Happy Public Domain Day: Works That Copyright Extension Stole From Us In 2015 328
Jennifer Jenkins, Director of Duke's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, points out what could have entered public domain in 2015 but won't and why we need to use the upcoming Public Domain Day to focus on the importance of copyright reform. She writes: "What could have been entering the public domain in the US on January 1, 2015? Under the law that existed until 1978 -- Works from 1958. The films Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, and Gigi, the books Our Man in Havana, The Once and Future King, and Things Fall Apart, the songs All I Have to Do Is Dream and Yakety Yak, and more -- What is entering the public domain this January 1? Not a single published work."
Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
"Attack of the 50-foot woman" might be interesting. The problem is that the copyright holder is not showing this movie anywhere - going public domain would fix that.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't blame the copyright holder; I think it's too bad even for MS3K. That said, you can buy it on DVD. Though I think your money is better spent on Plan 9 from Outer Space.
Re: (Score:3)
By "not showing this movie anywhere", maybe you meant "not showing this movie anywhere for free"?
Or "not showing in countries not served by Google Play Videos and Amazon Instant Video". Or perhaps "not allowing parodies of the work without an expensive fair use trial".
i vote with my wallet (Score:5, Interesting)
and no one gives a damn. (Score:5)
i refuse to buy books, movies and music anymore
Then books, movies, and music will continue to be produced and shaped for those who do buy them.
Disney has been taking chances with projects with serious geek cred like Guardians of the Galaxy and Big Hero 6 and been rewarded handsomely in return. You will excuse me if I share some doubts about the geek's commitment to the boycott.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My consumption is mostly limited to "all you can watch" buffet type services and waiting until the movies are on sale for $5.
There is a lot of free content being created as well. (Like the harry potter and the methods of rationality, all the youtube videos).
I am now retired and I literally cannot keep up with all the content being created. So with rare exceptions, I just stay back on the less expensive end of the curve.
I would estimate that last year I saw a dozen movies for $4.25 on matinee and maybe 3?
Re:i vote with my wallet (Score:5, Funny)
down with the capitalist pigs!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:i vote with my wallet (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:i vote with my wallet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:i vote with my wallet (Score:4, Insightful)
... No, I think you don't agree with him - or if you do, you're conflicted on the issue, and you're laboring under at least one false apprehension.
Here's the thing: if one truly believes in a system of justice and the rule of law, then one must refuse to recognize the validity of any contract that is not of equitable nature (be it equally fair or equally unfair).
So if you truly agree that copyright is no longer equitable, then (given the above) you must agree that _neither_ party is required to abide by its terms as-is. You don't get to call it theft, because in the absence of copyright the information that comprises a work _is neither tangible nor property_: stealing a "Harry Potter" DVD does not steal the concept of "Harry Potter" itself.
This is why I generally consider any attempt to "copy-protect" a work, via a method that does not allow for the "limited times" clause of copyright law, to be either an act of fraud or a disavowal of the creator's rights to protection of that work under copyright law - because to deliberately attempt to make your work un-copyable while claiming the protections of copyright law would be tortious misconduct.
Which doesn't mean I go around copying DRM'd movies on principle - there's more than enough free/cheap legal media for me to spend the rest of my life watching if I wanted to be a couch hermit - it just means that I recognize contracts (are supposed to) go both ways.
And that's still too long (Score:5, Insightful)
Attack of the 50 Foot Woman? Try the Lion King and Pulp Fiction. Works from 1994 should be in public domain. Twenty years sounds fair to me. Intellectual property is supposed to protect works, giving an ability and incentive to produce new works, not act as a perpetual revenue stream for whatever entity owns the rights to older books, music, games, and film. This life of the universe plus a month nonsense is completely counter to what IP should be.
Re:And that's still too long (Score:5, Insightful)
Twenty years from creation (copyright is currently defined as starting at creation) is way too short. I'm about to publish a trilogy of novels, and I started on the first one in 2001. By your standards, six years of profiting from my works should be enough. That's laughable.
Twenty years from first publication might be reasonable, but it is still problematic for works of fiction, because it is a short enough period of time that a film studio wanting to make a movie would be sorely tempted to wait out the copyright rather than paying the author for the use of his or her work.
