Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Media Censorship

Mexico to Abolish the Public Domain? 387

Posted by chrisd from the formerly-free-country dept.
Anonymous Mexican Coward writes "The mexican congress is considering a revision of the copyright law. Among other changes the law will extend the term of copyright from life-plus-70 to life-plus-100, and at the end of that term, the mexican government has the right to charge royalties for works in the "public domain." Go Mexico! Check it out"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mexico to Abolish the Public Domain? More

Mexico to Abolish the Public Domain?

Comments Filter:

  • Go Mexico? (Score:3, Funny)

    by bobobobo ( 539853 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:11AM (#5603946)
    Wait I'm confused, isn't this a bad thing?

  • Go Mexico? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stagmeister ( 575321 ) <lustig@NETBSDbrandeis.edu minus bsd> on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:11AM (#5603950) Homepage
    Why is this "Go Mexico"??

    They're extending copyright and abolishing the copyright domain.

    Let's fix that typo: BOO MEXICO!

    • Situational Irony (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SHEENmaster ( 581283 )
      While I was learning that this type of article is a writing technique known as "situational irony" I could've been coding.

      Just out of curiosity, is Micro$oft required to release the source of MS-DOS 1.0 when/if the copyright expires, or does just the binary form become public domain? The source is copyright too, no?

      • Re:Situational Irony (Score:5, Informative)

        by sebmol ( 217013 ) <sebmol@seb[ ].de ['mol' in gap]> on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:23AM (#5604056) Homepage
        Just because something becomes part of the public domain doesn't mean the prior owner has to release it to the public. Microsoft may very well hang onto the source code. However, if at that time somebody were to acquire a copy of that code or reverse-engineer it from the MS-DOS binaries, Microsoft couldn't sue them for copyright infringement.

      • Re:Situational Irony (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:31AM (#5604113)

        Just out of curiosity, is Micro$oft required to release the source of MS-DOS 1.0 when/if the copyright expires, or does just the binary form become public domain? The source is copyright too, no?

        Why does copyright law apply at all? It's not as if MS ever published the source for any of its DOS versions.

      • Re:Situational Irony (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @05:13AM (#5605177)
        Just out of curiosity, is Micro$oft required to release the source of MS-DOS 1.0 when/if the copyright expires, or does just the binary form become public domain? The source is copyright too, no?

        When copyright expires (70 years after publishing, under curent law), they don't have to do anything. It would however be in the public domain and if someone had a copy they could then publish it freely. But we all know that copyright will be extended indefinitely using the "Mad Hatter's tea Party" method:

        The Mad Hatter said, "Jam is served every other day."

        Alice protested, "But there was no jam yesterday either!" "That's right," said the Mad Hatter. "The rule is: always jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, never jam today...because today is not every other day!"

    • Re:Go Mexico? (Score:4, Funny)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:35AM (#5604143)
      I don't know. I mean it couldn't possibly of been scarcasm or somthing like that, the poster must of just been a member of the *AA, yeah that must be it.

    • The privatize/nationalize cycle (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MickLinux ( 579158 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @09:01AM (#5606075) Journal
      This is the real problem that I have with neoliberal capitalism. It isn't liberal, it isn't capitalism, and if I read history correctly, it isn't neo.

      It's part of the privatize/nationalize cycle that wealthy and powerful people use to steal from not-so-wealthy and not-so-powerful people.

      There is NO WAY that this form of dominance benefits those around the world. It's called stealing, and it's as old as the hills.

    • Re:Go Mexico? (Score:5, Funny)

      by MrEd ( 60684 ) <tonedog@hailmail.REDHATnet minus distro> on Thursday March 27, 2003 @11:30AM (#5607217)
      n. Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who
      doesn't get it.

      .


      (shamelessly cribbed from the Washington Post's Style Invitational)

  • Why? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kelz ( 611260 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:11AM (#5603952)
    Its not like there were any groundbreaking inventions coming out of mexico... besides maybe the double-sided bong?
    • Its not like there were any groundbreaking inventions coming out of mexico

      Also, it's not like inventions have anything to do with copyright. You're thinking of patents.
      Cripes, people, try to get that one through your heads!

