Public Domain Act Introduced Into Congress

AnElder writes "In his blog yesterday Lawrence Lessig said '...Congresswoman Lofgren (D-CA) and Congressman Doolittle (R-CA) have agreed to introduce the Public Domain Enhancement Act into Congress.' Today the Eldred Act website features two press releases announcing the act's introduction, as well as its immediate support by '...the American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library Association, and the Association of Research Libraries...'" We ran a link to the petition supporting this Act a few weeks back.

Re:One problem I have with it.

[GenSolo]

According to the page about the act (see old /. article... RTFA?), it can only be renewed every 5 years until the end of the copyright term. Therefore, when the term would normally have expired, it would expire. People just have to pay extra for it this way.

Re:One problem I have with it.

[loucura!]

They aren't renewing the copyright, because Copyright in the US is Creator's life + 70 years, or in the case of Corporations 80 years, or something like that. This is merely a provision which allows a work to fall into the public domain after 50 years from the copyright date, unless the work is commercially viable, in which case, the copyright holder pays a small fee to keep the rights until the copyright term is completed.

Re:One problem I have with it.

[crashnbur]

Following the links from the posted article, I found the text of the law in PDF format [eldred.cc]. The THOMAS Congress web site [loc.gov] does not yet have the bill online.

Re:Ugh

[smitty45]

you're not understanding it then. Basically, this law would be used to require some action on the part of the copyright holder to renew it.

this law is not in favor of extending the copyright term past 75 years...if anything, it is in favor of reducing it.

Re:Ugh

[jonman_d]

Please RTFA.

From The Eric Eldred Act FAQ [eldred.cc]:

2. How would it work?

Fifty years after a copyrighted work was published, a copyright owner would have to pay a tiny tax. That tax could be as low as $1. If the copyright owner does not pay that tax for three years in a row, then the copyright would be forfeited to the public domain. If the tax is paid, then the form would require the listing of a copyright agent--a person charged with receiving requests about that copyright. The Copyright Office would then make the listing of taxes paid, and copyright agents, available free of charge on their website.

They're not expanding the term of copyright. They're shortening it, in most cases, and making you pay a small fee to hold it for more than 50 years, in all others.

Berne Treaty?

[loucura!]

They say in the FAQ [eldred.cc] that this doesn't violate the Berne Treaty, because it isn't formally a "formality" nor a "registration", but you have to file a registration document and pay a fee to the US Copyright Register, which appears at least to this (NAL), that it is a formality and a register and in violation of the Berne Treaty.

We need a few congressmen in our pocket

[caitsith01]

Given that the record and film industry appears to have invested heavily in buying some congressmen, perhaps its time for the open source/public domain movements to do the same. All the good will in the world wont lead to actual passing of legislation when Time Warner/Sony/EMI/Bertlemann/Conglomokorp actually owns people on Capitol hill... we have a petition, but they have votes in Congress.

I don't see why the EFF and similar groups can't 'invest' in a few reelection campaigns. The business model is established by numerous corporations and special interest groups - all it would take are funds. In fact the same applies to all progressive social and political groups... how come the bad guys are smart enough to heavily influence politics with their money but the good guys aren't?

It's about 50 years in the past, not the future

[Googol]

The idea is to end the regime of "perpetual copyright" by ensuring at least some works, which should by rights already be in the PD, get there. Right now, none do.

This is about 50 years in the past, not 50 years in the future.

=googol=

IP Law in two easy lessons

Theft by value: I take something that is yours.
Theft by reference: you think of something; I think of the same thing.

Re:One problem I have with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a number of times that they can renew it, or could a company in theory renew a copy right on into eternity?

They can't renew it past the normal expiry date, so this won't make copyrights last any longer than they do now. But this isn't meant to stop or shorten corporate copyrights - the intent is to make copyright holders show some interest in keeping their copyrights, and to ensure that the copyright office knows who owns the rights (they can be inherited, reassigned through contracts, etc.).

Re:One problem I have with it.

[loucura!]

Copyright is currently Life of Creator + 70 years. This amends current copyright law, such that the copyright can fall into the public domain after 50 years have passed since first publication (or 2004 whichever is later). This greatly benefits us because it enriches public domain.

Therefore, your assertion that this law does nothing, is incorrect.

(I was going to say something about your (apparent)inability to read, but I decided against it because I'm a nice person.)

Min. copyright term is 50 years (Berne Convention)

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. can't nullify a copyright before 50 years without violating the Berne Convention, which requires at least 50 years of copyright protection without registration.

Re:Berne Treaty?

