The Mouse That Ate the Public Domain 345
An anonymous submitter writes: "Antitrust lawyer Chris Sprigman has written a thoughtful column In Findlaw's Writ on the issues behind the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act and the legal challenge (Eldred v. Ashcroft) to that law. I only spotted one mistake. Sprigman states that Disney's 1967 movie The Jungle Book came out a year after Kipling's copyright expired, but I can't see how, under the terms of the 1909 copyright law, an 1894 book could have had its U.S. copyright expire much later than 1950. Except for that one glitch, (if that's what it is) it's a fine column. There's no explicit mention of computer software except in the mention of the title of a 1970 article by Stephen Breyer, but everything he says about the usefulness of the public domain in literature applies with a vengeance to source code. And his is discussion of the U.S. Constitution's framers reminds us (though Sprigman doesn't develop this point extensively, and might not himself put it in as blunt terms as I'm about to) that there's even a deeper reason than utility to cherish the public domain: it is our right."
Copyright Extention Act (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Copyright Extention Act (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Copyright Extention Act (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish I could remember who.
Re:Copyright Extention Act (Score:3, Informative)
Robert Heinlein in "Life Line," one of his earliest published stories:
Had a bitch of a time finding it. Eventually, I found it in a Jon Katz artice on"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
Re:Copyright Extention Act (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want copyright laws to be only 5 years, well, guess what, Linux, Apache, etc., are all in the public domain, which means that people can freely use them WITHOUT the use of the GPL and other free-mod licenses.
When it's in public domain, no one can own it, which means no one can impose licenses to use the copyrighted material.
Don't forget, Copyright law protects open source projects from abuse and misuse as well. It's not an evil, and making it as short as possible would allow big corps. to win with software as well.
Re:Copyright Extention Act (Score:3, Funny)
In such a world its no problem because you can just read about closed products updates in 5 years and reimplement them, too.
Re:Copyright Extention Act (Score:3, Informative)
The length of terms is something which can be debated ad infinitum. Maybe what's needed is some formula like "3 times the mean anount of time a typical publisher will attempt to make money from this kind of work."
This was one area of Lawrence Lessig's proposals [gilder.com] that I really liked. He suggests a short copyright term (five years) that can be renewed a large number of times, but requires active effort from the copyright holder to obtain each renewal. Further, he suggests that a fee be associated with the renewal and that the terms of the renewals become progressively more onerous.
Besides being quite a logical approach, it's also a reasonable compromise. Copyright holders who really, really care can still maintain control of their IP for a long, long time (which would obviously appeal to Disney and the like), but nearly everything would fall into the public domain rather quickly. Out-of-print books, for example, would almost certainly become public shortly after going out of print. Even megacorps like Disney probably wouldn't choose to maintain protection over the majority of their works, because managing and paying for all of the renewals on thousands of no-longer-saleable works would be difficult, expensive and pointless (no ROI).
As I said in a comment [slashdot.org] attached to another story [slashdot.org], Mr. Lessig's suggestions don't work well for software, but I think he's got some very good ideas about books, movies, music and the like.
Re:Copyright Extention Act (Score:3, Funny)
Jack Valenti is on the record saying he wants his full consitutional due. Since congress is only allowed to grant copyright for a 'limited-time,' Jack wants it to be "Infinity minus a day."
(I know, I know... I can do the math. But that just makes it funnier, no?)
Re:Copyright Extention Act (Score:3, Insightful)
But to my comment: the infinity minus one day, to my recollection, was a suggestion originally propounded by Mary Bono, widow of the last Congressmen.
I think this got canned for two reasons:
1) It was too obviously an end-run around the Constitution's requirement that Congress extend exclusive rights "for a limited time." Obviously, neither Mary Bono's legislative assistant nor Go-Back, Jack, And Say Something Stupid Again Valenti's corp. counsel gave that comment any thought before it wormed its way into the talked points. (Doh! Boston Strangler strikes again...)
2) it would seem to violate the Rule Against Perpetuities. Its probably explained on Findlaw. Anyway, property rights hawks spent a long time struggling to get "intellectual property" called 'property' (think about it - there's nothing "intellectual" about Britney Spears, but damned if her mp3s aren't IP) so it's about time they take the good with the bad.
Just my inflation-adjusted $
Re:Copyright Extention Act (Score:2)
She stated at time of CTEA passage that the idea for perpetual copyright came from Jack Valenti, and he later admitted it in a debate with Lessig.
She said that she had been advised that the Constitution (in its "limited times" clause) prohibits an unlimited period, so she said she hoped that when Congress extended copyright next time it would be for "forever minus one day." You mathematicians figure that one out.
I can't wait until 2019.
Re:Copyright Extension Act (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no mention of this in the article, nor apparently in Eldred v. Ashcroft ... I wonder if they are pursuing this angle.
Re:Copyright Extension Act (Score:3)
It's not always their heirs, anyhow. Sometimes the copyright goes to a good friend or whatnot.
I will admit that I'm not sure that copyrights, initially, were considered to be private property that could be bought or sold. It would be interesting to know
Re:Copyright Extension Act (Score:5, Interesting)
Not according to the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't talk about IP. It talks about copyright for the creator. The P part of IP is just one of those "well surely that's what they must have meant" things. (Response: Maybe and maybe not. And don't call me 'surely'.)
I am seriously thinking of putting my IP where my mouth is: adding a line to each source file I create, right below the copyright and the GPL blurb: "In ten years this work will automatically revert to the public domain. That is, if the latest copyright date listed above is from at least ten years ago, the copyright has been abandoned." Does anyone have a better way to express this?
Re:Copyright Extension Act (Score:3, Insightful)
Repeat after me, class: Intellectual "property" is not property . The whole stupid term only came into use within the past two decades, for goodness' sake; and only because the Content Cartel wanted to push its insane definition of copyright infringement as "piracy". In other words, the people calling it property are -- amazingly enough -- the people who most benefit from the misidentification of intellectual output as property.
It boils my blood to see the argument framed using terms that were designed to bias the debate toward one side. It especially boils my blood to see the opposing side accept that stupid definition of terms. It's time to get over it, so we don't keep refighting a battle that shouldn't have to be fought in the first place.
Re:Copyright Extension Act (Score:3, Informative)
If you're claiming that copyrights were not sold or transferred in a commiditized fashion before 20 years ago, I think thats flat out wrong.
http://www.publaw.com/1976.html:
Under the Copyright Act of 1909 the ownership of a copyright could only be transferred in whole, and not in part. If the copyright owner assigned anything less than the entire copyright such transfer was only recognized as a license and not an assignment. The owner of the entire copyright was called the "copyright proprietor."