On the one hand, you have individuals creating works, and on the other hand, you have big corporations creating works. The former need a lot more time to exploit their works, because they have fewer resources for doing so. The latter can adequately exploit their works in just a few years, after which, they're essentially leeching off the public domain. A reasonable copyright scheme needs to consider both of those situations and treat them differently. For example, you might set a twenty year limit for works for hire, but make the duration be 75 years for copyright owned by individuals. Or you might require the copyright to be renewed every fifteen years at 1% of the property's total gross revenue, so a movie that brought in $40 million pays a $400,000 renewal fee every fifteen years, but a book that made only $7,000 pays a $70 renewal.
Either way, a flat twenty years is absurd.
Generic drugs; intellectual property tax (Score:2)
Twenty years from first publication might be reasonable, but it is still problematic for works of fiction, because it is a short enough period of time that a film studio wanting to make a movie would be sorely tempted to wait out the copyright rather than paying the author for the use of his or her work.
That's not been shown to be problematic for pharmaceuticals, where companies routinely wait out the patent before producing a generic drug.
For example, you might set a twenty year limit for works for hire, but make the duration be 75 years for copyright owned by individuals.
Then companies would just structure their deals to, say, assign copyright in a film to the film's director but then exclusively license the copyright back to the studio.
Or you might require the copyright to be renewed every fifteen years at 1% of the property's total gross revenue
If copyrights are "intellectual property", then tax them like property [wikipedia.org]. Have each copyright owner self-assess the value of his works, and levy a tax on that value. To prevent publishers from avoiding tax
Re:Generic drugs; intellectual property tax (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a completely different situation, because both the patent holder and the generic drug maker are on roughly equal footing in terms of their ability to exploiting the property. A drug company can make a drug and can market it readily; that's what they do. An individual who writes a book cannot realistically make a movie version of that book, because A. they don't have that kind of money, and B. they are not likely to have the required skill set.
By definition, any permanent license is a work for hire. So no, they couldn't do precisely that. However, the law would need to specify a maximum contract duration beyond which those limits kick in so that companies wouldn't license it for [lifetime of copyright minus one day].
It would be far easier to simply tax the past income from the work as part of the copyright fees. Actual income tends to be a good indicator of the value of a work.
Screenplay to animation is web scale (Score:2)
An individual who writes a book cannot realistically make a movie version of that book, because A. they don't have that kind of money, and B. they are not likely to have the required skill set.
I couldn't help but read that in the synthesized tone of "MongoDB is web scale" made with XtraNormal [mongodb-is-web-scale.com]. Anyone who has a computer and can write a screenplay can produce an animated short film. And tools to mark up a screenplay for conversion to an animated film will only get better. Then you can send excessive copyright terms to /dev/null.
However, the law would need to specify a maximum contract duration beyond which those limits kick in so that companies wouldn't license it for [lifetime of copyright minus one day].
Or the director could just avoid doubt by exclusively licensing the motion picture to the studio for 20 years. This would be long enough for the theatrical release, the curr
Re: (Score:3)
FTFY. :-)
Just in case anybody reads your comment and assumes that you're being serious (I'm pretty sure you aren't), here's an idea of the m
Re: And that's still too long (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Twenty years from first publication might be reasonable, but it is still problematic for works of fiction, because it is a short enough period of time that a film studio wanting to make a movie would be sorely tempted to wait out the copyright rather than paying the author for the use of his or her work.
So what?
Answer this: Would the knowledge that no movie studio would pay you millions to license your novels have stopped you from writing them? You can argue that that possibility factored into your thinking, but that's not the point. The point is: If that possibility, and that alone, were completely removed, would you have chosen not to write?
You have to keep in mind that the purpose of copyright -- as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, who provided the legal framework for it -- is to bene
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious solution to this is to trademark the characters, that way the work can be released to the world but derivative works with the same characters or some portion of it couldn't be made without your permission.
Re: (Score:2)
A trademark cannot be used to extend the effective term of any of the exclusive rights under U.S. copyright. Dastar v. Fox.
Re: (Score:3)
Twenty years from creation (copyright is currently defined as starting at creation) is way too short. I'm about to publish a trilogy of novels, and I started on the first one in 2001. By your standards, six years of profiting from my works should be enough. That's laughable.
You wrote the first one in 2001 and sat on it for 13 years, then complain that 20 years would be too short?
Twenty years from first publication might be reasonable
20 years from publication is about twice as long as is reasonable. Most novels make the vast majority of their sales in their first year, after that it just peters out to nothing over a number of years. It's a rare novel indeed that still makes sales after ten years, let alone twenty.
On the one hand, you have individuals creating works, and on the other hand, you have big corporations creating works.
