Public Domain Act Introduced Into Congress 299
AnElder writes "In his blog yesterday Lawrence Lessig said '...Congresswoman Lofgren (D-CA) and Congressman Doolittle (R-CA) have agreed to introduce the Public Domain Enhancement Act into Congress.' Today the Eldred Act website features two press releases announcing the act's introduction, as well as its immediate support by '...the American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library Association, and the Association of Research Libraries...'" We ran a link to the petition supporting this Act a few weeks back.
billing starts at 50 years? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:billing starts at 50 years? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:billing starts at 50 years? (Score:2)
It's about 50 years in the past, not the future (Score:5, Informative)
This is about 50 years in the past, not 50 years in the future.
=googol=
IP Law in two easy lessons
Theft by value: I take something that is yours.
Theft by reference: you think of something; I think of the same thing.
Min. copyright term is 50 years (Berne Convention) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Min. copyright term is 50 years (Berne Conventi (Score:3, Interesting)
I think we were doing better under the 1909 Act, particularly when Congress took a look at the B.C. and rejected it.
Re:What about home security cameras? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What about home security cameras? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What about home security cameras? (Score:3, Funny)
I just had a vision of public domain hit squads taking out copyright holders, for the purpose of cutting down their works' remaining copyright protection to that "plus 50 years".
Re:What about home security cameras? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:billing starts at 50 years? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is that? If it's making you money you're obviously keeping track of it already.
Two, 50 years from when? Creation? Publication? Technically, when I create a work it automatically is copyrighted but what if I publish some of the poems I wrote in high school 20 years ago? Do I pay my $1 in 2053 or 2033? What if I pay in 2053 and someone says I should have paid in 2033? Now I have to go to c
I cant be the only one that thought of this (Score:3, Funny)
PDEA.
Does that make people who like this bill pdeaophiles?
Re:I cant be the only one that thought of this (Score:5, Funny)
Berne Treaty? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Berne Treaty? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Berne Treaty? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Berne Treaty? (Score:2)
But this bill could apply to works beyond the term set in the Berne treaty, which doesn't get extended periodically by Congress, which would lead to at least some w
Re:Berne Treaty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Screw the Berne Treaty
If Bush can decide that he wants to pull out of treaties designed to keep the peace [state.gov], I have no problem pulling out of treaties designed by corporations to keep the profits.
We need a few congressmen in our pocket (Score:4, Informative)
I don't see why the EFF and similar groups can't 'invest' in a few reelection campaigns. The business model is established by numerous corporations and special interest groups - all it would take are funds. In fact the same applies to all progressive social and political groups... how come the bad guys are smart enough to heavily influence politics with their money but the good guys aren't?
Re:We need a few congressmen in our pocket (Score:5, Insightful)
how come the bad guys are smart enough to heavily influence politics with their money but the good guys aren't?
Because people keep giving the 'bad' guys money. Have you bought a CD/DVD, gone to see a movie, or bought a book? You've just given money to the 'bad' guys. If you want the EFF to buy off a congressman, send them a $20 check instead of buying a CD. I don't have the figures, but I feel pretty confident that the EFF didn't bring in as much as AOL/TW last year.
EFF is a charity; PACs aren't. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want the EFF to buy off a congressman, send them a $20 check
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a charity. Charities do not make political campaign contributions. Political action committees [reference.com] (PACs) are not charities and can and do give money to candidates. Does there exist a PAC in the United States that focuses on the same issues that EFF follows?
Re:We need a few congressmen in our pocket (Score:5, Interesting)
The "good guys" generally don't have the money to take on the "bad guys". The "bad guys" are "bad" because they have money - LOTS of money. The "good guys" are "good", generally, because they don't.
Case in point, IBM vs SCO. There've been a number of (admittedly piss-taking) posts on here from people who say "Who do I support? IBM's mega-rich, but SCO're a bunch of fucktards."
Until the "good guys" have the financial wherewithal to take on the "bad guys", corrupt governments will be more easily influenced by the corporations - The exact groups that should have precisely zero say in anything to do with how a country is run.