Seems to suggest that even the 1908 copyright law included the right to transfer (only in whole, not in part), a copyright, thus, effectively making it property.
Whether or not we use the stupid IP term or not doesn't change that copyrights were transferrable by law long LONG before you claim they were.
Now, what constitutes infringement is a whole other thing. I think 50 years, period is sufficient. But don't let your distaste for the current legal and social climate of copyright issues get in the way of recognizing that even if we've 'swung too far' towards the private interests with respect to the private vs. public implications of copyright law, copyrights have long since enjoyed the ability to be transferred to another party. Thus, it is property, and has been for a long time. As it relates to the parent post, the fact that a copyright can be transferred via a will plus the ever-growing copyright lifetime, allows heirs (as the parent poster noted) to live off the fruits of their parents/grandparents/etc. I think it's wrong, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been that way for a long time.
Re:Copyright Extension Act (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright is a government granted limited monopoly that must (according to the US Constitution) be granted for a very specific and limited purpose and for a limited term.
The records of the writers of the Constitution unanimously make it very clear that copyright is not property and that it must be limited; that it is granted for a purely pragmatic purpose. Some, Jefferson particularly, were opposed to as strong a measures as even the original limited 14-year term (granted only after registration with the Lobrary of Congress and after payment of the appropriate fees).
That's the Constitutional picture. It is the law that is supposed to bind Congress, the President, and the courts.
Re:Copyright Extension Act (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Copyright Extention Act (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd love to see the opposing lawyer shoot that argument down by pointing out that with computers and the Internet, anyone can "keep a work in distribution", and that copyrights are typically the main thing keeping works out of distribution -- not the other way around.
Re:Copyright Extention Act (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, you are right. Read the briefs online at http://eldred.openlaw.org [openlaw.org]
Re:Copyright Extention Act (Score:3, Insightful)
Disney's artificially-extended copyright on Mickey Mouse retards DISNEY itself from innovation: they have no incentive to develop new characters to replace Mickey, and they have no incentive to make more-creative use of the character than someone else might (were Mickey to fall into the public domain).
Also you're absolutely right about the realworld effect of extended copyrights being to actually keep works OUT of distribution: There are hundreds if not thousands of old films decaying in vaults, simply because their owners are not yet required to release them into the public domain, and they see no financial advantage in re-releasing them under the present system. By the time they are required to do so by their copyrights expiring, it will be too late -- the material will have deteriorated beyond salvage.
Re:Copyright Extention Act (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what systems like Gnutella are for. There is zero justification for that assertion.
The argument these companies would make is just a thinly veiled attempt to steal from the people. The Constitution clearly states that IP reverts to the people after limited times. Subverting the government to get around the Constitution is nothing more than 'piracy' on a monumental scale.
Re:Copyright Extention Act (Score:3, Insightful)
Troll? Who Moded this a Troll? MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
The parent here makes a very valid and sane argument, far more realistic than most legal briefs that depend on the minutia of statutes for rationalizations.
The so-called "moderator" who rated the parent as a "troll" should be publicly rebuked. Too bad we'll never know who it was.
Bob-
Re:Copyright Extention Act (Score:3, Insightful)
So what it isn't the "public benefit" in the US constitution. If they want an ammendment then that's what they should ask for.
Companies like Disney don't need gov't subsidies. The Gershwin heirs should go get jobs.
Do you think for one second the writers of the US constitution would approve of copyrights effectivly acting as pensions not only for authors but their children and grandchildren? They'd be the first to say that simply having a talented ancestor does not excuse their need to do honest work.
Authors already had life+50 years protection before the new law.
Which was already rather questionable. If the idea is to encourage people to produce new works then at the latest death of the author should place the work into the public domain. Since there is no way they can produce any new works...
What's needed is something like "copyright lasts X years (where X might be somewhere between 5 and 20, subject to debate and probably different depending on the specific catagory.) However if the author retires or dies all their current work goes immediatly into the public domain (if they decide to come out of retirment only something they produce subsequently is subject to copyright.)"
Copyright Term Extension Act. (Score:2, Informative)
Easy to answer questions (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh, the truth be told is that the answer on how much someone should be compensated is simple. Aim to give them money equal to middle class people so they can make a living doing art.
Granting a dynasty to hollywood, sports players, or musicians... Not only is easily viewed as unfair, but detracts from the actual art they are to produce.
Some easy to see detractors:
Instead of aiming more art at specific groups, art becomes less targetted at a general audience.
As for sports, the teams that can pay the big $$ can get the best players.
Re:Easy to answer questions (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Easy to answer questions (Score:2, Insightful)
Even though someone may work much harder in some sense than another, it depends on the product/service for sale by the company.
Or this could be complete bull...
Re:Easy to answer questions (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, maybe they'd give their 3 remaining fingers to get paid what they do, but they obviously won't give what really matters: their time and effort.
Now I'm not saying they need all that money and glory; in fact, I think it's a hinderance to them, but the public is paying what they consider appropriate, and if anyone deserves it, it's them.
Note that this has nothing to do with how long their copyrights should be extended.
Re:Easy to answer questions (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the posts on
Re:Easy to answer questions (Score:2)
Oh, so they're producing art, are they? Only tangentially, if at all. Let me tell you a secret -- THEY'RE IN IT FOR THE MONEY!!!
If you don't like that, don't pay to consume what they produce. Convince others not to. But don't legislate for the fish-gutter's taxes to go to artists -- she'd resent that even more than the current state of affairs, where she can at least escape from her stinking every-day reality every now and then "at the movies". This is a commercial choice she makes, and the key word there is "choice".
Middle-class socialism == +3, Insightful? That $3 crack must be especially potent today, moderators... do your worst!
How to lose a copyright (old-style) (Score:4, Informative)
One way it could happen (though I don't know if it's the case here) is that there used to be renewal deadlines, and if you missed them... too bad. An example that comes to mind is It's A Wonderful Life (1946) [imdb.com] whose copyright shouldn't be up for quite a while yet... but which became popular when it lapsed into the public domain through someone missing a filing deadline.