That one is easy - disallow corporations from owning copyrights. There's no sane reason why copyrights should be allowed
Re: (Score:2)
Chapter 3 of US copyright law sets the end of the copyright term for works made for hire and works published before 1978 at the end of the 95th year after publication or the 120th year after creation, whichever is earlier.
Re:And that's still too long (Score:5, Insightful)
someone who has never created a single patentable invention in his life? Or written a best-selling novel? Or composed a symphony? Or written a screenplay?
That's 99.99% of the population.
I'm sure it does sound fair to parasites who think they are entitled to other people's work without compensation.
You mean the people who inherit the copyright after the author's death ? Or the people who take stories from public domain, adapt them for the movie screen, and then get to keep all the rights and money forever ?
Re:And that's still too long (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it sound fair to someone who has never created a single patentable invention in his life? Or written a best-selling novel? Or composed a symphony? Or written a screenplay?
It sounds plenty fucking fair. Architects & engineers don't get paid royalties for years & years on work we did ages ago. We certainly don't continue to get paid after we're dead. And if we fuck up, things fall apart. People can get hurt. People can die. If a screenwriter fucks up, nothing of any consequence happens.
I'm sure it does sound fair to parasites who think they are entitled to other people's work without compensation.
If you did the work 20 years ago, tough shit. Welcome to the world of everybody else.
Re:And that's still too long (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely agree with you that 20ish years is plenty before a work enters public domain. The original 1790 statute which had a default period of 14 years was also plenty.
However, I think there are some things overlooked in your arguments...
It sounds plenty fucking fair. Architects & engineers don't get paid royalties for years & years on work we did ages ago.
That's because you have a choice to get paid up-front. Most artists/creators don't. If someone offered you a contract: "Hey -- you can design my building for me, and I'll give you X% of the rents for the next Y years, but I'll pay you nothing now," would you do it? What if the building was in the middle of nowhere in a completely untested market? What if your design was also very unconventional and you didn't even know if it would work?
Those are the kinds of things a novelist or even a non-fiction author, say, has to deal with all the time. They invest their time and effort spending months or perhaps years generating a work, often with no money up-front. And unless they're an established author, they're often breaking new ground, perhaps trying out something new which may or may not sell well.
I suspect most architects and engineers here wouldn't take such a risky deal. They'd prefer to actually get paid when they do their work, as do most people. Most creators take much bigger risks in the hope that MAYBE some day down the line they might recoup their expenses and time.
And -- of course -- the vast majority DON'T. For every creator who makes millions of dollars off of their books or songs or screenplays or whatever, there are thousands of creators who never really make a profit. But they try anyway, and maybe they get something back.
We certainly don't continue to get paid after we're dead.
I don't know why everyone is so obsessed with deaths of authors.
Look -- copyright is broken, but it's effectively a contract between creators and the public. If you signed onto a deal like I offered you above, where you got no money up-front, but I said you'd get a share of the rents on the building you designed for 20 years, that contract generally wouldn't void at your death. The rents would be paid to your estate or your heirs for the original term of 20 years.
Why should it be any different? The few creators who do actually make money often have kids to feed. If I spent a year writing a novel and with my family suffering without enough money expecting X years of possible revenue from my novel, why should they not get the expected years of revenue if I drop dead from a heart attack the minute after my book is published? Copyright terms should be fixed and short -- whatever they are. The death of the artist is irrelevant.
And if we fuck up, things fall apart. People can get hurt. People can die. If a screenwriter fucks up, nothing of any consequence happens.
Not sure what this has to do with anything. Are you saying that we shouldn't pay anyone anything if they don't do something "essential" enough or something? Why the heck do we pay sports players or actors or whatever? Most people spend significant portions of their days listening to music, watching TV, etc. Just because something is viewed by you as "entertainment" or something doesn't mean that it isn't hugely important to you or society -- and if we don't have a system that rewards creators, art gets worse. Good artists choose to do something else with their time. And there are also writers who contribute significantly to new ideas, knowledge, etc. -- if these people won't get compensation, they may not choose to do it. That's potentially "somethign of consequence" happening.
If you did the work 20 years ago, tough shit. Welcome to the world of everybody else.
Again, I think most artists/creators would LOVE to take a deal like most people and get paid up-front.
Re:And that's still too long (Score:4, Insightful)
The original 1790 statute which had a default period of 14 years was also plenty.
The original statute was written in 1710 with the title
An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned
Note that right from the beginning of modern copyright law the idea was for works to go into the public domain for the advancement of society and even as that law was being drafted the publishers were claiming that they needed infinite copyright "for the artists" and even then were actually ripping the artists off with a small payment to get all the rights to a work. This is the real tragedy of copyright, it usually benefits the publishers way more then the artists.
You have cases like Issac Asimov being amazed he could get paid multiple times for a work or the Beetles getting totally ripped off at the beginning of their career as they only expected one payment. More up to date is the sequel to Forrest Grump which will never be filmed due to the first film making no money and the artist not getting paid, good old Hollywood accounting.
If an architect got promised a percentage of the rent and then got paid nothing most people would consider it a ripoff, yet it is normal in the copyright world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
... if we don't have a system that rewards creators, art gets worse. Good artists choose to do something else with their time.
Now I see what has happened to American music....
Re:And that's still too long (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it sound fair to someone who has never created a single patentable invention in his life?
Try three, and yes not only do I think it is fair, but clearly you too think it is fair by your actions (or you're just admitting to being a parasite criminal stealing my work... either way you look pretty bad)
To claim you don't think it is fair, you need to send me my first payment, and continue sending me payments every month for the rest of your life.
Until those checks clear, you're just being a lying hypocrite.
In fact, you seem to be arguing that even ONE payment is too much, let alone multiple ones.
So I thank you for your permission to take anything you make for free - or I would if you actually made anything.
Re:And that's still too long (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You shouldn't make assumptions. I work in plant breeding, an area where patents are very controversial, with an active anti-agriculture movement who often claims that there should be no patents on the plants people like me work hard to develop, and that people like me should work for free or not at all. I've got some nifty new things right now I hope get patented in due time. I've dealt with real anti-IP sentiment, I've defended patents and copyright in general at length, and I fully agree that those who
Re:And that's still too long (Score:4, Insightful)
(In the below "you" refers to the critics)
1) if you appreciate a creative work, why not pay for it? Buy the DVD, buy the CD, buy whatever medium and you can view or listen as many times as you want. If you don't want to pay, you don't get to see the result of the creative process. If you don't want to pay, why would the creator of Pulp fiction let you to see the movie? What obligation does he have in the world to allow you to see it? I never understood, and most likely never will understand this typical /. logic of piracy vs theft etc. Thanks for sharing the fruits of YOUR labour through open software, but please allow other creative people to differ.
2) Why should an author's heirs not be entitled to the fruits of the labour of their ancestors? Why should they be entitled to his house, savings, but not future profits? Why would it be that, because coincidentally, someone dies, you get to see the movie for free? Why would you rank higher than the creator's children? Let's hope Stephen King dies just after writing a masterpiece, because now we are entitled to read it for free. What sense does that make???
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And that's still too long (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My Sweet Lord and other accidental infringements (Score:4, Insightful)
So other poor artists can use them for their own creative works, for example.
The artists can easily make original content, which would create more interesting art anyway, than some reheated old stuff.
Until other, more established artists take the poor artists to court, claiming that the purported original content is not in fact original but instead substantially similar to the more established artists' work. Accidental copying is still infringement. Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what's the best option for a poor artist to avoid being bankrupted by such a suit?
Re: (Score:2)
No (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea was that copyright and patents encouraged people to share information so that it wouldn't be lost. The entire point was to get the works into the public domain at some point. We've turned it into a rent seeking scheme. If it started out this way we'd all be paying royalties to some Nords and a few Egyptians who claimed ownership of stone tablets from 200 B.C..
Re: (Score:2)
So if "we" could wave a magic wand and change copyright law *everywhere* to something "we can all live with" what would you suggest?
Off the top of my head I can think of
1) Copyright begins with first publication/release/distribution. An upthread example shows a guy working on a trillogy where the first book was done in 2001 and that 20 years would be too short. Although I wonder why he hasn't published the first one or two to see if there is a market for more.... and to get income and a fan base going.
2) Co
Re: (Score:2)
The idea was that copyright and patents encouraged people to share information so that it wouldn't be lost. The entire point was to get the works into the public domain at some point.
Your second sentence is correct, but your first is not. Without patents, the information wouldn't be lost, it would be tied up as trade secrets, forcing every competitor to reinvent the proverbial wheel, rather than simply paying a small royalty to the first inventor and going on to invent the next improvement. Without copyright, art would only be created under patronage systems where the wealthy commission works that they want (since no one would pay artists royalties) with exclusive contracts between the
Reverse engineering (Score:4, Insightful)
Without patents, the information wouldn't be lost, it would be tied up as trade secrets, forcing every competitor to reinvent the proverbial wheel
Patents are routinely issued on inventions that are obvious to one skilled in the art of reverse engineering. For example, contributors to FFmpeg have disassembled and documented plenty of video codecs.
rather than simply paying a small royalty to the first inventor and going on to invent the next improvement
And in a lot of cases, the royalty isn't "small" at all because the inventor wants to exclude a category of products from the market entirely. Think of when the late Steve Jobs promised that Apple was prepared to go "thermonuclear" on Android.