Re:We need a few congressmen in our pocket (Score:2)
legal battles are enormously expensive, but ususally when I see how much a congressman has been paid [opensecrets.org] by a business, it's a fairly small amount, like $20K, and I think, is that all it takes? That's only enough to employ an engineer for about a month. I don't there's
Re:We need a few congressmen in our pocket (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, $20K isn't much, but xxAA don't just buy one pet polly they buy dozens of them. Suddenly you're talking six or seven figures to even equal their investment - And you will always need to have one more pet polly than they do to be sure of success. Suddenly it's down to a war of attrition and the side with the deepest pockets (Hint: It's not the non-profits) has an enormous advantage.
Re:We need a few congressmen in our pocket (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We need a few congressmen in our pocket (Score:2)
IBM is a rare exception of an extremely powerful entity that has very little corruption. Perhaps they learned from their past. But since the forces governing t
Re:We need a few congressmen in our pocket (Score:2)
Political lobbying might be a good service, but most people don't care enough to donate much - Certainly not the kind of money that xxAA can throw at tame politicians.
Re:We need a few congressmen in our pocket (Score:2)
Re:We need a few congressmen in our pocket (Score:4, Insightful)
These numbers are totally pulled out of my arse, and I'm sure that the CD sales figures are out by a couple of multiples of 10, but they're a fair demonstration of the kind of money we're fighting against - Remember, it's not just RIAA but also MPAA.
Re:We need a few congressmen in our pocket (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunatly most people just don't give a fuck, and _that_ is the problem.
Re:We need a few congressmen in our pocket (Score:2)
Bingo!
Apathetic sheeple who don't give a fuck about the damage corporations are doing are the root cause. They don't educate themselves about the issues, and vote for the politicians who can afford the most airtime - One thing I'm very thankful for about the NZ electoral system is that money for TV advertising is tax-payer funded and strictly apportioned, meaning that our elections don't just come down to a publicity contest.
Re:We need a few congressmen in our pocket (Score:5, Insightful)
Read your
Your post suggests trading $ for votes. "My vote won't count, but my $ will!"? Isn't that essentially giving up the most needed of democratic liberties? OK, so corporate America seems to run the show and seems to be able to buy votes - following through with your suggestion would only show that they've won and Congress is a place to buy profits. Unless you have a lot more $ than the opposition, your vote still doesn't matter. Fighting fire with fire sometimes leaves nothing but scorched earth.
Listen to Sen. John McCain when he speaks of the need to rid elections of "soft money" - that is the crux of the problem. It will take a lot of time and energy to have the coprorate shills either turfed from office or earn thier election donations, but it can be done without stooping to the level of bribery. Use your rights fercryingoutloud - Freedom of Speech jumps into my head.
Sheesh.
Soko
Re:We need a few congressmen in our pocket (Score:2, Interesting)
(1) Don't preach to me about John McCain. If McCain had won the primary over GWB then the world would be a lot better place today and America's popularity wouldn't be at an all-time low worldwide. Furthermore I totally agree with him on campaign finance, as I have said in other posts in this thread. Unfortunately it will not happen while the Republicans are ruled by an evangelical/neocon cabal of realpolitik nazis (no trolling intended).
(2) "Isn't that giving up the most
money talks, I see you walking. (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that Micro$loth is on the top of the list of donors.
If you actually believe that a letter from you and a letter from Microsoft have the same weight in determining how Senator McCain votes on any specific issue, you're as clueless as the rest of your post shows you as.
The fact that you got moderated up to 5 is a demonstration of why I expect the US high-tech community to lose its freedom to create in the long run and why the laws Hollywood
yes, we do, but it won't happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why the EFF and similar groups can't 'invest' in a few reelection campaigns. The business model is established by numerous corporations and special interest groups - all it would take are funds. In fact the same applies to all progressive social and political groups... how come the bad guys are smart enough to heavily influence politics with their money but the good guys aren't?