Re:How to lose a copyright (old-style) (Score:2, Informative)
This appears to be an error on the author's part, unless I misremember the copyright provisions. (It's been a couple years since I thought about copyright terms from that far back).
the public domain is our right..? (Score:2, Troll)
I suggest that, with all the new
The
your personal webpage should not be in this public domain, sites that actually advance the public interest should be.
I don't think that ICANN can responsibly deliniate which sites fall into this category. Who can? I do not know. Groups like eff.org should be involved in this decisionmaking process and corporate groups should not. The debate on what is in the public interest and what is not continues.. I don;t think that game information or whatever should be there, though.
I think things that in themselves maintain freedoms on the Internet itself should be, and that the government should be involved. On a global scale, public interest sites on the Internet should organize and lobby global orgs such as the WTO, etc. to delineate this public space on the Internet. There should be a dot-whatever URL-style that people can go to to look up environmental, technical, social, and political information from verifiably independent sources.
Re:the public domain is our right..? (Score:2, Funny)
First, I'd like to clear up your apparent misconception that "public domain" refers to the
Second,
If there's anything to complain about, it's the fact that country code TLDs are underutilized, especially
flaws in the system (Score:2, Insightful)
But, copyright law was created before the U.S. reached the Industrial age, which in turn led to large corporate style think-tanks. These laws were aimed at private inventors rather than large corporations, so when you bring a company like Disney into the equation there is sure to be some abuse.
The general attitude for copyrights has shifted dramatically during the past 200 years. Originally the sole purpose (whether you agree or not) was to motivate further technological and intellectual progress. In the 19th century this shifted to protecting the property of corporations (although not so much until the the 20th century when the industrial age evolved into the information age).
The solution is definitely not to eliminate copyright law outright, simply widespread reform. Being a capitalist country should not rely on government protection of property, seeing as how that is contrary to the concept of capitalism in general. But we do need government intervention to aid private inventors, perhaps in the form of government subsidies. As an added fact, we need to keep at least some copyright laws to keep all those copyright lawyers employed.
Re:flaws in the system (Score:4, Informative)
Not meaning to pick on U.S.-centrism, but copyright laws were created before the U.S. reached _any_ age, and the original purpose was to... wait for it... protect media cartels from competition and maybe be a handy mechanism for censorship, to boot.
Within the last 200 years, well, fair enough. The U.S. constitution said the purpose was to motivate further technological and intellectual progress. But within many other countries (especially in Europe) there is much more attention/justification around 'author's rights' than around 'scientific progress'.
It's a sad, but true, fact that the obviously insincere rationalization for the Mickey Mouse copyright extension is at least in part true: it _did_ bring the U.S. into line with international copyright practice. (And no, I don't buy the standardization line... I said it was obviously insincere.)
Re:flaws in the system (Score:5, Informative)
It is true that the Framers felt the early American republic needed some protection against the large content producers of their day in London. But if there is to be a shift, it should recognize that today it is the large content owners in Hollywood and New York that seek protection by means of global trade treaties--and they have the least need in the world for protection--they have already achieved dominance. Developing countries have reasons to oppose strong "intellectual property" laws.
Another point is that the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 is based on the 1710 British Statute of Anne, which also gave exclusive rights to "authors" and not publishers. The publishers have been trying ever since to win back the monopoly they enjoyed before then with the Stationers' Company guild, in return for censorship of material offensive to the crown.
Today it is a few media giants, large global corporations, who claim to produce and therefore own all ideas and expressions. They are quite willing to censor material for the government or other powerful groups.
it _did_ bring the U.S. into line with international copyright practice...
No, the CTEA did not "harmonize" U.S. copyright law with European law, that is a misconception that Jack Valenti keeps lying about. In fact, there is no way that retrospective extension could be harmonious, because before 1978, U.S. copyright dated from date of registration not from date of author's death--that causes many confusing differences between term in England and the U.S.
As the Jungle Books example shows. Since Kipling died in 1936, his works were protected by copyright in England until 50 years after his death, and so still at the time of the film in 1967--until 2007 now that England increased the term to 70 years after author's death. In the U.S., however, the second volume of the book published in 1895 would have been protected 28, 56 (when renewed) and then 75 years after first publication in 1895, and went into the public domain (IN THE U.S.) in 1966, one year before the film, as the column states. If the CTEA term had operated to harmonize, or if it had applied before 1966, then the work would still be under copyright both in the U.S. and England. Disney would have had to pay many bucks for worldwide rights unless it could, as it did, "pirate" the work from the public domain owned by you and me.
The Jungle Books example shows also that copyright is also used to suppress the creation of derivative works as much as it is to give incentives to produce new works. How can Kipling be given an incentive to produce any new books--he died in 1936! Why should not every schoolchild be allowed the right to draw her own figures from The Jungle Books without having to pay Disney a royalty or even get permission? But Disney and other large corporations claim to produce and own all our culture and ideas--even our genetic information--and the right to rent it back to us as pay-per-view forever.
Re:flaws in the system (Score:2)
The only thing about your post that confuses me is the following;
"Being a capitalist country[, we] should not rely on government protection of property, seeing as how that is contrary to the concept of capitalism in general. But we do need government intervention to aid private inventors, perhaps in the form of government subsidies."
Obviously you never read the assignments on Adam Smith. (What do you mean it's not required reading? Bah, what do they teach in schools these days?)
However, I'm very impressed. You seem to be managing feats that most contortionists would balk at, endorsing both libertian anti-government control and the democrat's semi-socialist agenda AT THE SAME TIME.
Re:flaws in the system (Score:2)
But innovation and creativity do NOT come from these "largest institutions," rather from small ones. We ought to grant exclusive rights for only a very short period to keep up the innovation instead of allowing firms to sit on their government-guaranteed profit stream.
For example, in Massachusetts small biotech firms are increasingly NOT seeking patents, but rather protecting their discoveries by trade secret law. They can't afford to cross-license patents with the big firms, and can't afford to get into patent battles with them either. One feature of patents is that the term is limited, then the ideas go into the public domain and others can improve on them. But trade secrets might be forever.
Strong "intellectual property" laws protect only one segment of the economy, one made increasingly more obsolete by technology. That's why they foolishly attempt to use laws to control the technology in their interests against ours.
Re:flaws in the system (Score:2)
Think about it. Of course, anyone can storm Bill Gates' house any time or day. Sure. The government aint protecting his property. But
So it's just semantics.
Long copyrights discourage creation of new works (Score:4, Insightful)
But if the copyright only lasted long enough for you and your label to recoup expenses and make a tidy profit on top of that, chances are you'd be getting back to work a lot sooner. When you're hungry, you work.