Without copyright, art would only be created under patronage systems where the wealthy commission works that they want
We have working patronage systems now [kickstarter.com].
In addition to restricting the number of works, this would also restrict the number of viewpoints, as only those wealthy patrons' desired works would be created.
It doesn't take "wealthy patrons" to produce a work expressing a viewpoint. Anyone who owns a personal computer and a year of Internet access can self-produce and self-publish a work in plenty of forms, such as the written word, a podcast, an animated video, or even a video game. Net neutrality is in theory orthogonal to copyright, though this is complicated by the co-ownership of XFINITY and NBCUniversal by Comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
Without patents, the information wouldn't be lost, it would be tied up as trade secrets, forcing every competitor to reinvent the proverbial wheel
Patents are routinely issued on inventions that are obvious to one skilled in the art of reverse engineering. For example, contributors to FFmpeg have disassembled and documented plenty of video codecs.
"Obvious to one skilled in the art of reverse engineering" means obvious to someone who has seen the invention, taken it apart, figured out how it works, etc. And duh, once you've studied something in intimate detail, of course it's going to be obvious. That's irrelevant though - the question for patents is whether the invention was obvious at the time of invention, before anyone got to see what the inventor did.
rather than simply paying a small royalty to the first inventor and going on to invent the next improvement
And in a lot of cases, the royalty isn't "small" at all because the inventor wants to exclude a category of products from the market entirely. Think of when the late Steve Jobs promised that Apple was prepared to go "thermonuclear" on Android.
Good point - that's why we don't have any Android devices on the market.
Re: (Score:3)
Disney didn't write the story in the Lion King, right? It's an age old story. They don't write _any_ of their own stories...even Lilo and Stitch was just something they bought...
The Lion King is a Broadway musical comedy in animated form, rich in music, drama and spectacle.
The live stage adaptation would call on to become a legend in its on right. The geek doesn't have the least understanding of all the elements that must come together to make a theatrical project a success.
There have been countless productions in all media that draw on the same sources as Disney. It surprises me when the geek has heard of any one of them. It surprises me more when he knows the primary sources an
Re: (Score:3)
Works from 1994 should be in public domain.
Why? So that you could acquire them for free? What's the motivation?
You could make a pretty good case for Shakespeare's descendant's being entitled to profits from his works, using the rationale used for copyright extension.
There really are only so many possible stories and plotlines. What do we do when we have exhausted them all, now that we have entered the age of perpetual copyright? Because we have exhausted them all.
Reminds me of when a local college sued a medical group, claiming they owned the term "University" They lost, but that's the kind of thing that will ev
Re: (Score:3)
Big corps will effectively wield a monopoly on all of the ideas in movies, since anything you'd produce could be argued as too similar to something in their massive portfolios.
Which of course, will make the whole process come to a grinding halt.
The exact opposite of the original intentions.
Re: (Score:2)
Works from 1994 should be in public domain? Works from 2015 should be in public domain.
Imaginary Property is just that - imaginary.
I think you're imagining things.
And the creators still get screwed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to not being entitled to anything ever because the copyright has run out? Is this your argument?
It is sad... (Score:4)
As much as piracy is difficult to justify. It is rulings like this that make it hard to ultimately argue against.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the resources going against piracy are to fight day 1 release (or before) piracy though.
If you had a magical wand, and told the big corps: "100% of people who piracy your stuff before or during the first 2 weeks after release will get caught and get the death penalty. For the rest of 1 year, current copyright laws apply, and we have a magical way to catch everyone who so. After 1 year, the shit is public domain".
They'd probably take that deal. The crazy copyright extensions is just them taking what
Re:It is sad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. Mickey Mouse would be public domain. Think about that.
Besides, I've talked to a lot of these MPAA guys personally. They're completely fanatical.
Their attitude is "our contract says we can do this, so those are our rights and anyone that violates them is a criminal." - period.
You know those crazy ads where they compare piracy to automotive theft or bank robbery? The people driving this along felt those ads were too mellow. They wanted to go farther with it.
You have no idea. They are as closed minded and intolerant as a 15th century cardinal. You cross the line and they're going to say "burn them".
