Talk:Golan v. Holder

message: Why doesn't this article state the outcome of this case?  One would have to be very familiar with the other cases to determine the applicability of those cases to this one.  If possible, please add the actions of the court and how that affects this particular lawsuit.
Stevenmitchell 20:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Sorry, this article currently doesn't meet the Good Article criteria. It is too short and stubby, and also poorly referenced. Please revise it and I will be happy to review its re-nomination. Message me if you need help. The article also lacks images which are crucial to the GA nomination. I would recommend you to find some stock images of people in the trial. --GoOdCoNtEnT 22:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article

message: The one thing this cases doesn't seem to touch on is the ex post facto clause for the both the federal and state governments in that they make something criminal back to the point it was once legal. -- 09:58, 26 March 2010 User:BruceGrubb
::If you mean that they create a law retrospectively criminalizing a lawful act, it's worth bearing in mind most copyright offences are civil, not criminal. There are some criminal copyright violations, but to make use of a work in the public domain is not one of them. --Sdoradus (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Section 9 - Limits on Congress just says "No Bill of Attainder or Ex post facto law shall be passed."  It makes no distinction between criminal or civil law--that distinction was made in Calder v. Bull (1798) and since copyright violation is both a criminal and civil law this section would still apply.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

text: That would only be the case if people were subject to prosecution or suits for making use of such works during the window when they were free of copyright restructions... AnonMoos (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a brave copyright holder who did that while SCOTUS review were still in progress, but once the case is decided later in 2011, expect such prosecution and lawsuits to appear prontissimo. The Tenth Circuit decision of 2010 observes that the URAA allows for that. Even those who didn't actually copy the PD item, but made a derivative work before the URAA took away the PD status, are liable to prosecution - it's all 'making use of such works'. The court does allow for negotiation about the amount payable, but if they can't agree the courts will decide the dollars. Specifically, on page 7 of the appeal holding, the court says: "Section 514 provides further protections for reliance parties who, prior to restoration, created a derivative work that was based on a restored work. Under Section 514, “a reliance party may continue to exploit that derivative work for the duration of the restored copyright if the reliance party pays to the owner of the restored copyright reasonable compensation ... [17 USC] §104A(d)(3)(B)." --Sdoradus (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification of ex post facto clauses

message: On June 12, 2011, the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP) announced that they will submit an amicus curiae brief in the case; a group of Harvard Law School students, supervised by Professor Charles Nesson, will be representing IMSLP."Golan v. Holder: Should Shostakovich be Public Domain?" by Feldmahler, IMSLP journal, June 12 2011. Accessed June 15 2011 -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: IMSLP submits amicus curiae

message: "Oral argument is scheduled for October 5, 2011." -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: needs update

message: "On January 18, 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision 6-2."  As written, it is difficult to parse what decision was affirmed, i.e. how the case was ultimately decided.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.149.221 (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Affirmed what decision?

message: The article fails to explain what was the matter/object of the complaint and standing of the involved persons... We should say that Holder/Ashcroft were the attorney general defending Congress and that Lawrence Golan represented the rights of an orchestra. Nemo 11:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It does need a lot of work.  It seems to think this case is the same as the prior Eldred case, when it's actually a completely different case with different parties.  I've massaged it a little, but I agree, it needs substantial work.  It's very odd, for example, that Golan v. Holder is a 'section in the article Golan v. Holder. TJRC (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matter of the lawsuit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Golan v. Holder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104200215/http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2011/10/Ochoa_64_Vand_L_Rev_En_Banc_1233.pdf to http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2011/10/Ochoa_64_Vand_L_Rev_En_Banc_1233.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Golan v. Holder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010003601/http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Golan%20order_0.pdf to http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Golan%20order_0.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509094929/http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/golan-v-gonzales to http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/golan-v-gonzales
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified