recordings had some very strange quirks.  If anyone reading this knows more detail about IP and sound recordings, feel free to enlighten us all!  (If you feel you can do so in less than 120 pages.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site