[imadork]

they also say this in the same FAQ:

It is possible that those charged with enforcing Berne would take a different view. They might see this tax as a simple way around the "formality" requirement. But as John Mark Ockerbloom nicely points out, Berne only imposes its requirements for the minimum term. If there is a formality problem with structuring this as a tax, then the proposal could be structured to apply only beyond Berne's minimum term.

Which is exactly what they do in the bill by saying that you have no requirement to register until after 50 years, which is the minimum Berne term.

Re:What about home security cameras?

[EvanED]

The 50 years is necessary so as to not run afoul of the Berne Convention. This requires that copyrights miust last 50 years without any registration.

Re:Will it get through??

[GlassHeart]

Does this bill have any chance of getting through the two houses of Congress?

There are three important factors here:

• Disney doesn't really care if it passes. They can easily afford the registration fee and procedure to protect their copyrighted works.
• Disney would look really stupid if it opposed even this bill. At the time of the Sonny Bono Act, Disney was "protecting its investment" from lapsing into the public domain, so the question was "how long should copyright really be?" Today, the question is "should copyright last over fifty years with no obligation from the creator to even register?"
• Disney can use the works that do lapse into the public domain in its own products, without having to pay royalties.

If Disney realizes the opportunity to create some good PR for itself (for little or no cost!), then maybe it'll have a chance.

Re:What about IP inheritence trees?

[cpt kangarooski]

In which case they'd lose the copyrights on those later works -- which could then be reprinted in part or in full by anyone. And they'd lose the rights to control derivative works based upon those works' uncopyrighted portions.

There are, in fact, some MM comic strips already in the public domain because they were not renewed by Disney ages ago. Hasn't had a big impact.

Besides -- Disney would probably be willing to pay a few extra dollars to be safe. The investment isn't very big, after all. (but really should be; hell, I don't like this proposal at all, since it's so wimpy)

Re:What about home security cameras?

[twifkak]

Berne Treaty limit is life of the author plus 50 years. This is a hack, using the world "tax" instead of registration. The 50 years from publication was decided on just to make it friendly. Of course, this is all just information I stole from the faq [eldred.cc] that an earlier comment linked to. :)

Re:What about IP inheritence trees?

[The Spie]

Imagine: Disney pays the fee for "Steamboat Willie", but not for any other Mickey Mouse cartoons -- and then argues that all other Mickey Mouse cartoons are derivative works of "Steamboat Willie", and are naturally covered by the copyright on that work.

Then they're really fucked, because there were two Mickey Mouse cartoons made before "Steamboat Willie", and since those would be public domain, then there would be prior art issues. Or prior cel issues, as the case may be.

I am really sick and tired of people thinking that "Steamboat Willie" was Mickey's debut cartoon. No, it was his first sound cartoon (and it wasn't the first cartoon with sound either, in case you were wondering). You'd think that with all the people on /. bitching and moaning about the intricacies about what SCO might actually own and about what the real benchmarks are on the G5s, someone might do a little elementary research on something that is infinitely more important, like this.

Re:One problem I have with it.

[Tuxinatorium]

all this does is make copyright holders pay a nominal fee every few years to avoid forfeiting their copyright. This makes it so that when the creating entity is defunct or doesn't need the copyright, it will pass into the public domain quickly rather than a century later.

Mickey is trademarked

[Xtifr]

If Steam-Boat Willie falls into the public domain, then it's possible that you'll be able to make a derivative work using the character of Mickey Mouse and Disney can't stop you.

Mickey is trademarked, so it doesn't matter what happens to Steamboat Willy. You still can't use Disney's trademarked character.

Anyway, the whole "cheap knockoff" argument is overrated. There are plenty of legitimate, authorized "cheap knockoffs" of all kinds of characters. Go buy a "Kids Meal" at McDonalds to see what I mean. And endless copyright prevents new and interesting ideas just as much as it prevents cheap knockoffs. (For examples, see Dan O'Neill and Berkeley Breathed.)

I know, I'm not actually disagreeing with anything you said. I just wanted to make the point.

The Washingtonpost.com has a story on this also

[tsu doh nimh]

The Washington Post ran a story [washingtonpost.com] about this also this afternoon.

Re:yes, we do, but it won't happen.

[KjetilK]

There is Bruce Perens' Global Technology Policy Institute [techp.org], I thought that might be relevant in this context.

Re:What about home security cameras?

[shimmin]

No, the reason the bill doesn't run afoul of Berne has nothing to do with the tax/registration technicality. It doens't run afoul of Berne because it only applies to works produced in the United States. Berne only requires you to grant the works of foreign authors life+50, no registration requried. It places no restrictions on what copyright term you offer your own authors.