Re:Long copyrights discourage creation of new work (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say for the vast majority of songwriters/performers that they enjoy writing songs is the primary motivator, money is secondary.
Stephen King is a rich man several times over, but he still churns out books. I recall reading somewhere that Paul McCartney makes something like $10K a day on royalties, but he still writes music and tours occasionally. The guys in R.E.M. aren't hurting for money either, but they're still recording. Granted, the pace may have slowed somewhat -- but I don't think that in itself is a bad thing.
Hell, they paid Maria Carey something like $7 Million to dump her from her label and she's trying to get a new deal. (Note: I have no idea if she actually writes her own music, but work with me here...) From my perspective, it's a shame if she does record again, but the point is that money must not be her primary motivator to do music (if you can call it that...).
OTOH, the guys in XTC have never had a big hit, but they keep making records. Robyn Hitchcock isn't burning up the charts, but he still records and tours. Many people would probably have looked for "real" jobs after they'd realized that they weren't going to get rich, but writing music is obviously what they want to do. In the case of XTC, they'd probably have made a few more albums if they hadn't had money/label problems. So, cutting off the money supply isn't the answer here.
Expiring copyrights prior to the life of the artist is, IMHO, unfair. Even when you're talking about code -- if a person or company owns the code, they should choose what to do with it. Even if what they choose to do is selfish, it's their right.
Something else to consider, given the mentality of most record labels -- if copyrights expired after a shorter period, how many labels would just sit on material waiting for the rights to expire before exploiting it so they didn't have to share any royalties? I'd almost guarantee it'd become a common practice. Songwriters would be getting just above minimum wage while the labels cash in a few years later.
Re:Long copyrights discourage creation of new work (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a very good point, about labels sitting on content until it falls into the public domain, but I'm sure musicians could include something in their contracts about immediate release. Plus, if the material was in the PD when it was released, then other people could distribute cheap copies and the label would make way less money.
One thing is sure: Anyone who creates anything, whether it's CDs or code, has a higher responsibility that only they can decide how to come to terms with.
Re:Long copyrights discourage creation of new work (Score:3, Insightful)
Except they don't "own" the code. They hold the copyright to the code, an entirely different thing. Once you accept the fallacy that you can "own" code -- or music or literature, or what have you -- than it makes no sense for there to be any expiration of copyright. That, after all, would be a taking.
But since intellectual output is not property, it cannot be owned. Copyright is a state-granted monopoly on a service (copying), not a state-granted piece of property. The intellectual output is licensed, so to speak; and of course, thus the license can expire. It's more like leasing mineral rights on federal land than purchasing property from the federal government.
Re:Long copyrights discourage creation of new work (Score:3, Interesting)
I was going to point out the huge flaw in your first sentence, but you've very kindly done it for me.
I'm sorry, but you fail the clue check. The vast majority of people involved in song creation are now doing work-for-hire. The concept of an "artist" is the exception, not the rule. The labels already own the right to the song. Any royalties that they choose to pay to the people involved (to the creators of the lyrics or music, or to the meat puppet miming to them, for example) are a purely contractual matter. When the rights expire, it's the label that loses out, because they can't stop other labels or you or me copying or creating derivative works without restriction.
The same applies even in the unusual case of an artist retaining rights and licensing them to a label. If the label chooses not to exercise their right to copy and distribute the work, they lose out as well when the creator's rights expire, because then their license become worthless.
What you really illusatrate is how badly understood copyright laws are, and that what we need more than anything else is a single, coherent way of dealing with copyright and intellectual property. "Author's life plus some" is both relatively recent, and already obsolete!
Consider that the majority of content that you and I experience on a day to day basis is done as work for hire. Songs, TV, film, some reference books; they are created by individuals, but the rights are owned by corporations. In this case, the expiry of the rights is based not on the creator's life, but on a fixed term. (And considering that that terms keeps getting extended on demand, I mean "fixed" largely in the sense of fraudulent).
There's also a misconception that individual rights can only be licensed and not sold. Guess again. Once created, rights can be sold lock, stock and barrrel. No, this doesn't mean that you pretend that OmniMegaHyperCorp created the work or caused it to be created, you just sign a contract that says you give them all rights in perpetuity and without restriction, and (as if by magic) it happens. It's not part of copyright law, it's contract law, but it's de facto and supported by case law.
But in this case, how long should the rights last? Lifetime of the creator? Fixed term? If the individual signs them over after fifty years, does that reset the clock on the fixed term ownership by the corporation? Or what if the creator dies two minutes after signing them over? Does that start the "death plus some" expiry? What if one individual sells rights to another individual? Or what if an individual doing work-for-hire for a corporation buys the rights to the work that they created some time after the fact? What if they then sell those rights back again? Most of these questions have yet to be answered by case law, because we keep changing and extending terms so often that most work is essentially worthless and not fighting over before the issue comes up. Where there's an exception, like early Disney work, Congress is happy to extend the duration of their copyright to avoid the issue.
The whole issue of expiry is a big kludgy minefield. The only solution that makes any kind of sense is the original solution before we confused it by tying it to a lifetime: a fixed term associated with the creation of the work. It doesn't matter who caused the work to be created, or owns the rights, or how often the rights are bought or sold. The clock starts ticking the instant the work is created, and the bell rings after a fixed period, regardless of where the rights are in the pass-the-parcel world of modern IP.
That's the way it used to work, and it was a damn shame that we "fixed" it, because it wasn't broke.
Re:Long copyrights discourage creation of new work (Score:2)
But this leaves the problem of that the music companies will *ONLY* pick up on those things they can make a quick buck on. There's ALREADY a problem where they only care about stuff that they can make money off as quickly as possible, thus leading them to almost exclusively push "catchy", BUYMEBUYME but artless and substance-free bullshit like, well, everything on the radio. As is, they do at least have the possibility in the back of their minds that some bands are worth keeping around because their albums have *relisten* value, meaning people are still keeping those CDs around six years from now and playing them to their friends, meaning that that CD could potentially still be making money 20 years from now. As opposed to, say, the backstreet boys or new kids on the block, who 15 years from now will be lucky to get a single track on "HITS OF THE 90s VOLUME III!". Remove the incentive to put out long-lasting, solid albums with substance and shit, and you'll see a LOT more "britney"s and a LOT less "Dark Side of the Moon"s.. which makes this clearly not a solution to the current problems with the musical art.