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T!!!
Non profit 503(c)3 "educational" organizations can't spend a single dollar on political campaigns. That's the tradeoff you get for knowing your contributions from them are tax-deductible.
The ONLY kind of organization that can raise money from the public
That's why EFF, Public Citizen, etc. can only wring their hands when shit like the DMCA passes. All they can do is beg and plead with Congresscritters for mercy. They get polite treatment. The people with the checks get results.
No, the major corporations don't always get their own way on the Hill. It is possible for people's organizations to get enough money from people in $5 and $10 and $20 and $100 contributions and disburse them in $1000 and $5000 and $10,000 checks, to hire full-time staff to analyze new laws so the members don't get blindsided, to hire lobbyists, to hire staff to open envelopes. And they can and do run political campaigns against people who persist in not getting the message.
The existence proofs are the NRA and the AARP. They are professionally run, they raise money, they represent their membership effectively.
What's the bottom line for us? A small group of people come up with a couple or 3 million dollars they don't expect to be tax deductible. Not to give to politicians, to hire top-bracket pros to build the fund-raising infrastructure to make it possible to raise money from us in $5 and $10 and $20 and $100 contributions to make meaningful contributions.
American high-tech types have the following choices:
- learn to bend over and take it with a smile and practice "Would you like fries with that?"
- Get it together and start doing the PAC stuff right fucking now.
- get ready to leave the US permanently for places outside the reach of Hollywood cartel-owned politicians.
- Hope the RIAA member labels go bankrupt before they do any more serious damage to the high-tech scene.
But without the startup money, this goes noplace. If nobody's willing to come forward with the price of freedom while it can still be paid in dollars, the only solutions to this problem are individual... figuring how to get out from under.Nobody's going to come forward with the startup money.
The people who can are under the delusion that the Hollywood cartel can be negotiated with, and after they come up with consumer devices that'll make Hollywood happy but that nobody will buy because they're DRM-broken to uselessness, Hollywood will make all their content available for pay-per-download for everybody that the Internet infrastructure can't support, and we'll all march off to a future of infinite profits.
I'm looking for . . . an individual solution.
Re:yes, we do, but it won't happen. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We need a few congressmen in our pocket (Score:2, Insightful)
What exactly is your plan, to stand around and talk about our principles while the megacompanies gradually buy control of congress?
Obviously the best solutions would involve massive reforms of campaign finance and elimination of all connections between business interests and politicians/political parties... but this seems to be hell and as of now it is not freezing over, so I guess it'll b
Disney Inference (Score:5, Funny)
So now we know conclusively that Disney owns 2% of the copyrights between 55 and 75 years old.
By the time Congress is through with it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:By the time Congress is through with it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not funny. I don't like it at all. (Score:4, Insightful)
While you might have been making a joke, the concept of paying for copyright protection might not be a good idea. With a short enough durration and a high enough cost, established publishers can effectively block out new entrants. It would also castrate the GPL when developers have their code co-opted because they can't pay to maintain their copyright. Patent fees like this are how Wittle lost his patent on the jet engine, which was much more reasonable than our current schedule. Fees might look reasonable if you are sitting someplace with money. Most people can't afford them and they have a way of doing just what your joke implies.
Let's just roll back to a 14 year copyright protection. It's better to simply reduce the term so that anyone might publish an author's work within their lifetime. This maximizes the chances of useful works being published cheaply while they are relavant, while rewarding the author for publishing. 14 years was a good idea when publication was far more expensive and it's not a bad idea now. The GPL is still needed for 14 year copyrights because that's like 100 in software years. A hundred year copyright protected work might be widely published for the benifit of my great grandchildren and they probably won't want to read it.
coincidence? (Score:2, Funny)
A few weeks later it gets officially put on the table. Coincidence? I think not.
WAY TO GO
Doolittle a valuable ally (Score:5, Interesting)
An uncompromising conservative who has forged a reputation as a reliable ally and savvy lawmaker, he's got a wide net of influence that makes him considerably more powerful than he would seem at first. If anyone can get this thing on the agenda, it's him; his relationship with DeLay and Hastert will ensure that.