While I agree nearly all the effort goes into zero day... that is because everything becomes more nebulous after that point and they make the most money off of zero day releases. So that is why they do that. But if you think they don't care about their legacy licenses you are kidding yourself. In their view, that stuff is worth billions. Telling them a certain amount of it is going to go public domain is like telling someone that a certain amount of their bank account is going to vanish. They're totally unwilling to move on the issue. They are not going to compromise on anything.
The only way forward is to let the old fire brands die... literally from old age in most cases and be replaced by more realistic members.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not difficult at all, actually. The U.S. Constitution is pretty clear on what the purpose of copyright is. The protections afforded to creators of artistic works are granted for a LIMITED time...not for free, but in exchange for an agreement from the creators that their works will enter the public domain at the end of that time. The content industry has made it abundantly clear that they have no intentions whatsoever in honoring their end of the bargain.
Copyright should be more like food laws (Score:2)
To explain the idea of softening copyright laws, I always think of food laws.
You can make your meals however you like, but once you start distributing them to the public you have a bunch of obligations (no poison, list ingredients and nutrients on package, note the best before date...).
I see culture similarly. If you write a great song and you don't want people to share it, then the simple solution is to keep it to yourself. Then it's your song. But if you distribute it to the public, it becomes part of
Pickled brains (Score:2, Interesting)
This is what I suggest (Score:2)
What about software? (Score:2)
This discussion is usually centered around movies, music and books, but what do you think about software and video games?
For example, should Quake 1 (1996) be public domain? The source code is libre already, but the art assets are still sold in Steam.
What about Windows XP which was released 2001, but was still actively maintained till 2013?
Re: (Score:2)
GPL vaccine (Score:2)
Not quite correct (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
United States copyright in works published prior to 1978 is reckoned not from the death of the author but from first publication. Mondrian's paintings prior to Composition with Yellow, Black, Blue, and Grey (1923) were already in the public domain under the 75-year rule that was in effect prior to 1998. Copyright in that painting won't expire under the new 95-year rule until 2019.
This is why I'm OK with "piracy" (Score:2)
We had a deal - those creating works get a period of time to capitalize on those works, after which they go into the public domain, and in exchange for those works being given over to the public, the public agrees to not violate that copyright without facing penalties.
Most works are no longer being given over to the public domain, therefore it's absurd to punish people for pirating them - a contract has to offer something to both sides.
WRT to software piracy (specifically games) - DRM put the nail in that c
Copyright Term Reduction (Score:2)
Would someone please explain ... (Score:2)
... why we should give a shit?
Copyrighted material is not mine and I don't need it and I am not feeling the sense of entitlement to copyrighted works.
I am a photographer and I certainly support copyright protection but I don't understand the hysteria over the expiry date issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Would someone please explain ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The "hysteria" is about a perpetual monopoly on our cultural history. If every piece of art created in our lifetimes is locked down, then we don't have the freedom to create anything new. Everything we do is built upon the ideas of the prior generations that we are exposed to through our culture.
Ultimately, infinite term IP ownership is unsustainable. Our technological and cultural development will stall. Imagine if someone (ie a corporation or estate) still held the patent on the transistor or the lever. Those companies would control the markets for basically every electrical or mechanical device. Do you think we'd even be able to have this discussion? And why wouldn't the same effect occur with copyright once there's nothing left in the public domain to draw from?
Is it accurate to say most of the people on /. (Score:2)
Re:revolutionary idea? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:revolutionary idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or we could just go back to the original Copyright law.
It was more than adequate to give an incentive to the creators.
The suits on the other hand, are gonna be pissed because it will take away an avenue for rent seeking; which means it will never happen because suits own Congress. They get away with it because the electorate is stupid and easily manipulated with sound bites and bumper sticker reasoning.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright should be limited to the original creator's natural life and cease within 12 months thereafter allowing time for the estate to be settled. No corporation should own a copyright which outlives the creator(s) of the work plus a decade.
Wouldn't this create an unfair advantage for corporations to higher younger creators?
Re:revolutionary idea? (Score:5, Interesting)
No corporation should own a copyright which outlives the creator(s) of the work plus a decade.
How does this work when there are hundreds of people working on a project, like a film? Does the copyright expire ten years after the first death, or the last? If the former, then pretty much any movie more than ten years old will be in the public domain. If the latter, I guess we're going to start seeing a few dozen babies somehow contributing to every new project, all of them selected from families who seem to live unusually long.