Clearly, instead, the solution is for all pop musicians to have heroin addictions. You see, if they have a heroin addiction to feed, then the money from that hit single will run out an order of magnitude faster, thus requiring them to continually produce new stuff to stay at the top of the charts.
What, why do you THINK all great musicians have had drug addictions? You really buy that "troubled artist"/"escaping the intoxicating pain of intense creativity" line?
(( note: i'm probably joking. i think. ))
Re:As an artist (Score:3, Insightful)
If you only produce one brilliant idea, why is it in my interest -- or anyone's interest, or the interest of the nation as a whole -- to distort technology, the laws, the courts, or the market to subsidize you for the rest of your life?
Source code? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Source code? (Score:2, Insightful)
Although I'm not sure I see the importance with computer code if it's only the binaries that become public domain as the longevity of particular programs is dwarfed by the life of the copyright.
Campaign finance reform (Score:5, Insightful)
The fight against DCMA, copyright extension, UCITA (or whatever it was - the law being peddled to states to give click-through licenses teeth etc.) are all worthwhile, but they are attacking the symptoms. The influence of money over politics is the cause.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a US citizen or resident, so arguably this really isn't my business.)
Anybody want to get some easy karma by posting links to campaign finance reform organizations?
Re:Campaign finance reform (Score:2)
So, by your thinking, bad government is controlled by more government?
Explain, please, how this works?
Variations on a theme... (Score:2, Insightful)
Your first book was terrible, why do you think you should write another one?
Your first argument had some logical flaws, why do you insist on continuing to reason?
Let me get this straight, you have a bug in your computer source code, so you are going to write even more source to fix it?
Explain, please, how this works?
Re:Variations on a theme... (Score:2)
That kind of junk thinking is fine in the freshman dorms but it's really time for people to grow up some.
Re:Campaign finance reform (Score:2)
Re:Campaign finance reform (Score:2)
Don't hold your breath. The CTEA passed by unanimous voice vote with short speeches by members of both parties. The SSSCA has the support of senators on both sides of the aisle--including those who oppose soft money campaign contributions.
Who will speak for the public domain? Will you?
Ask yourself why there is such money in politics (Score:2)
The corruption of power is not just the addiction to personal gratification that individuals get from being powerful, it's also the astonishing amounts of money that flow into the hands of those same individuals.
Here are two very serious hints: Paid corporate lobyists, and millionare representitives.
So-called "campaign finance reform" will only ever favor the incumbant. Under the new rules, while their opponents and anyone who disagrees with the incumbants is muzzled, the politician in power gets to publish continually from their "office" about their daily successes in bringing home the pork.
Imagine that, for a moment. Can you?
Money flows into politics because there is something to be bought. Remove that power, and the money will go elsewhere. Jefferson walked from his inauguration party back to his rented room. Why? Because he as President didn't have any power anyone wanted to buy.
That's my kind of president!
Bob-
for the record: expired in 1956 (Score:5, Informative)
For the record:
Kipling's copyright expired in 1956.
Disney released their version in 1967.
Now let us never speak of this again.
In the U.S. under the old laws, sure. (Score:2)
Under a Life+70 copyright term, it would still be under copyright today.
...in the United States (Score:2, Interesting)
Kipling's copyright expired in 1956.
In the United States only. It didn't expire until 1966 (life + 30) in a few other major markets.
Disney released their version in 1967.
Worldwide.
The real reason for DVD region coding: a publisher may not be able to secure the worldwide rights for a particular copyright.
Re:...in the United States (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't believe this for one second. Even if I did, I can't see how that makes the manufacturer of a DVD player responsible for protecting the publisher from an infringment suit abroad. The publisher should avoid publishing in jurisdictions where he has not secured his rights. If a bootleg copy makes it into the as-yet-unsecured market, that is no fault of the publisher or the manufacturer.
Before the Present (Score:3)
I've read an number of historians who designate the year 1950 as the first year of the present age and accordingly date every year before 1950 as Before the Present. C. Shannon presented the Mathematical Theory of Communications in 1948 and John von Neumann had the first 'modern' computer up and running about the same time. We could take 1950 as a conveinent year with which to begin the Information Technology revolution.
Noting the submission's referral to Kipling, Disney and The Jungle Book it's not uninteresting to note the technology to reinvent The Jungle Book has only just become available and prior to Disney and movies the only 'threat' to the book might have been an unauthorized printing and stage presentation. But Disney, TV, and the movie industry represent a reinvention of the work in a novel venue with it's attendant technology and the entrechment of that technology in patent law. The net and it's attendant conflicts and revolution of copyright law is also a case of new technology presenting a potential for reinvention and redistribution of existing works, which, are sometimes movies or recorded music. Putting aside the nuts and bolts of the law and it's processes it's interesting to take in the overview as a lack of social structures capable of keeping up with the growth of technological change, as much as, power grabs by the mature patent corporations.
a real gem from the article (Score:5, Interesting)
Correspondence between Jefferson and Madison regarding the drafting of the Copyright Clause
and then read the mailing list message, there is a beauty in there by Madison. He thought that "monopolies" would be OK, for a limited time, and that there was little probability of abuse because of the democratic system being created in the US.
With regard to monopolies they are justly
classed among the greates nuisances in government.
But is it clear that as encouragements to literary
works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too
valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not
suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public
to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified
in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely
less danger of this abuse in our governments than in
most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many
Follow the link ! The Madison and Jefferson writings are just great. It's the "inifinitely less danger" part which kills me. It's obvious our current payola system of government would be abhorrent to the founders.
Re:a real gem from the article (Score:2, Insightful)
Hence, the patent grants the owner something of a limited monopoly on the item.
I don't think, as you can take from the context "But is it clear that as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too valuable to be wholly renounced" that they were talking about Microsoft-style monopolies, but rather the limited rights granted under patent/copyright law.
Note that current patent law is VERY similar to the first patent laws written in Venice in ~1474 (search for it online).
Copyright law originiated/became important with the mass-production made possible by the printing press.
What's happening to copyright law is VERY interesting as it was created in a time where the methods of reproduction were very limited, namely to those with printing presses. Now, when anyone can produce perfect digital copies and distribute them easily, where should copyright REALLY be going? Instead of bemoaning all the (quite poor) new legislation, make some POSITIVE suggestions
(ie, come up with reasonable suggestions for limiting length of copyright on a per/item basis: music 20 yrs, movies 10, etc, etc...)