With the conservative flank well-protected, it's the Democrats -- who, let's tell a hawk from a handsaw here, have often been craven in their defense of entertainment campaign dollars -- that need to be courted.
Will it get through?? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, all the good intentions in the world don't matter if the bill doesn't get up eventually. Does this bill have any chance of getting through the two houses of Congress?
Re:Will it get through?? (Score:2)
Does this bill have any chance of getting through the two houses of Congress?
That and, will it make it out of committee?
Many bills are often "keyholed" and remain stuck in committees or are simply rejected by committee. So lets hope that it makes it out of the committee to which it is refered.
neurostarRe:Will it get through?? (Score:5, Informative)
There are three important factors here:
- Disney doesn't really care if it passes.
They can easily afford the registration fee
and procedure to protect their copyrighted
works.
- Disney would look really stupid if it
opposed even this bill. At the time of the
Sonny Bono Act, Disney was "protecting its
investment" from lapsing into the public
domain, so the question was "how long should
copyright really be?" Today, the question
is "should copyright last over fifty years
with no obligation from the creator to even
register?"
- Disney can use the works that do lapse
into the public domain in its own products,
without having to pay royalties.
If Disney realizes the opportunity to create some good PR for itself (for little or no cost!), then maybe it'll have a chance.Re:Will it get through?? (Score:3, Insightful)
What about IP inheritence trees? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there a reason that can't happen?
Re:What about IP inheritence trees? (Score:2, Informative)
There are, in fact, some MM comic strips already in the public domain because they were not renewed by Disney ages ago. Hasn't had a big impact.
Besides -- Disney would probably be willing to pay a few extra dollars to be safe. The investment isn't very big, after all. (but really sh
Re:What about IP inheritence trees? (Score:3, Informative)
Then they're really fucked, because there were two Mickey Mouse cartoons made before "Steamboat Willie", and since those would be public domain, then there would be prior art issues. Or prior cel issues, as the case may be.
I am really sick and tired of p
I, Sen Strom Thurmond am very much against (Score:2, Funny)
What?
Oh.
Well I'm against public domain too!
Re:I, Sen Strom Thurmond am very much against (Score:2)
Choice quote from Lessig's page: (Score:3, Interesting)
-snip-
Microsoft? Oracle? Doesn't matter, really. Hell, even game developers are beginning to exploit game communities and user modifications as features to market the game -- before said things exist. I fear a burnout at some point down the road...
-------------
Ever notice the bipartisanship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's why. The RIAA, MPAA, etc. make sure they toss around large amounts of money to both parties (as all good interest groups should do) to get the laws they want passed. As IP policy is not addressed by the platforms of either political party, those who are going to sell out and fuck america up the ass for lots of campaign money realize that it will not only look better if they introduce said law in bipartisan pairs, but it is much safer, too. A bill sponsored by 1 republican and 1 democrat is much less likely to be attacked by either party as a whole. In fact, such a bill will never be attacked by either party as a whole. If, say, the republicans were the ones passing all the "destroy their computers and send them to guantanimo" IP laws, the democrats would immediately campaign against it, and vice-versa. So since both parties know the other doesn't care, and since both parties have plenty of members willing to whore themselves out for money, those who introduce these bills know it's mutually beneficial for both parties to do so in pairs.
Of course the same thing does for good laws, such as the one that's the subject of this thread. If two Republicans introduced the Eldred Act, the Democrats would immediately accuse the Reps of supporting criminals.
Insightful. You bet your ass.
Re:Ever notice the bipartisanship? (Score:2)
Tell your rep to cosponsor this bill: (Score:2)
it takes two minutes!