    • Sounds like a hoax to me (Score:2, Interesting)

      by izto ( 56957 )
      I think you should check first the source of this information. There's not a single reference about this issue in the Mexican Congress site nor in the Mexican news sites I checked.

      Besides, maybe there is a misunderstanding here. The Federal Copyright law states that the Government may collect the patrimonial benefits *if and only if* the copyright holder dies and there is no one who can legally inherit the copyright.

      Anyway, any email from a alleged company formed by "almost 10 IP experts" (Almost? 9 1/2 m
    • Spanish Fly?
    • ...are brilliant people from Mexico, both brimming with groundbreaking ideas!
  • It's a sad state when governments and people forget why copyright was invented in the first place and the reason it was useful.

  • For every action... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Eric_Cartman_South_P ( 594330 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:20AM (#5604029)
    ...an equal and opposite reaction?

    http://doa2.host.sk/

    http://www.gnucleus.com/

    http://www.overnet.com/

    http://www.gnutellanews.com/

    http://www.zeropaid.com/

    http://www.peek-a-booty.org/pbhtml/index.php

    http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Main/ WebHome

    http://www.thehonestthief.com/

  • A world without public domain... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ajuda ( 124386 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:21AM (#5604047)
    Imagine how efficient it would be if we all had to pay royalties every time we made a fire, or used a wheel. By the way, does anyone wonder what would happen if the government taxed the bible (which is in public domain)? I think it could get a lot of people angry.

    • Well, in many areas you can't start a fire outdoors without the fire department's permission, and wheels? Don't get me started on the DMV. Regulations aren't the same as "royaltis", but they still take your time and sometimes your money. As for the Bible, anybody who really cares about it has to pay twice to educate their children, and translations can be copyrighted. So what's new?

    • Re:A world without public domain... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CaptainCarrot ( 84625 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @02:32AM (#5604540)
      The more recent translations of the Bible are copyrighted by the translators, who receive royalties on sales just like any other copyright holder. The King James Version is in the public domain in the US, but in the UK (where they call it the Authorised Version) the Crown holds a perpetual copyright on it and receives license fees from everyone in the country who publishes it.
    • Fire and the wheel are examples of patents. This article refers to copyright law, which is pretty much just on literary and artistic works.

    • Re:A world without public domain... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @09:56AM (#5606388) Journal
      This is based upon the Socialist concept of government: The Govt. owns everything, including your money, your property and ideas. If you are good, we will let you use them and profit from them.

      The idea that I could not give the world something, donated to the public domain, without the government claiming ownership just shows you how fucked up socialism is. This is like the current problem in the US where congress acts like they are 'giving' us something when they offer tax cuts, instead of the reality, which is just TAKING less.

      This is EXACTLY the dangerous crap I get tired of preaching about. Anytime the government acts in a way that puts it ABOVE the people, you are setting yourself up for tyranny. It shocks me that more people do not see this as a dangerous philosophy.

      This is one reason I am so PRO 2nd amendment. A fully armed people has less to worry about when it comes to a dominating government. Unfortunately, Mexico has a history of corruption at the government level. Too bad, since it has more natural resources than the US, and COULD be one of the richest nations on earth. This idea is one example of why they are NOT, and not likely to be in the near future.
    • By the way, does anyone wonder what would happen if the government taxed the bible (which is in public domain)?

      This is the problem. The Public Domain is so valuable (even though it is "free"), that decisions to limit it only stifle economic growth.

      Disney, and, now the Mexican government. What a bunch of greedy losers.

    • There's a group of ex-scientologists who still consider the stuff Hubbard taught to be true, but improperly administered by the church. They practice civil disobedience in distributing their "scriptures," which are under copyright by the Church of Scientology. I believe they are called "freezoners."

  • cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Edmund Blackadder ( 559735 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:21AM (#5604048)
    cant wait till the RIAA starts making the argument "it is completely unacceptable that mexican authors have more protection than american authors".

