Is there evidence ex post facto also applies to civil (copyright-related)? (Congress, legal)

[Kadmos1]

Assistant Prof. of Law Evan C. Zoldan at the University of Toledo College of Law wrote a nearly 60-page research paper called “The Civil Ex Post Facto Clause”* on 7/23/14 but revised it nearly 16 months later. On its Social Science Research Network page, the Abstract says the following (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2469141)

Since its first interpretation of the Ex Post Facto Clause in Calder v. Bull, the Supreme Court consistently has held that the clause applies only to retroactive criminal, but not civil, laws. The consequences of this distinction are far-ranging, permitting, for example, states to keep offenders behind bars after they have served their sentences. The Court’s distinction between civil and criminal retroactivity is based wholly on Calder’s historical conclusion that the original meaning of the Ex Post Facto Clause included criminal laws only. This article demonstrates that Calder’s historical analysis is wrong.

The way I would want to go down is something like this: a number of legal experts find evidence that the Framers intended for ex post facto to include civil decisions. After testifying before Congress, 2/3 Congress agrees that civil should apply. When this goes to SCOTUS, all of those old folk agree that SCOTUS was wrong in Calder. Thus, ex post facto applies to criminal and civil. Eventually a SCOTUS judge is impeached, as are any current Congress member who agreed with CTEA to go in effect on 10/27/98. The major news outlets (CNN, Fox News, etc.) report this. The House of Mouse loses the copyright to all their works that would have expired after a collective 56 years (under the 1909 Copyright Act) had the 1976 Copyright Act and CTEA not given them a respective 19 and 20-year extension.

The major news outlets (CNN, Fox News, etc.) report this. The House of Mouse loses the copyright to all their works that would have expired after a collective 56 years (under the 1909 Copyright Act) had the 1976 Copyright Act and CTEA not given them a respective 19 and 20-year extension.

Note: The 1st 5 Mickey shorts are (with their original release dates) are: Plane Crazy (5/15/28), Steamboat Willie (11/18/28), The Gallopin’ Gaucho (12/30/28), The Barn Dance (3/14/29), and The Opry House (3/28/29). For Plane Crazy, a theater audience saw the test screening of the silent version on this date but the short didn’t find a film distributor. Then, it was re-released as a sound version on 3/17/29.

The new rule is that when a foreign/domestic goes PD here (be it failure to renew its copyright or the copyright sign notice was not properly put in the film), it stays there and cannot be restored under any circumstance. However, if there is a digitally-remastered version of a PD domestic/foreign film/sound recording, it’s required to clearly indicate that. For example, naming it something like “Digitally Remastered Edition” on the DVD cover. In addition, it is required to indicate what got changed and when in the film/song it was changed (how many minutes and seconds into the film/song). For example, a digitally remastered version of a French film that is PD here has an in-DVD booklet or Special Feature that said a music recording 30 minutes in the film got a remastered recording.

If there are any foreign/domestic works in the USA PD that are derived from earlier still-copyrighted works, that earlier works cannot be used as a copyright restoration tool (this includes all acts in the US Constitution that “copyright restoration” in the name and any legal decisions or court rulings that can act as a de facto restoration). The 3/28/08 Patry Copyright Blog" entry called “Infringement by Copying Public Domain Works” and the 12/2/16 Hollywood Reporter article called “CBS Sues YouTuber for Posting Episodes of ‘The Andy Griffith Show’” both deal with such situations.

[Kadmos1]

It would be nearly ironic for ABC News to cover this as they are part of the Walt Disney Company, a copyright maximalist company that had a good chunk of its empire built using the public domain.

Note: if the “Edit” button didn’t limit to making the edits within 5 minutes of when you make a post, then repeated parts, such as the following, would note be there:

"The major news outlets (CNN, Fox News, etc.) report this. The House of Mouse loses the copyright to all their works that would have expired after a collective 56 years (under the 1909 Copyright Act) had the 1976 Copyright Act and CTEA not given them a respective 19 and 20-year extension. "

[RealityChuck]

Except the change in copyright law was not ex post facto.

It did not make any changes: copyrighted works remained copyrighted. PD works remained PD.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Kadmos1

The way I would want to go down is something like this: a number of legal experts find evidence that the Framers intended for ex post facto to include civil decisions. After testifying before Congress, 2/3 Congress agrees that civil should apply. When this goes to SCOTUS, all of those old folk agree that SCOTUS was wrong in Calder. Thus, ex post facto applies to criminal and civil. Eventually a SCOTUS judge is impeached, as are any current Congress member who agreed with CTEA to go in effect on 10/27/98. The major news outlets (CNN, Fox News, etc.) report this. The House of Mouse loses the copyright to all their works that would have expired after a collective 56 years (under the 1909 Copyright Act) had the 1976 Copyright Act and CTEA not given them a respective 19 and 20-year extension.