-Dan
Re:a real gem from the article (Score:4, Interesting)
Most things about the current US government would be abhorrent to the founding fathers. Let's see now: gun control, campaign finance reform, the need for campaign finance reform, military actions without congressional approval, complete dismisal of the ninth and tenth amendments, fair compensation routinely ignored in eminent domain, post roads redefined as mandatory postal monopoly, general welfare redefined as redistribution of wealth, yada, yada, yada.
Extending Copy Right (Score:4, Funny)
After all, would you want to see an un authorized Mickey Mouse pr0n flick? (never mind ....)
the thought is enough to make Disney spin in his refridgerator.
Re:Extending Copy Right (Score:2)
Bring on "Dickey Mouse".
Re:Extending Copy Right (Score:3, Insightful)
Now wait a minute. (Score:2)
quote:
Cultural giants borrow, and so do corporate giants. Ironically, many of Disney's animated films are based on Nineteenth Century public domain works, including Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, Pinocchio, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Alice in Wonderland, and The Jungle Book (released exactly one year after Kipling's copyrights expired).
Now I know I am prolly missing something here, but, I have to ask; If these fell into the public domain, does that mean I can create a derivative work?
For instance:
Almost white and the seven gnomes?
A romance novel about Cindy R. Ella meeting the perfect man/woman/whatever?
A biography called "Truth, lie, truth, lie..." one puppets account of the porn industry?
And so forth?
Satire, derivative works, public domain and so forth that would bring down Mouse-k-lawyers faster than you could say "hey! check out this Aqua Skin for windows!".
So if I did, does that mean you can take out of the public domain and "claim rights/own" it/the idea?
Is that what is going on?
Moose.
.
Re:Now wait a minute. (Score:2)
Yes, of course. See American McGee's Alice, for example of a non-Disney Alice, and look up Pinocchio on www.imdb.com for many non-Disney films (including "The Erotic Adventures of Pinocchio").
Satire, derivative works, public domain and so forth that would bring down Mouse-k-lawyers faster than you could say "hey! check out this Aqua Skin for windows!".
I would make sure I was deriving from the original work rather than the Disney version, but there's not much that Disney could do to you unless you were really ripping them off instead of making another work based off the original.
does that mean you can take out of the public domain and "claim rights/own" it/the idea?
Pinocchio and Alice in Wonderland are in the public domain. You have rights to your work based off those, and only your work.
Re:Now wait a minute. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why, right around the time of every recent Disney animated feature, you see knock offs: Atlantis, Hercules, etc. Disney (at least according to current law) cannot do anything about these, either. The ORIGINAL story, characters, and whatnot are public domain. DISNEY'S version isn't.
Note that Beethoven, Shakespeare, all the old classic works are also in the Public Domain. You're free to reproduce those as you will. You're NOT free to distribute the latest film version of Hamlet - whoever actually made that owns the copyright on that, but not the original story.
The great irony with the Mickey Mouse/Sonny Bono law is that without well known works lapsing into the Public Domain, Disney would not be close to the giant they are today. Most of Disney's most famous (and most profitable) works have been based on stories that have widespread appeal - and Disney didn't pay a cent to license them.
It depends on what kind of lawyer you can afford (Score:2)
If these [original stories with Snow White, Pinocchio, and Cinderella] fell into the public domain, does that mean I can create a derivative work?
Legally: Yes. If you made a derivative work of The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi (English translation begins here [everything2.com]), making sure not to copy any elements Disney introduced (such as the dialogue and songs, the likeness of the characters, or the whale that replaced the shark), and Disney tried to sue you, any rational judge in the U.S. would ROTFL and throw out the lawsuit. This is why AOL Pictures (New Line and Warner) could release two recent [imdb.com] films [imdb.com] based on the story of the puppet, and DreamWorks could give him a bit part in a third [imdb.com].
Practically: Only if you have enough money to defend yourself in court. If you don't have enough money for a good attorney, you have to represent yourself, and Hungry Minds' Law for Dummies® [dummies.com] doesn't cover defense against frivolous copyright lawsuits. Rambu$ anyone?
can I be a karma whore for free? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm at the cap, but I was a journalism major, had a few Usenet flamewars over copyright [google.com], and I'm thinking about challenging some of E.E. Cummings' copyrights myself. His copyrights should be expiring, but because of the murky nature of pre-1978 works, his estate continues to assert rights. I think they're just hoping no one will do the math. But anyway... on to your question:
Yes, I'm not even sure that a 1894 book would be covered by the 1909 law. But assuming it is, it would be covered for 28 years, plus another 28 if they renewed. So in the year 1950 that copyright would expire. It may also be that while the book was published in 1894, it was set in fixed, tangible form a year or two prior to that, and copyright would begin from that point. So maybe 1948 the copyright would expire. However, there was a 1978 copyright law [mycounsel.com], which extended copyrights by 19 years. If Sprigman thought the 1978 law applied (it doesn't), then some poor math might put the copyright expiration date at around early 1967. That would be wrong, the book really had to enter the public domain by 1950, but the wrong numbers get sorta close to what Sprigman has. Maybe that explains his numbers.
The Sonny Bono law extended those copyrights by another 20 years, by the way. So some things that should have been falling into the public domain are squeezing out a bit of extra copyright time. Nowadays, new works are copyrighted for the author's lifetime plus 70 years after death.
Kipling dilemma solved! Or complicated? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody understands what copyright is for! (Score:2, Interesting)
It's all about the old saying "you can't take it with you" except everyone now is trying their damnedest anyway.
Artists and innovators produced art and innovation prior to copyright and patent law, and they would continue to do so if it was abolish. In fact, it would drastically increase quality in all likelyhood, as pop garbage would stop.
The US needs to take a hint from Parliment, who had this figured out centuries ago. Ownership lasts for existing life + 20 years, and stops, no extension.
An awful lot of America's woes can be blamed squarely on the puritans (bloody conservatives) who came up with the rediculous idea that anything you earn or own in your lifetime belongs to you to do with as you choose until the end of time, utter complete hogwash. Now as a direct decendant of their idiocy we have the travesty of modern IP, and whiny brats squaling about death taxes and other limitations on ownership.
Kipling Dilemma Solution Refuted (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright on unpublished works (Score:2, Insightful)
Prior to that date, his work would have been subject only to "common law" copyright (which no longer exists in the U.S.) and which had an indefinite term.