    They made the same argument about europe when they put in the latest copyright extention act.
    • Is Mexican copyright honored here in the US?

    • NAFTA (Score:2)

      by jefu ( 53450 )
      If this is enacted how will it interact with NAFTA?

      In particular, might there be a requirement that the US and Canada follow suit?

      That would be interesting - it would give RIAA, software makers and the like a very convenient, relatively inexpensive (I suspect paying off Mexican legislators is less expensive than paying off US legislators) way to impose their notions of Goodness and Niceness on the rest of North America without actually having to bring up the subject in the US or Canada.

  • RTFA before knee-jerking (Score:4, Interesting)

    by KNicolson ( 147698 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:22AM (#5604054) Homepage
    I see it says:

    The amendment has been strongly supported by authors and collecting societies but on the other hand; it has been rejected by the industry.

    Really? Authors and their estate managers want longer copyright, but the industry doesn't. Isn't it usually the other way round in the USA? Does anyone who understands the issue in detail wish to comment on why?

    • the longer the copyright, the longer the estate managers make monsy defending it. How ever they complet;y overlook the fact that after a few years, 99%of copyrighted works no longer make any money. the only reason for this is the hope that somebody will want to make a movie and have to pay royalties.

      Really, the only one who benefits after 10 years is the estate managers, and the lawyers who get paid to defend it.
      If an author truely wants to get his work of art out. he/she should try to make money for 10 ye
    • it has been rejected by the industry.

      Really?

      "The industry" there refers to the electronics industry, which, under the bill, would have to pay taxes on recorders and recordable media to cover piracy. My guess is that the electronics industry doesn't care either way about extending copyright; they just don't want to pay taxes to cover trumped-up piracy claims.

  • Future proofing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mattygfunk1 ( 596840 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:26AM (#5604075)
    When the government gains control it is no longer "royalties" but more like "selective taxation".

    Nailing my great-great-great-great grandkids for more tax is not acceptable just because they are not born yet.

    Grrrrr.
    _______________

    Cheap Web Site Hosting [cheap-web-...ing.com.au]

  • Who set this precident first? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SuperBug ( 200913 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:28AM (#5604089) Homepage Journal
    Seems to me there are a few things at play regarding this. It could be a test of public opinion, as another reader suggests. It's done, rather shamelessly, here in the US *all the time*. Other thing it could be as well, that since the US and Mexico are trying to be a bit closer together, who knows what deals are being made with them regarding copyright. Look what we're trying to do to ourselves. If certain parties who intend to serve self intrests are global, or at least multi-national, wouldn't they try to influence governments in each region they had a stake in?

    So back to my question above, who set the precident first of life-term + some number of years for copyrighting works? Seems to me the US is to blame for this, even though it will really, really, really, hurt our youth and generations to come. It's poison in the resevoir. Beware Mexico.

  • Write (Score:4, Informative)

    by first axiom ( 311777 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMjorge-ortiz.com> on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:28AM (#5604096)
    Mexicans:

    Write your Deputies [200.15.46.216] (by party, unfortunately) and your Senators [senado.gob.mx] (by state).
  • at least I can bribe the Mexican Federales when (not if) I get caught "pirating" a hundred year old e-book. Whereas the virtuous U.S. police can't be bought (usually), and I'd be sent to Federal "pound me in the ass" Prison for the harmless corporate crime of copyright infringment!

    --

  • The way things are currently going in the US, the only difference I see in the future is that intellectual property will _never_ fall into the public domain (and hence not get the chance to be handed over to the government).
  • The U.S. announced the Walt Eisner Protection Act, extending copyright to life plus 100-years and allowing the government to charge royalties on public domain works. When asked about it, representatives said that it was to keep copyright laws in sync with Mexico. U.S. officials along with the RIAA are now waiting for another country to pass even more restrictive copyright laws for them to sync to.

  • A disaster (Score:2, Interesting)

    by KITT_KATT!* ( 322412 )
    Does anyone know if this would apply retrospectively (eg. Shakespeare or as someone pointed out, the bible) or simply as copyright expires in future. Both would be wrong but the former would be worse.