Also, what constitutes "death"? What happens if a member of the crew is cryogenically preserved and later brought back to life? Does copyright get reinstated? And what happens if people stop dying? It doesn't seem at all unlikely that within the next few decades we acquire the ability to keep a human body alive indefinitely (though I'm not sure if the brain is up to remaining useful for much longer)?
I think tying copyright to human lifespans is a bad idea. I prefer ever-increasing copyright maintenance fees. If Disney is willing to pay a billion dollars a year to keep Mickey, fine. But for most works, the copyright owners will eventually decide that it's better to release it into the public domain.
Authors designated by law (Score:2)
How does this work when there are hundreds of people working on a project, like a film?
Some media have particular contributors that legislation designates as "authors", such as the film's director. (Source [www.gov.uk]) And in practice, films tend to be derivative works, which bring in copyrights licensed from its screenwriter and the composer of its score.
Also, what constitutes "death"? What happens if a member of the crew is cryogenically preserved and later brought back to life? Does copyright get reinstated?
This is a moot point until resuscitation from cryogenic sleep becomes confirmed. Walt Disney was cremated, not frozen.
And what happens if people stop dying?
Then you get a situation like that of the short story "Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson [spiderrobinson.com], where influential authors go public wi
Re: (Score:3)
You're kidding, right?
Revolutionary Idea (Score:3)
Poe's Law.
These are all actually equally crazy ideas, but there's a lot of nutcases going around clamoring for the first one. "Copyright should be limited to the original creator's natural life." Simple question: why?
Second question: why do we have to wait for the government to fix this? I suppose there's a pretty good reason to have a maximum copyright duration so Disney doesn't immediately realize their dreams of indefinite copyright, but there shouldn't be anything wrong with licensing a work so that it
Re:revolutionary idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should copyright have anything to do with the creator's lifespan? The goal of copyright is to encourage people to create, not to set people up with lifelong income streams.
Re:revolutionary idea? (Score:4, Interesting)
Want to encourage the creation of creative works?
It's well known that creativity flourishes with experienced adversity. The irony of the copyright system is that it's actually discouraging this creative seed. Artists are way too comfortable, living off royalties, to knuckle down and start producing stuff.
I say we cut copyright to a bare minimum. A year at max. That'll get those lazy artists off their collective arses, and provide plenty of encouragement to create something at least once per year.
Remember kids, nothing speeds productivity like poverty.
Re:revolutionary idea? (Score:4, Insightful)
yes 100%. one thing that america has proven over through 200 years of history is that the profit motive does not create the best country on earth /s
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, but remember at the bottom of Slashdot is a bunch of whiney parasites who think they are entitled other people's property without paying for it.
I think the copyright laws in the US need reform, but frankly if I were to write a book, I'd like my descendants to benefit for some while.
Re: (Score:2)
if I were to write a book, I'd like my descendants to benefit for some while.
And if a roadworker builds a new road, I'm sure he'd like his descendants to benefit too.
Re: (Score:2)
Your descendants' benefit has nothing to do with why we have copyright. The ONLY reason copyright exists is because it was thought to be good to encourage people to create more that would become part of society's culture and knowledge by giving them a *limited* period of time to exclusively profit from that creation. It was not intended to become a never-ending gr
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it considered fair to limit patents to 20 years, but not copyrights?
I expect that the answer relates to two of the traditional safety valves [wikipedia.org] that apply to copyrights and not patents, namely fair use and ineligibility of ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, but remember at the bottom of Slashdot is a bunch of whiney parasites who think they are entitled other people's property without paying for it.
I think the copyright laws in the US need reform, but frankly if I were to write a book, I'd like my descendants to benefit for some while.
All well and good until they get sued for infringement.
The perpetual copyright movement has some interesting ties with patent trolling. The playaz are setting the table, and the lawsuits are next.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the copyright laws in the US need reform, but frankly if I were to write a book, I'd like my descendants to benefit for some while.
So sell your book within a reasonable copyright term and give your descendants the money. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright infringement isn't stealing - the legitimate holder of the copyright still has it and is still free to use it however they want, including using it to prosecute infringement. Extended copyright terms do in fact steal from society, using the proper definition of "steal" - members of society are deprived of the means to use those works to build upon them, or to preserve them.
Yes, copyright infringement is stealing. If you get the use or enjoyment of something that normally costs money then you have deprived the copyright holder of that money. So if depriving society of free access to movies due to copyright extensions is, by your own admission, stealing then depriving the current copyright holder of the fee required to view or use those very same works is also stealing.
I know logic probably escapes you but in both cases A deprives B of C. So if in one case it's stealing then
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, copyright infringement is stealing.