I just did (Score:3, Interesting)
I just used the form [house.gov] to send a message to The Honorable Mark E. Souder, which went something like this:
HOAX! (Score:3, Funny)
Flatulence (Score:3, Insightful)
My economic stimulous plan is to push copyright to 14 years renewable one time for another 14 years for a fee. Berne Convention or not! Most companies should easily be able to make a profit off of their works/work for hire within a 14-28 year period. If not what in the hell are they doing in business - learn how to balance your books.
My thought is that if you have a fairly short expire date for those profits to be reduced then the companies will work harder to produce new works which means new sales to maintain profits. New works will be easier to churn out because there's plenty of newly released fodder from the expired copyrights.
Companies that can't innovate in that market don't deserve to be in business and shouldn't be able to legislate themselves into staying in business.
"No Commercial Value" (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm surprised at the comments that suggest this bill doesn't matter because it can only hope to free up those copyrighted works with no commercial value. Here we have stories about the Intellivision operating system [slashdot.org] drawing hundreds of comments, articles all the time about classic [slashdot.org] console [slashdot.org] and arcade [slashdot.org] video games, news of public domain audiobooks, [slashdot.org] and talk about a huge amount of "content" that clearly has no commercial value but is still really interesting, fun, and/or enlightening.
Yes, some of the stuff I've mentioned does sometimes make an appearance in a commercial product like a 25-in-1 game controller or something, but there are still huge amounts of old computer games, books, films, music, and other media that are never going to make anyone a cent again. Some of these still would be nice to have around and have access to. Some of this stuff might be "sampled" or otherwise incorporated into new works of art, some might be used for historical or other academic research, and some of it might just be watched or read or listened to or played with by a small group of people who aren't much of a "market" but who still appreciate this work being available instead of lost in an corporate bureaucracy.
question (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem with this? (Score:5, Interesting)
I love the idea of this bill.
But there's a problem, as far as I see:
Doesn't this mean that someone can just pay their $5 immediately upon creating the work, thus registering for the ~50 year extension? That seems bad to me, since essentially every book publisher (etc.) will just pay that fee when they publish. I thought the idea was that works "abandoned" after 50 years would have nobody around to bother to "renew" them, and then they would pass into the public domain. Even with an ammendment to the law, would someone just be able to set up a service that would automatically send in the forms and payment for subscribers' works when it's due?
However, even if most people still pay the fee up front and get the full length of copyright, the database of such works will be extremely useful for things like project Gutenberg, where one of the hardest parts is simply finding out whether a work is still protected.
Effects on Free Content? (Score:4, Insightful)
With the current setup, the stronger copyright is, the stronger copyleft is. For example, if copyright terms are 90 years, it will be 90 years before Free software can copy Unix code, but it will also be 90 years before Unix can copy Free software and make it closed source.
Under the proposed act, if one assumes the Free content is less likely to have a revenue stream than the closed source content (an invalid assumption?) it is more likely that the Free content's copyrights will lapse while the closed-source content's copyrights are renewed.
Okay, software will probably be obsolete in 50 years, but the same applies to music, films, books and other forms of content which don't go obsolete as quickly.
End result: Closed source content has a chance to use Free content while Free content doesn't get a reciprocal benefit.
I'm not necessarily saying it is a bad thing. It might turn out that the boost Free content gets from all that new public domain material is bigger than the loss, but it's something to think about.
Long term results (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing we know about government is that if there's a "temporary" fee, it will last forever. And those "small" fees are almost certain to grow.
By introducing this bill as a "miniscule" fee, they've effectively planted the seed that would all but defeat the existing "eternal" copyright insanities.
In short, we would have a say because government would have a reason to listen - $$ talks louder than any number of letters, faxes, and emails.