    I am a writer so obviously I value copyright because without it my work would be worthless. But I also value the fact that I am able to draw on hundreds of years of cultural and literary tradition for my inspiration. This is why the public domain is so important. If I want to use the Cinderella myth I can (Di

    • Does anyone know if this would apply retrospectively (eg. Shakespeare or as someone pointed out, the bible) or simply as copyright expires in future. Both would be wrong but the former would be worse.

      Maybe I'm just being hopelessly naive, but surely Mexico (or any other country) can't go around assigning royalties to themselves for public domain works that were produced in other countries? Last I heard, Shakespeare was British - it might or might not be fair for the UK to charge royalties on his works,

  • This is typical of government (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Loundry ( 4143 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:49AM (#5604265) Journal
    Why should anyone be surprised by this news? Governments always get bigger and more intrusive until they are overthrown. It's the nature of the beast.

    When have we seen governments decide, "Hey, we don't need [fill in some social program] anymore, the citizenry can take care of [fill in something people want] all by themselves without our help."?

    The taste of power only leaves the unquenchable thirst for more. And government power is the ultimate power, for it is the only power which wields the legal right to use deadly force to acheive its goals.

  • Oh really? (Score:3, Funny)

    by lewp ( 95638 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:54AM (#5604307) Journal
    I'm voting with my wallet. From now on I'm going elsewhere for my over-the-counter Viagra. Take that, Mexico!

  • It demands saying: (Score:5, Funny)

    by jasonditz ( 597385 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:59AM (#5604346) Homepage
    All your invention are belong to us, gringo!

  • Open source projects ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Aceticon ( 140883 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @02:05AM (#5604396)
    ... should be safe as long as anyone is contributing to that project (+ remaining life of that someone + 100 years).

    If an open source project has not have contributions for 100+ years, then i don't really care if the Government of Mexico can charge royalties on it.

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

    On a side note, i suspect that the works of Aristotelis, Plato and Omero will become more expensive to buy in Mexico. Same thing for traditional Mexican music.

  • Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Thursday March 27, 2003 @02:07AM (#5604405) Homepage
    The bill motivated by the request of the former party in power.

    This will never become law. The prior "administration", whose party (the PRI) ruled the country for 80+ years is simply doing what they do best - make empty populist gestures and try to push crap through congress to see what happens.

    And the current administration is unabashedly pro-business (and unfortunately pro-church as well) and since the system is similar to the US, I doubt the prez will sign it. He'll just veto it because along with his party (the PAN) he's in bed with everyone from EMI to Coca-Cola.

    And the company doing this? I know them - my brother used to work here [reforma.com]. They're used by the various families who own newspapers in Mexico to hassle each other with stupid copyright claims all the time. Of course "OLIVARES & CIA." obliges gleefully since they take a cut. Ambulance chasers of the 21st century.

    • This will never become law. The prior "administration", whose party (the PRI) ruled the country for 80+ years is simply doing what they do best - make empty populist gestures and try to push crap through congress to see what happens.

      This is most definitely true.

      And the current administration is unabashedly pro-business (and unfortunately pro-church as well)

      As is this, too.

      and since the system is similar to the US, I doubt the prez will sign it. He'll just veto it because along with his party (the PA

  • In essence, what the bill proposes is the implementation of a number of provisions granting additional rights to authors and holders of neighboring rights such as artists and phonogram producers. Thus, in among other aspects, the Copyright Law would be changed to reflect a compensation right for private copying of works of authorship.

    If I read this right the law will be changed to allow someone to collect money from industry to pay to artists in respect of private copying. This would explain why manufa

  • I wonder what the impact of an overly rigid copyright/patent on an economy would be. If we consider a country that has no copyright or patent system, then there is less incentive to innovate. Artists would only produce under a patronage system and products would either rely on trade secrets (slowing scientific progress) or price competition (a drive to low profit margins). In communist countries art was viewed as the property of the people and artists, theoretically at least, were supported, i.e. "each t
  • "Public domain? We don't need no steenking public domain."