Factually incorrect.Copyright infringement and theft have completely different legal definitions and different laws apply to each.
You're starting off on a false premise, and using mathy-looking letter variables doesn't make your logic any less sloppy.
Analogy (Score:2)
Copyright infringement and theft have completely different legal definitions and different laws apply to each.
Patent infringement and copyright infringement likewise "have completely different legal definitions and different laws apply to each." Yet we use the term "infringement" for both. Using the word "stealing" for prohibited acts other than larceny draws an analogy between those acts and larceny.
You're starting off on a false premise
Then explain how the premise is false enough to not even be a good analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't claim it was an analogy. He claimed that one is the other.
Re: (Score:2)
I borrowed a book from a friend and read it. I got the use of something that costs money without paying for it. By your "logic"... I stole it?
Your "logic" sucks rather badly.
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain in detail how extended terms serve "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" as per the Copyright Clause (in the U.S., anyway).
The Supreme Court has ruled that "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" actually means "To attempt to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". As a rule, the Court defers to Congress in determining what "promote[s] the Progress". This means that the revision history of the Copyright Term Extension Act shall be sufficient to answer your question.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you supposed to do with a book to keep it "alive"? Let me guess, you don't pay for other people's stuff because...entitled.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... that is a tough one. Maybe you could print and sell new copies? If it's not worth enough to the copyright owner to make a work available to the public, then why not allow it to fall into the public domain after a decade? Maybe someone else will be able to find a way to bring it back to life and extract additional value rather than letting it sit there and fade into obscurity.
Song of the South (Score:2)
What are you supposed to do with a book to keep it "alive"?
At a minimum, continue to offer newly manufactured copies to the public. Don't be like Disney with Song of the South.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you supposed to do with a book to keep it "alive"? Let me guess, you don't pay for other people's stuff because...entitled.
Main principle: If people keep their stuff to themselves in their basements, it's their business. If they go to town square, climb atop a soap box and start loudly yelling, for everyone to hear (i.e. "publishing") it becomes public. Everyone is entitled to everything that is public (exceptions are e.g. South Africa under Apartheid, etc).
Special case: some people's loud yelling is deemed to be of benefit. Applying capitalist principles (others would be e.g. artistic), there needs to be a monetary reward for
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't done anything with it in 10 years, you lose it.
It's better to reinstate the mandatory Copyright (c) YYYY marki have automatic copyright for 10 years, then in the 10th year (not before) allow for an extension of another 10 years application by (1) registering the work with the new Copyright Registry and Escrow Agency, (2) submitting a fully function copy, unencumbered with DRM, watermarks (audio and/or visual and/or otherwise), etc. and (3) paying a fee which will serve as the Intellectual Property Tax for the work, to pay for the system, and any extras
Re: (Score:2)
It seems ridiculous that copyright can be used to quash the existence of a version of a work that was once published, but that the creator decided he didn't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep everything the same, but as soon as non-text media ends up being 28 (or fine, 30) years old, just release it!
It is released already. You can pick up the DVD cheaply from Amazon. I don't see why it would be terribly important for that material to be PD.
Anchor book (Score:2)
Media, specifically movies, television shows, music, music videos, and the like, having a 28 year copyright length max. Not books, comic books, e-books, etc. Specifically the media I mentioned.
So what happens when a movie's copyright expires but copyright in the underlying script (a book) and in the printed sheet music (also a book) has not?
The copyright/trademarks/whatever of the characters, stories, etc. would still be copyrighted. Disney would still have their Mickey Mouse. But I just want the old footage to be released.
It'd still be illegal to make and distribute copies of "the old footage" because distribution would infringe the copyright in the book on which "the old footage" was based. This is how copyright in the film It's a Wonderful Life was restored, through discovery of copyrights in the underlying short story ("The Greatest Gift" by Philip Van Doren Stern) and the m
Re: (Score:2)
Just as downloading a copy of a song that you technically don't have the rights to download isn't 'stealing', them saying that you technically don't have the rights to download it isn't stealing.
The content creator used, let's say, $20,000 to make the work. His balance is now -$20,000. This amount he expects to recoup with sales, and ideally also get some profit. So let's say he could earn $30,000, ending up with a balance of $10,000.
Which option do you think makes the creator more likely to see his commercial art as feasible deal: that we pay properly for each copy, or that we just freeload it chanting how "it's not stealing".
Putting the World in World Trade Organization (Score:2)
You don't like it, MOVE!
Move where? All WTO members have signed the Berne Convention.