Minor clarification: "Common law" copyright primarily protected unpublished works. U.S. copyright law now protects unpublished works for the normal copyright term plus 25 years.
The "Entertainment" Industry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pronunciation: "en-t&r-'tAn-m&nt
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the act of entertaining
2 a archaic : MAINTENANCE, PROVISION b obsolete : EMPLOYMENT
3 : something diverting or engaging: as a : a public performance b : a usually light comic or adventure novel
Somebody needs to remind the ENTERTAINMENT industry just what exactly their place is in the grand scheme of things! They've bent and twisted copyright laws and now they want to cripple every digital device under the sun, and for what? To protect Mickey Mouse cartoons and a few lousy movies??? NO! It's ENTERTAINMENT! It isn't something that actually matters that much! Yeesh, You'd think that it was a "national security" issue...like protecting nuclear secrets or something!
No Disney, you can't cripple all the computers. People use them to do things that are more important than a stupid cartoon mouse...like helping to treat the sick!
Re:The "Entertainment" Industry... (Score:2, Insightful)
disgruntled with these arguments (Score:3, Interesting)
You can copyright all the blueprints you want, but that doesn't give people the legal right to market your 'invention', which is the arrangement of electronic gates found in the CPU, regardless if they obtain or duplicate your blueprints.
Computer Code clearly falls under the auspices of Patent Law, and nothing further. It is a purely mechanical system, and the code is ultimately just shorthand to arrive at the desired effect. In other words, a diagram. Just as a lawnmower or lightbulb would require for a patent. That it is inconvenient to show a physical diagram of software is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant to copyright computer code.
That this simple fact continues to elude even the most (self-styled) brightest minds of our age boggles the mind. Individuals and Companies have been getting away with 'copyrighting' their mechanical inventions for far too long now, and I say it is high time that some sense is brought to the table.
Re:disgruntled with these arguments (Score:2, Insightful)
You are mistaken (Score:2, Insightful)
IANAL, but with the way the American legal system is in place now, this is what seems to be the digs. Source code is copyrighted - algorithms can be patented. Object code can be neither.
Source code is a personal interpretation of an algorithm - a description in a particular language of a method for manipulatig anabstract quantification of a problem. That it happens to be realized on a computer is irrelevant - if a group of children understand the syntactic structure and semantic content of C++, you can write a parallel quicksort algorithm on a chalkboard, give them each cards with numbers on them, and have them quicksort the numbers. Source code is not a method - it is a description of a method. For all intents and purposes, it is a literary work [loc.gov], at least according to the U.S. Copyright office.
Algorithms are methods - the RSA cryptographic protocol and the Lempel-Ziv compression/decompression algorithm are methods. They were patented, and the patent for RSA expired (Lempel-Ziv compression is still patented, AFAIK).
If I take some source code, change all the while loops to for loops, change all the variable names to arbitrarily-assigned integers, and add an instruction to "do nothing for 5 minutes" between each basic block of actions, have I fundamentally altered your method? No. Your source code? Yes. Your resulting time/space complexity? Probably. This is why a "clean-room" implementation of existing code doesn't violate copyright. Person A didn't see Person B's code - if neither of their code looks the same, and each accomplishes the same result, how can you prove that A copied B's, or vice-versa? A similar argument follows for object code.
Re:You are mistaken Re:You are mistaken (Score:3, Insightful)
But we're not talking about mechanical engineers, we're talking about logical engineers who are building not machines but data tranformations which will be carried out by machines built by someone else for the express purpose of performing such tranformations (or "programs").
Why should I be able to patent a method of using your machine when the whole point of your machine it allow it to be so used? This is like patenting a novel because it uses paper in a unique combination of ink-markings to produce a "novel invention". Copyright is much closer to the correct solution than patent law.
TWW
short history of code protection (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:disgruntled with these arguments (Score:3, Insightful)
Patent law has nothing to do with software. The mechanical argument fails as the intent of a program is not the setting of gates (so a program rarely deals with the gates), it is the production of a desired transformation of some input data to some output data. This can normally be achieved in many different ways. Indeed the only examples that can't be done in different ways would very well serve as the definition of "obvious" when attepting to overturn the patent.
Patent law does not cover effects and two patents can be issued to two different lightbulbs which achieve their effects in two different ways.
Since the method of "setting the gates" for a software effect varies, even with the same source code, based on the processor, memory configuration, and compiler version it is impractical to the point of impossibility to apply the mechanical argument. There is simply no possibility of enforcing such an approach in software and there isn't even very much logic to trying.
The strongest approach is copyright on the source code itself which abstracts the whole gates thing to a level where it is at least possible to debate whether something has been copied or not.
Even this, however, is difficult as differing programming languages have some very different ways of expressing the same thing. Try APL, Forth, Lisp and C++ for multiplying two matricies; could you prove that they had been copied from each other (or that they had not)?
The final approach is to patent/copyright an algorithm. This, though, is a real can of worms. Since an algorithm is simply a list of instructions, allowing the protection of these as if they were property means that there is no reason I can't "own" the best route from my street to the shops and route-finder programs would be a legal nightmare. Even cookery books would become rich pickings for lawyers as these are simply collections of algorithms (if we split algorithms for computers into a special category and ignore everything else what happens when a machine is programmed to make bread, is that covered or not?).
So, perhaps the "(self-styled) brightest minds" of the age have actually thought about the difficulties involved in these issues after all. Isn't that reassuring?
TWW
Mickey Mouse for president (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not? He's already running your country, right? You silly americans should probably just overthrow your government, and be done with it. I'm kidding, of course. At the current rate of decay of your rights, you still have more than ten good years of "freedom".
Honestly, it scares me to know that if US citizens can't protect their rights now, then the civilized world doesn't stand a chance when our turn comes. US laws have a rather insidious way of becoming global. Can you spell embargo?
FWIW, IMO, copyright is a good thing. There are only two really major problems I see:
- 20 years *total* is more than enough. None of this lifetime+time until december 31+320 years+6 full moons crap. 20 years. If you haven't made your money by then, I don't think another century is going to help.
- Copyright is not a right that should be given to a non-person. Sure, corporations should be able to negotiate the right to use copyrighted material, but not to own it. Just how does that lifetime part work anyways with an owner that doesn't technically die?
