Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

law.duke.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 132 posts

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#11

Post by macrael »

javert wrote: post #9
ajays wrote: post #7

The current copyright law is a prime example of the impotence of the electorate in the face of the power of Big Money. It is in the public interest to have works move into the public domain, so that others can build upon them (I'll refrain from linking to the myriad talks by Lessig and others about how the current copyright system is broken). And yet Hollywood keeps buying the legislators and perpetuates this broken…

There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property. It typically gets ignored (e.g. by people like Lessig). Basically: The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property; that's part and parcel of living in a civilized society. Doesn't matter if that work is entirely "intellectual" or not. The fact that it's physically easy to steal intellectual property does not make it right. P…

But how is that argument extended that your natural right over your work should be extended for 70 years after you die? Why should that period keep getting longer?

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#12

Post by slantyyz »

ajays wrote: post #7

The current copyright law is a prime example of the impotence of the electorate in the face of the power of Big Money. It is in the public interest to have works move into the public domain, so that others can build upon them (I'll refrain from linking to the myriad talks by Lessig and others about how the current copyright system is broken). And yet Hollywood keeps buying the legislators and perpetuates this broken…

I wouldn't say that the electorate is so much impotent as it is apathetic to issues that affects it.

If the "nerds" came out in the same numbers and loudness of the Tea Party, I'm sure you'd see more attention paid by politicians to the issues we love to debate here on HN.

Many politicians are just as interested in keeping their job as they are in taking lobbyist money.

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#13

Post by ShabbyDoo »

cookiecaper wrote: post #10

Copyright law is really disappointing here. How do such long terms contribute to the progress of sciences or the arts? The writers and main contributors to most of the pieces named are dead. The publishers have made their cash time and time again and now most of these pieces are by no means "hot sellers", though they may be of cultural or historical interest. And, there's 40 years left before the copyright expires. A…

"The writers and main contributors to most of the pieces named are dead."

Your argument presumes that a copyrighted work is not a transferable asset. Let's say your grandfather, at age 75, pens what some publishing house deems the next Great American Novel. He wishes to live in a nice retirement community and is willing to sell the copyright to this work as a means of paying for this lifestyle. The value of his copyright is function of its longevity, so he would garner a larger payment today if copyright laws allow his work to provide a better NPV to the purchaser. Certainly, exclusive rights for 2N years are worth no less than rights for N years, so extensions of copyright can not provider a lower NPV.

I am not arguing for or against any particular provision of copyright law -- I am simply objecting to the "author is dead anyway" argument against longer copyright periods.

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#14

Post by cookiecaper »

ShabbyDoo wrote: post #13
cookiecaper wrote: post #10

Copyright law is really disappointing here. How do such long terms contribute to the progress of sciences or the arts? The writers and main contributors to most of the pieces named are dead. The publishers have made their cash time and time again and now most of these pieces are by no means "hot sellers", though they may be of cultural or historical interest. And, there's 40 years left before the copyright expires. A…

"The writers and main contributors to most of the pieces named are dead." Your argument presumes that a copyrighted work is not a transferable asset. Let's say your grandfather, at age 75, pens what some publishing house deems the next Great American Novel. He wishes to live in a nice retirement community and is willing to sell the copyright to this work as a means of paying for this lifestyle. The value of his copyr…

Well, I don't think it should be exclusively about the life of the author, as I explain later in the comment. I think a relatively short general term from date of publication is good regardless of life of author.

I am merely indicating that in cases where the author died many years ago, all the extension of copyright does is allow non-creative people that were once attached to people that were attached to the original author (great-great grandchildren, the men who now control the publishers (very unlikely to be the same men that controlled the publisher back when these works were published in the 50s)) to profit exclusively off of the author's work, which is the very antithesis of a motivation to produce your own creative work. The creative originator long since got all imaginable value out of the work and now the copyright is merely a memorial to society's worship of money over all else.

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#15

Post by slantyyz »

javert wrote: post #9
ajays wrote: post #7

The current copyright law is a prime example of the impotence of the electorate in the face of the power of Big Money. It is in the public interest to have works move into the public domain, so that others can build upon them (I'll refrain from linking to the myriad talks by Lessig and others about how the current copyright system is broken). And yet Hollywood keeps buying the legislators and perpetuates this broken…

There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property. It typically gets ignored (e.g. by people like Lessig). Basically: The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property; that's part and parcel of living in a civilized society. Doesn't matter if that work is entirely "intellectual" or not. The fact that it's physically easy to steal intellectual property does not make it right. P…

In my naive, idealistic understanding of the spirit of copyright, it's a social contract between the artist and society.

Society will grant you a reasonable amount of time to make money off your work with legal protection. After that time's up, your work belongs to society.

Seems like a fair economic exchange to me.

As far as I know, it's been good for everyone that Shakespeare's works are in the public domain.

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#16

Post by griftah »

cookiecaper wrote: post #10

Copyright law is really disappointing here. How do such long terms contribute to the progress of sciences or the arts? The writers and main contributors to most of the pieces named are dead. The publishers have made their cash time and time again and now most of these pieces are by no means "hot sellers", though they may be of cultural or historical interest. And, there's 40 years left before the copyright expires. A…

Why having Lord of the Rings in public domain is so important?

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#17

Post by ShabbyDoo »

cookiecaper wrote: post #14
ShabbyDoo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The writers and main contributors to most of the pieces named are dead." Your argument presumes that a copyrighted work is not a transferable asset. Let's say your grandfather, at age 75, pens what some publishing house deems the next Great American Novel. He wishes to live in a nice retirement community and is willing to sell the copyright to this work as a means of paying for this lifestyle. The value of his copyr…

Well, I don't think it should be exclusively about the life of the author, as I explain later in the comment. I think a relatively short general term from date of publication is good regardless of life of author. I am merely indicating that in cases where the author died many years ago, all the extension of copyright does is allow non-creative people that were once attached to people that were attached to the origina…

It seems that your argument is generalizable to the inherit-ability of wealth.

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#19

Post by xenophanes »

About copyright in general: Micky Mouse is still in active use. Can anyone tell me some reason that Warner Brothers should be allowed to make a Mickey Mouse movie just because it's old now?

One other example: sales of Ayn Rand's books currently help fund the spreading of the ideas from the books, after her death. That seems fair enough to me. Why shouldn't books sales be able to fund promotion of the book's ideas as long as people keep buying the book?

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#20

Post by wtallis »

griftah wrote: post #16
cookiecaper wrote: post #10

Copyright law is really disappointing here. How do such long terms contribute to the progress of sciences or the arts? The writers and main contributors to most of the pieces named are dead. The publishers have made their cash time and time again and now most of these pieces are by no means "hot sellers", though they may be of cultural or historical interest. And, there's 40 years left before the copyright expires. A…

Why having Lord of the Rings in public domain is so important?

I think the point is more that continued copyright protections don't serve any purpose, and thus are unconstitutional.
Post reply on HN