When it finally passes this Act will totally ..... (Score:4, Funny)
That's just the way bills in Congress works: the result of the bill is always exactly opposite of what the title of the bill implies.
federally funded research into public domain? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is an interesting NYT article today [nytimes.com] about a call for federally funded research to be more freely available, instead of in expensive and restrictive journals. It's about time- there are many expensive for-profit journals, whose worth is determined by reputations established primarily by the refereeing process. Referees are usually academics not paid by journals. Since the NSF or NIH is often paying for the researcher (who is doing the hardest work) and the universities are paying for the referees (who are doing the next hardest part of the work) and the labs and resources are usually paid for by universities (often the greatest expense) it is remarkable that the
journals have been getting away with making big piles of money for essentially being clearinghouses and middlemen. In mathematics, there has been some resistance [umd.edu], including some from bigshots [berkeley.edu], to these journal monopolies, but change towards cheaper/free/non-profit journals has been slow. I choose to submit my research to reaonable journals on this criteria, but that means that I will never submit my work to some of the most prestigious ones. In medicine, where journals often restrict researchers from even discussing their results with colleagues or media until the article appears, this could be a massive chage. Many scientific journals do not permit you to post your own research on your web page and hopefully this overdue movement towards free distribution gathers momentum.
Re:One problem I have with it. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:One problem I have with it. (Score:5, Informative)
Commercially Viable (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a few cases where party x knows how to make a work of party y commercially viable again. The problem is that party y will cry foul when party x performs his magic.
This is a good step forward.
Re:Commercially Viable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Commercially Viable (Score:2)
The Process (Score:2)
In some ways, I think the copyright laws should stop being viewed as static rules, but be designed as a process that ultimately ends up with the work in large public databases.
The first phase of the process has the objective of getting money into the hands of the artists to cover production. The last phase makes it so we can query and cite large collections of works.
The trick is design the process so that the database does no
Another Problem is this (Score:2, Insightful)
So by not renewing their copyrights they will be creating a competitor to their commercially viable products.
So for them it is then worth it to pay the buck or 5 bucks to renew it.
You have to remember it's not just if the copyright will make them money, but if the public domain stuff will cost them customers. Since ultimatly it would, they will of course always renew.
Right now I can't just download a old movie fro
Re:Another Problem is this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another Problem is this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Another Problem is this (Score:3, Insightful)
It's probably pretty safe to say that Mickey Mouse will have his copyrights renewed but what about some bankrupt comic book house whose assets were bought at
Re:One problem I have with it. (Score:2)
Re:One problem I have with it. (Score:5, Informative)
Therefore, your assertion that this law does nothing, is incorrect.
(I was going to say something about your (apparent)inability to read, but I decided against it because I'm a nice person.)
Time to try my hand... (Score:5, Funny)
Link to the proposed bill is here. [eldred.cc]
(Not to be nasty or anything, but if you'd have clicked the link in the slashdot announcement you would have found this link immediately.)
Re:One problem I have with it. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:One problem I have with it. (Score:2, Informative)
They can't renew it past the normal expiry date, so this won't make copyrights last any longer than they do now. But this isn't meant to stop or shorten corporate copyrights - the intent is to make copyright holders show some interest in keeping their copyrights, and to ensure that the copyright office knows who owns the rights (they can be inherited, reassigned through contracts, etc.).
Re:One problem I have with it. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ugh (Score:3, Informative)
this law is not in favor of extending the copyright term past 75 years...if anything, it is in favor of reducing it.
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ugh (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why do copyrights need to expire? See our wonderful mechanism for moving works into the public domain? Why, 90% of the works ever created move into the public domain after 50 years? Is it fair to punish the owners of the remaining 10% who have demonstrated consistent and careful interest in stewardship of their works?"
didn't we talk about this alread? (Score:3, Insightful)
A large company with thousands of copyrights will be able to automate this process and extend their copyrights into eternaty without even a second glance. The fee shouldn't be $1. It should be $10,000 to keep a work from the public.
This might not be much different, but if you have a work that valuble that the copyright needs to last 100 years, it should be wo
Re:didn't we talk about this alread? (Score:3, Interesting)
And as for the $1, thats so people who own their OWN copyrights, the 'little people', and who feel it's important to them to keep their works under copyright but just might not have $10,000 lyi
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Informative)
From The Eric Eldred Act FAQ [eldred.cc]:
2. How would it work?
Fifty years after a copyrighted work was published, a copyright owner would have to pay a tiny tax. That tax could be as low as $1. If the copyright owner does not pay that tax for three years in a row, then the copyright would be forfeited to the public domain. If the tax is paid, then the form would require the listing of a copyright agent--a person charged with receiving requests about that copyright. The Copyright Office would then make the listing of taxes paid, and copyright agents, available free of charge on their website.
