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

31–40 of 132 posts

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

#31

Post by wtallis »

javert wrote: post #29
wtallis wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That natural rights justification needs to be subordinate to the actual text of the US constitution, which makes it clear that intellectual property rights can only be granted by legislation, with limited term, and only for the purpose of stimulating progress. Without appropriate action by congress, the default under US law is for writings to be public domain, and it is unconstitutional to grant someone power over th…

That natural rights justification needs to be subordinate to the actual text of the US constitution An argument for natural rights is totally independent of the government of any particular country. If the U.S. Constitution has it wrong (which it may), that's what amendments are for.

No such amendment has been passed, or even to my knowledge come close to a vote in congress. So why is it okay for congress to be acting like they have the unconditional power to hand out intellectual property rights?

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

#32

Post by javert »

donaldc wrote: post #22
javert wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property; that's part and parcel of living in a civilized society. This argument is only considering one side of the equation. The other side: Pretty much all products of a human being's work in a civilized society are built on top of previous products of other people's works, in both a material and especially in an intellectual sense. Giving such an unreasonably…

You're correct that we build upon the previous efforts of others, but I don't think that's a counterpoint to what I've said. For one thing, copyright doesn't prevent you from building upon previous intellectual and material gains made by civilization; it just prevents you from, for example, making a movie of Lord of the Flies without permission from the owner of the copyright.

Separately:

There's a legitimate discourse to be had about how long copyright protection should last. But I disagree totally with people who claim that it should be nonexistant.

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

#33

Post by patio11 »

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?

This is a good question. LOTR is being actively commercially exploited and the commercial exploitations are darn good. Meanwhile, it's cultural impact hasn't been noticeably blunted by copyright -- that novel launched at least one industry, to say nothing of being repurposed by virtually every book in adjacent genres.

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

#34

Post by ShabbyDoo »

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…

"It is in the public interest to have works move into the public domain, so that others can build upon them"

Could offer some examples of "building upon" others' works which are not allowed without permission under current copyright law? I would like to understand what we as a society might be missing out on.

More generally, I become concerned when I hear "public interest" arguments because they usually apply a relatively static analysis of benefit rather than a dynamic economic model. It might be deemed in the public interest for pizza parlors to be forced by law to provide free pizzas. In the short term, we can imagine all the happiness these pizzas would provide. However, in the slightly longer term, it is obvious that there would be no pizza parlors at all. How does one show that limiting copyright would not have the longer-term effect of fewer works being created?

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

#35

Post by javert »

macrael wrote: post #11
javert wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't have any specific opinion on how long it should be, as long as it's at least author's life plus some FIXNUM amount of years, to cover for the case where someone wants to invest in your work, but you might get hit by a bus tomorrow.

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

#36

Post by griftah »

slantyyz wrote: post #21
griftah wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe for the same reason that having Romeo & Juliet and King Lear in the public domain is so important. Would West Side Story or Ran have been made if they weren't?

Copyright didn't seem to stop authors of D&D or many derivative fantasy novels that have more in common with Lord of the Rings than West Side Story with Shakespeare.

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

#37

Post by cookiecaper »

ShabbyDoo wrote: post #17
cookiecaper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wealth is fine in literal terms. If you want to pass money on to your progenitors, that is just fine, as it is with all real property. The key here is that intellectual property and real property have some very fundamental differences. Ideas are assigned owners only to make it plausible to spread those ideas massively -- a stipulation that was necessary when it was expensive to spread ideas (printing). With the internet, dissemination of ideas is much cheaper, though there are often still production costs.

Ideas cannot be owned; they are like fire and can only be equally shared. We assign monopolies to make publishing feasible, not to ensure the wealth of two or three generations that live off of the creativity of their grandfathers without contributing anything themselves. If the grandfather wants this to happen, he can convert his copyright to real money while it lasts (and afterward too, though it's harder without the monopoly, of course) and then transfer that money to his children. He shouldn't be able to hold ideas hostage from the people that he shared them with, however.

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

#38

Post by julius_geezer »

"Under the pre-1978 copyright law, you could now teach history and politics using most of Toynbee's A Study of History (vols. 7-10 were first published in 1954) or Henry Kissinger's A World Restored, or stage a modern adaptation of Erich Maria Remarque's A Time to Love and A Time to Die for community theater."

As far as I know, you can teach a class using Toynbee or Kissinger; the students just have to find copies. As for community theater, they put on works far more recent--one friend appeared several years ago in "Dancing at Lughnasa" (1995), another in "Lips together, Teeth Apart" (1991; or whichever MacNally play gave him a chance to shed his clothes--"Love! Valor! Etc" of 1994 maybe). What the terms are, I can't say; but it doesn't seem to run anyone broke.

I do agree that the copyright extension gone beyond reasonable bounds. The critic Hugh Kenner made an interesting case that the extension of copyright in the United Kingdom about 100 years ago had a dramatic effect on the public's impression of what literature was, creating a discontinuity in perception that made the modernists' work appear to have come about without its actual context.

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

#39

Post by avdempsey »

xenophanes wrote: post #19

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…

I'll bite. I don't care if WB makes a Mickey Mouse movie. Walt is dead. We're not talking about the state stealing "Rearden Metal" shortly after its invention. Generations have grown up with this character and it seems just as outrageous as state-based exploitation to hold this character captive forever.

How does inifinite copyright extension do anything but favor the sad corporatism you oppose? Entire generations will never re-sow the seeds of these cultural works. If you're on this planet to tell the next great Mickey Mouse story then you better be lucky enough to get the right spot inside Disney.

So I don't see any compelling Randsian arguments here. Each generation should get a shot at profiting (or simply engaging publicly) with the cultural fruits of a prior generation. Creators will be fine.

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

#40

Post by uvdiv »

slantyyz wrote: post #15
javert wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't see that as a "fair exchange". One side (the government) sets the terms unilaterally. There is no voluntary mutual transaction; the author doesn't consent to have his work forced into the public domain, or to the terms under which it is done.
Post reply on HN