    -B

  • Project Gutenberg (Score:4, Interesting)

    by guamman ( 527778 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @02:33AM (#5604541)
    This policy would of course destroy anything like Project Gutenberg if such a project existed in Mexico. Kind of like killing the original open source, no?
  • To my eye, the linked article reads like a well-crafted troll, akin to the "undetectable virus" warnings. Note the lack of specific references. Something's slightly out of gear here.

  • Just one year before DMCA was approved, Mexican congress approved a law, that is, paragraph by paragraph, DMCA.
    So yeah, wait a while and see your own modification to DMCA.
  • This is really bad for me and my fellow Mexicans. I had often been glad that in many ways, the Mexican government stays out of your way a lot more than the American government purportedly does.

    Sometimes, this is advantageous because you can pretty much do whatever you want as long as you don't break any really important laws. But on the other hand, don't expect to get all kinds of services from the government here because you won't get jack. I knew people who moved here some years ago because they thought t

  • If you're reading this, now is the time to revolt. You've reached the "no-man's land" of your government forcing you to pay it in order to think. That you have no money is a sign that your government wishes you to be intellectually bankrupt as well. Ignorant citizens are the easiest to oppress.

    Let me try this another way:

    Your government gone bad.
    Burn it.
    Make good one.

  • I hope that their is some killer App or something like the cure to Aids that can be copyrighted (Not patented, I know drugs can't be copyrighted), something really, really important something that will change the whole human race. Then I hope some A$$hole holds the copyright ( Like me :) ) and hold it for ransome just because they can due to the copyright laws.

  • In Other News (Score:3, Funny)

    by MulluskO ( 305219 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @05:06AM (#5605140) Journal
    The Disney Corporation[DIS [yahoo.com]] has moved its official corporate headquarters along with the contents of the infamous Disney Vault to Mexico City, Mexico. In a press release the company stated that in addition to retaining existing intellectual property under Mexican law, Disney would be introducing a brand new character, "El Ratón Mickey." The new character's copyright is not expected to expire until 2525. The copyright's official and legal creator, Servando Marques, is a Mexican citizen and cartoonist, bioimagineered for unnaturally long life.

  • bogus (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alizard ( 107678 ) <alizardNO@SPAMecis.com> on Thursday March 27, 2003 @06:26AM (#5605484) Homepage
    I've been Googling. "Copyright Law of 1996" is the correct designation for the current Mexican copyright law. Feed it to Google and one gets 82 hits.

    The hits disappear as soon as one adds amendment, proposed, proposal to the search terms.

    Those should have turned up hits even in Spanish, I think. While my Spanish sucks rocks, that's one of the languages for which machine translation sort of works.

    As far as I'm concerned, given that someone else checked Mexican government sites and didn't find it [slashdot.org], the burden of proof that this isn't a troll is on the original author.

    It would be a suicidally stupid thing for a national government to do. Imagine a 6 year old having to do an intellectual property search on the Net every time she was assigned to write a story for school and then try to find the intellectual property owners... if they can be found after 100 years.

    While it's hard to quantify or model the economic loss due to the inability to use public domain work as a basis for further creativity, if I wrote fiction for a living, I'd be packing if this passed where I lived. Or if I were a parent.

    However, we have no credible evidence of such. What we have is a blog posting that doesn't cite a verifiable URL from a government source. This is a credibility killer given that the subject is a proposed act of public law.

    The article shouldn't have been accepted without one from either the author of the original article or the poster.

    • Imagine a 6 year old having to do an intellectual property search on the Net every time she was assigned to write a story for school and then try to find the intellectual property owners

      RTFA people. Even if its a fake at least criticize it for what it says.

      It says that hardware manufacturers are upset because they have to pay the fee to a system administered by the government. No consumer action required.

      In fact the idea that the royalty keeps getting paid after the copyright runs out avoids having to kee

    • Imagine a 6 year old having to do an intellectual property search on the Net every time she was assigned to write a story for school and then try to find the intellectual property owners... if they can be found after 100 years.