Even as part of a masturbatory fantasy, I can’t figure out how real world law would allow this. And you’ve undermined yourself ridiculously thoroughly. Isn’t this the most ex post facto action ever?

[friedo]

You still can’t write your own Tarzan story, dude.

[Grim_Render]

@Kadmos1

The way I would want to go down is something like this: a number of legal experts find evidence that the Framers intended for ex post facto to include civil decisions. After testifying before Congress, 2/3 Congress agrees that civil should apply. When this goes to SCOTUS, all of those old folk agree that SCOTUS was wrong in Calder. Thus, ex post facto applies to criminal and civil. Eventually a SCOTUS judge is impeached, as are any current Congress member who agreed with CTEA to go in effect on 10/27/98.

So… you’re thinking a SCOTUS judge and large numbers of congress would be impeached for making the “wrong” decision in an old case ?

Dude, give it up. You need a much more realistic idea of how the world works before you are ready to write anything. Regardless of whose characters it is.

[Kadmos1]

Grim Render, yes. Actions have consequences. Trump’s controversial actions are pushing the possibility than consequence is impeachment. Thus, Congress members and a SCOTUS judge need to face the consequences.

[Kadmos1]

@RealityChuck

Except the change in copyright law was not ex post facto.

It did not make any changes: copyrighted works remained copyrighted. PD works remained PD.

Read The Patry Copyright Blog: Infringement by Copying Public Domain Works. By removing foreign or domestic works from the public domain, which is a change, that does raise the issue that a zombie copyright pushes towards “perpetual copyright”. For practical purposes, it basically does. This violates the “limited times” that the Copyright Clause of the Constitution mandates (what “limited” means is subjective). Various media outlets call out Trump for violating parts of the Constitution. Well, I am calling out Congress and SCOTUS for doing the same thing. BTW, Mr. Patry is a copyright lawyer.

[Grim_Render]

@Kadmos1

Grim Render, yes. Actions have consequences. Trump’s controversial actions are pushing the possibility than consequence is impeachment. Thus, Congress members and a SCOTUS judge need to face the consequences.

Can you think of any other time when this has happened? A SCOTUS judge and large numbers of congress impeached for a decision that was later overturned?

[Lemur866]

Which SC justices were impeached over Dred Scott, or Plessy v Ferguson?

Which Congressmen were impeached for voting for a law that was later ruled unconstitutional?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Grim_Render

Can you think of any other time when this has happened? A SCOTUS judge and large numbers of congress impeached for a decision that was later overturned?

@Lemur866

Which SC justices were impeached over Dred Scott, or Plessy v Ferguson?

Which Congressmen were impeached for voting for a law that was later ruled unconstitutional?

He’s not saying it has happened. It’s a fantasy that he would like to happen.

[Lemur866]

Yeah, it’s not enough that copyright laws get overturned and he can write his Tarzan novels in peace. He wants to see the motherfuckers up against the wall too.

[Bricker]

@Kadmos1

Read The Patry Copyright Blog: Infringement by Copying Public Domain Works. By removing foreign or domestic works from the public domain, which is a change, that does raise the issue that a zombie copyright pushes towards “perpetual copyright”. For practical purposes, it basically does. This violates the “limited times” that the Copyright Clause of the Constitution mandates (what “limited” means is subjective). Various media outlets call out Trump for violating parts of the Constitution. Well, I am calling out Congress and SCOTUS for doing the same thing. BTW, Mr. Patry is a copyright lawyer.

It won’t work. Your plan simply won’t work.

See, this is where you join the unusual subset of humanity that insists they are privy to the “real,” law. The courts, the legislature, they are all acting in error, and because you know the truth, you have only to disclose the truth and shatter the stronghold that now exists.

But that won’t happen. No one is getting impeached over the entirely reasonable decision that extending the copyright laws does not create “unlimited” copyrights. It simply won’t occur.

[Weisshund]

@friedo

You still can’t write your own Tarzan story, dude.

I was thinking the same thing
This poor horse has turned to dust and dissipated into the wind

[Grim_Render]

@Exapno_Mapcase

He’s not saying it has happened. It’s a fantasy that he would like to happen.

He is asking for evidence to make it go down that way. Are you familiar with his posting history? Previously, he has believed that if he could write a sufficiently convincing letter to the Burroughs estate, he could convince the trustees to destroy their own jobs and put things in the public domain. Then he imagined that he could write a sufficiently convincing letter to the best law firms in the US to make them take the matter to the supreme court pro bono.

Bricker is right.

Kadmos, I am not saying this to rag on you. By all means practice your writing and learn to create engaging characters, and learn about the world. You really, really need to know more about how stuff works out here.

[Guinastasia]

You know, Kadmos, have you ever considered just writing Tarzan fanfiction?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Grim_Render

Are you familiar with his posting history?

AM I FAMILIAR WITH HIS POSTING HISTORY? :smack::eek::mad::dubious:

Go back and check those threads. Heck, just go back and check THIS thread.