Heh. Well, *technically* it's legal to download and burn music here in Canada, so I'm going to go enjoy my rights while I still live in a free country.Now that would be interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, suppose copyright is extended. We would then apply that to all older works too, and find that when Disney made their Jungle Book film, the Jungle Book itself was still copyrighted. Thus, Disney must immediately start negotiations with Kipling's estate or lose the royalties they got from the film (inflation adjusted). Likewise with Hans Christen Andersen, etc..
I think this is a really good idea, actually - after all, if these firms seek copyright extensions they surely ought to seek for *all* artists to get the extension, including those whose lapsed copyrights were exploited in the past.
After all, heaven forbid that they were using the law as a competition weapon by cherry-picking the public domain now and then having copyright extended to cement their claims on the ideas..
Re:Wake up (Score:2)
I'd much prefer to have no laws governing new technologies than have a lot of laws created by people who do not understand the technology they're trying to create laws about.
-Sara
Re:Wake up (Score:2)
It would be impossible for the courts to work out an entirely new paradigm for deciding how copyrights and non-physical property such as software should be copyrighted and patented, therefor working to improve the current system slowly is better than the suggestions I continue to see rehashed here.
If you really think no laws are better than inadequate laws, maybe you think that the stock marrket should be unregulated, or all theft laws should be repealed. These laws are imperfect, and it'd be great to change that, but otherwisse just learn to be satisfied with a set of laws that do a pretty damn good job overall.
Re:Wake up (Score:2)
Re:Wake up (Score:2, Interesting)
By and large, people are scared of technology and uneducated about it. I would prefer to see no laws governing techology than see laws created by those who do not understand the technology they are trying to control. We've already seen the results of that with the DMCA where technologically saavy people with a vendetta have been able to pass a law governing technology because the people that allowed the law to pass most likely did not understand that they were permitting a law that more or less goes against Fair Use which has been part of this country forever.
It's almost as though the lawmakers and courts of this country are "Under the age of consent" with regards to technology. They do not have enough real-life experience to understand the implications of their actions.
-Sara
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO the problem is not the laws keeping up, but the principles underlying those laws being screwed with. For example, what if we had just stuck with the original 14 years for copyright. Screw the Europeans and their life + 70 years.
I am not saying that laws never need be changed or added, but I AM saying that the Founding Fathers got it MORE right than any other group of people in power, ever; that the underlying concepts that the USA was founded on are quite in harmony with the Internet and the information age. I can easily imagine the words 'Information Wants To Be Free'on the lips of Patrick Henry. The problem is not the laws being changed too slowly, but too fast, and with courts, congress and the states ADDING new laws where none are needed.
Re:Wake up (Score:2, Insightful)
However, technology has a finite lifecycle of a much shorter period than the average person's life. Software is constantly being re-coded and the old code discarded. For 'code' the copyright lifecycle should be a lot shorter, as is the shelflife.
-Sara
So you're pro Bono? (Score:2, Insightful)
Art and literature have no shelf life--they can be enjoyed thousands of years after the author has passed away. It is reasonable for the author to retain copyright to their work
So what happens when somebody owns a copyright on every possible melody? It makes it pretty damn hard for songwriters to create something new. See also bananas [everything2.com] and elephants [baen.com].
until at least the day they die.
Corporate authors do not die.
For 'code' the copyright lifecycle should be a lot shorter, as is the shelflife.
The current U.S. copyright law framework provides no way to distinguish between "code" and any other literary work. Remember, code is speech, and speech is code.
I disagree. New laws are pointless and redundant. (Score:3)
Intellectual Property in "America" was settled over a hundred years ago, with a combination of copyright and fair use. My profitable use of your ideas is limited by copyright, your ability to restrict my non-profitable use (such as education, archive or critique) is also limited.
How does this NOT apply to "new technology"? Was public showing for profit somehow "legal" when using a VCR instead of a film projector? Is copying by hand illegal, but machine copying legal? As long as I use the latest and greatest technology and the laws haven't specifically covered it yet, may I reprint your books with my name on them and be safe from prosecution?
The call for new laws is a cry for someone else to solve your problems for you. Every way for a person to injure or trespass on someone else has been "illegal" for thousands of years. It is a sorry mind indeed who cannot see past having everything outlined in perfect detail for them by their master.
Bob-
That's not what public domain means (Score:2)
Before someone jumps on me I'll add that there's an exception for unpublished works, that basically says if you find Grandpa's unpublished manuscript from 1910 in the attic, you can copyright and publish it despite its age. However, that's simply matter of how the law works, not anybody's inherent right one way or the other.
Re:public domain isn't a right (Score:3, Insightful)
Then of course you've never published the source code and so it doesn't fall under the purview of copyright. Public domain refers to the fact that -- as Jefferson pointed out -- once an idea is shared even once, it cannot any longer be owned. Thus extraordinary and explicit means -- i.e., copyright law -- is required to secure to the author any monetary benefit, so as to encourage production.
The whole brouhaha over intellectual output arises from a misunderstanding of the basic realities of economics for non-tangible items.
Re:The "error" (Score:2)
This is why DVDs are region coded (Score:3, Informative)
Life plus thirty was never the law in the U.S.
True, but Disney's The Jungle Book was also released outside of the U.S. in at least one market with life-plus-30 law.
Nowadays, DVD region coding prevents Joe Sixpack from playing (say) U.S. Disney's Peter Pan DVDs in the U.K., where James M. Barrie's works are still copyrighted [wikipedia.com], and Disney has to absorb the royalty in the price of the Region 2 DVD.
Re:Have you seen "Steamboat Willie"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm - this doesn't seem to be TOTALLY off-topic. In fact, it reminds me of another reason Disney inc keeps frantically strangling any ancient work that might grow up and go off on its own into the public domain...
I have to wonder how much of the control has to do with maintaining a "politically correct" image? Here we have Steamboat Willie portraying animal cruelty (Yes, *I* know it's just a cartoon, but a lot of loud people take this sort of thing seriously). Similarly - when was the last time you could find a VHS of "Song of the South" to rent or purchase?
If "Song of the South" escaped Disney's clutches into the public domain, the few copies floating around out there would be distributable, and of course, Disney would be embarassed to no end (and probably harassed by race-related groups to no end). By keeping a stranglehold on what works are available and what works the public isn't allowed access to, Disney has another tool to manipulate the public's perception of them...
Just a casual conspiracy theory...
"Daddy, maybe we can use Linux to fix Windows?" --my daughter, age 3(Okay, this part is off-topic but - I've actually done this - booted from Linux to copy data from horribly dead or damaged Windows installations that wouldn't boot enough for me to do so...)