      Our system here in the US is no better. Every creative work is implicitly copyrighted, even without a copyright notice. Copyright lasts for 70 years after the author dies. So said hypothetical 6-year-old would have to track down an unknown author up to 70 years after his death, p

  • We don't need no steenkin' public domain. --Treasure of the Sierra Madre
  • Because "please circulate this very important notice" sounds like scam to me.

    I'm not geting any of this through any other source yet. Nothing. nothing in the business rags, nothing in the copyright activist wings, i haven't seen this ANYWHERE. I haven't seen it in the proposed legislation papers and frankly, if somebody's got a bead on this, bring it up and let's get a look, because this sounds crazy to me. Are they looking for someone to retain them to protect their feared-for copyrights? Is this an ad?

  • First off, Mexico has not signed this into law yet, but since everyone is concerned wther the US would follow suit let me point out something.

    This proposed law grants the government the ability to charge for public domain works. This would not be in the best interest of the **AA which routinely uses PD works as they like.

    The government would also have an interest in letting copyrighted works expire into the public domain so they could make their money, hence no more copyright extensions. The **AA certai

  • Any verification? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CybSirius ( 13966 )
    I clicked on the link and was presented with an e-mail message which states at the bottom "Please circulate this important notice." I usually delete chain letters and yell at the people who send them to me. Why does this one get posted to /. with no confirmation?

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by quintessent ( 197518 ) <my usr name on toofgiB [tod] moc> on Thursday March 27, 2003 @02:10PM (#5608671) Journal
    Israel will begin collecting royalties on any publication of the Book of Genesis. This new plan is also retroactive to any copies you may have purchased in the past. I'll post the Pay Pal address later, so you can all pay up.

  • Round up. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jotaeleemeese ( 303437 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @04:34PM (#5609959) Homepage Journal
    This has more meat than what the paltry email in Mr Lessig's blog implies.

    First of all, this is not a hoax.

    You can find the text of the proposed ammendment here [diputados.gob.mx] (paragraph regarding "derecho de autor").

    I will not invoke the Fish, you can do that yourselves if you are so inclined, there are several interesting points:

    Article 29: Yeah, 100 years. I will begin to pester the right people, not that they will care (or maybe they do, this may pass under their noses and then the leaders of the parties tell them how to vote).

    Then later on, the most interesting bits, in synthesis:

    Article 40. Copyright holders have the right to be compensated for any copies that are made without their permission for private use and with no intention of profiting from them.

    I. Compensation will be paid by manufacturers or importers of any machines that can store, compress, duplicate or reproduce (as in play I guess) the copyrighted works. Same thing for blank media manufacturers and importers.

    The big surprise here is that this seems to legitimize your MP3 collection on stacks or burned CDs as long as you made it from sutff you legitimely own. I believe this may be a first worldwide.

    Nowhere says how the compensation will be calculated.

    II. Any sellers (retailers, wholesale buyers, etc) have to make sure that compensation was paid, otherwise they are obliged to pay the compensation in solidarity with people in point I (second translation: we can't police all of them, so we force retailers to police manufacturers and importers. Maquiavelian).

    IV. Money goes to, surprise, the associations representing the copyright holders. 20% should be used for a nebulous item called "cultural activities"...

    V. Stuff with copy protection mechanisms does not pay this tax (i.e. DVDs ant their ilk).

    To check the public domain situation you have to go to the ammendment to article 152, first of all anybody can use public domain as long as there is no intention to profit from the work, otherwise who is intending to profit form a public domain work should pay a tax that will be divided 50% for the respective association of copyright holders (writers, composers, etc.) and should be devoted to social spending (whatever that is) and to promote the reperotire of their association members (uhm). The other 50% goes to, yes, you guessed it, the goverment.

    Nowhere I found that public domain is abolished, it is being restricted if you want to profit from it.

    Finally this is going to the Culture comission in the Congress. It may die there, get uglier or get better.

    Finally, even if you are not Mexican you can put pressure: just imagine my poor congress critters receiving loads of emails from North Rio Bravo (Grande) and beyond threateaning to boycott any Mexican copyrightable material if the terms that are clearly abusive (like the 100 year term) are not repelled.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Close