They're not expanding the term of copyright. They're shortening it, in most cases, and making you pay a small fee to hold it for more than 50 years, in all others.
Re:Reminds me of the income tax (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ugh (Score:3, Insightful)
So this means you can't use Mickey Mouse because he's still under copyright. If Steam-Boat Willie falls into the public domain, then it's possible that you'll be able to make a derivative work using the character of Mickey Mouse and Disney can't stop you.
IANAL, but this seems to be the reasoning behind it.
It's not for the authors protection - he's
Mickey is trademarked (Score:4, Informative)
Mickey is trademarked, so it doesn't matter what happens to Steamboat Willy. You still can't use Disney's trademarked character.
Anyway, the whole "cheap knockoff" argument is overrated. There are plenty of legitimate, authorized "cheap knockoffs" of all kinds of characters. Go buy a "Kids Meal" at McDonalds to see what I mean. And endless copyright prevents new and interesting ideas just as much as it prevents cheap knockoffs. (For examples, see Dan O'Neill and Berkeley Breathed.)
I know, I'm not actually disagreeing with anything you said. I just wanted to make the point.
Trademarks have nothing to do with it (Score:4, Interesting)
Mickey is trademarked, so it doesn't matter what happens to Steamboat Willy. You still can't use Disney's trademarked character.
Not true. At my local Walgreens store, I find VHS copies of public-domain films starring Bugs Bunny. These films were first published before 1964, but Warner never got around to renewing their copyrights at the 28-year mark. (Copyright in all works first published in 1964-1977 was renewed automatically by a 1992 law.) The boxes of the tapes have the text "Bugs Bunny" and a drawing of a rabbit on the front and "Fresh Hare, Falling Hare, The Wabbit Who Came To Supper; this video contains public domain audiovisual works and is not sponsored or endorsed by the original authors of the works." No, I don't remember the citation of the relevant court case. Anybody else?
If Warner wants to compete, it can still compete on technical quality. The video I bought had a crappy transfer with blown highlights; Bugs often looked all-white instead of gray and white as he is supposed to appear.
Trademarks DO have something to do with it (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, and those particular images of Bugs Bunny are now in the public domain, but if you try to make your own brand-new Bugs Bunny cartoon, you're still going to fall afoul of the Warners lawyers, because Bugs is still a trademark of Warners. Which was my original point.
You're right that it's not quite as simple as I originally implied, but trademarks are still a very important factor. If Steamboat Willy went into
Re:What a flawed idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a flawed idea (Score:2, Interesting)
That's exactly the point. This is not a money-making venture we're talking about. The tiny amount of money to continue a copyright is intended to make the work fall out of copyright and into the public domain. It's not like the government is going to be making big bucks off of this. For my part, I would like to see copyright's terms limited to 10-20 years, but I'm a young radical who hasn't created much of value yet. I'm sure I'll feel differe
Re:What a flawed idea (Score:2)
Re:What a flawed idea (Score:5, Interesting)
There are many works which are not wanted by enough people to justify putting them back into print. However, if they were public domain, the few individuals who do want them would be able to print or otherwise distribute their own copies. The Gutenberg Project and others like it would benefit greatly from something like this.
TTFN
Re:What a flawed idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a flawed idea (Score:2, Insightful)
And it does have value. In many cases, the people who might own copyrights are not even aware of them, or are not easily determined from reading the copyright statement from 75 years ago. There's more to this than just paying a dollar. You also have to make it obvious who owns the copyright. I'd suggest that right there makes this plan worthwhi
Re:What a flawed idea (Score:2, Interesting)
With this system, one would be able to go to a web site, and ente