All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022 • Hacker News Board

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#51

Post by harry8 » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #31

marcodiego wrote: post #2

99 years to enter public domain... I don't think this is fair.

I think if we're going to time limit ownership rights to intellectual property we should time limit ownership rights to everything - including land, buildings, shares and stocks, bonds, art collections, all of it. Except maybe trivial items like home furnishings and portable tools. I've yet to hear any credible argument - one that doesn't reduce to entitlement and wishful thinking - for distinguishing between these a…

2 or more people wanting to use a given plot of land contend with each other to do so. My use impairs yours and vice versa.

2 or more people wanting to use given a sound recording do not as copying has a marginal cost approaching zero. My use can be entirely separate from yours and we may not even know of the existence of the other. Land, for example, cannot be copied with a very small marginal cost, or indeed, at all.

These things are very different and those differences need to be taken into account in any regulation surrounding their property rights. I express no opinion here of what correct regulation for property rights for these two vastly different asset classes should be. Make your case for opposing property rights by all means.

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#52

Post by vlovich123 » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

_jal wrote: post #37

ncallaway wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original Copyright Act of 14 years, with an option to extend an additional 14 years, seems reasonable to me.

I can see scaling it by change in life expectancy, to keep the bargain roughly the same.

Life expectancy of adults hasn’t changed much (ie your life expectancy when you’re in your 20s). The life expectancy number you’re most familiar with is largely driven by infancy because it’s the mean and high infant/child mortality skews that. We’re really good at saving the lives of children now but I don’t see why that matters for copyright.

More hypothetically, let’s say human life spans got up to 500 years. Copyright is intended to promote the creation of art for the public good, not to fund the artist for their lifetime.

If you created a popular piece of art of music in your 20s, why is it useful to society to help fund the next 480 years of life in any way?

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#53

Post by ncallaway » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 4:03 PM UTC

_jal wrote: post #37

ncallaway wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original Copyright Act of 14 years, with an option to extend an additional 14 years, seems reasonable to me.

I can see scaling it by change in life expectancy, to keep the bargain roughly the same.

I'm fine with that, if you use the life expectancy for an adult. Infant mortality has contributed the largest component of life expectancy gain since 1790, and we weren't incentivizing the creation of toddler art with the life expectancy gains.

So, if you scaled it from the life expectancy of an 18-year old in 1790, to the life expectancy of a 18-year old in 2021 then I'd agree with that.

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#54

Post by bryanlarsen » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 4:04 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #29

mattl wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think is reasonable? 14? 24? 50?

One of the rights that copyright protects is the right to make derivative works--such as sequels and film adaptations. If you consider that someone like Terry Pratchett can productively write a literary universe for decades, it feels to me like the best answer is around 30-50 years.

Isn't that trademark?

IOW, when Steamboat Willie's copyright expires, it doesn't give you the right to make a new Mickey Mouse film. Disney still has a trademark on Mickey.

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#55

Post by EMIRELADERO » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 4:04 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #31

marcodiego wrote: post #2

99 years to enter public domain... I don't think this is fair.

I think if we're going to time limit ownership rights to intellectual property we should time limit ownership rights to everything - including land, buildings, shares and stocks, bonds, art collections, all of it. Except maybe trivial items like home furnishings and portable tools. I've yet to hear any credible argument - one that doesn't reduce to entitlement and wishful thinking - for distinguishing between these a…

IP is not about physical goods, it's inevitably a creation of the mind. If I take your home or land, you lose it and can't access it anymore. If I "take" your intellectual property, you still have "it".

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#56

Post by odiroot » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 4:04 PM UTC

hippie_queen wrote: post #17

Can't wait to finally sample Thomas Edison on the phonograph for my Soundcloud tracks, and not having to worry about the police knocking at my door!

Knowing Edison, he can get up from the grave any day, to sue you into bankruptcy.

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#57

Post by C19is20 » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #22

mattl wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think is reasonable? 14? 24? 50?

Life of the author+0 years. Most people expect to inherit money and property from their parents but not to be paid for work their parents did years ago. I don't see why children of authors should have different expectations.

Is it the kids combining or the companies that bought the golden goose?

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#58

Post by vslira » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 4:06 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #31

marcodiego wrote: post #2

99 years to enter public domain... I don't think this is fair.

I think if we're going to time limit ownership rights to intellectual property we should time limit ownership rights to everything - including land, buildings, shares and stocks, bonds, art collections, all of it. Except maybe trivial items like home furnishings and portable tools. I've yet to hear any credible argument - one that doesn't reduce to entitlement and wishful thinking - for distinguishing between these a…

Copyright ant patents are monopolies on “infinite” resources to incentivize the creation of such resources. Property is a restriction on other people’s utilization of a finite resource that belongs to someone

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#59

Post by dougmwne » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 4:09 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #42

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if we're going to time limit ownership rights to intellectual property we should time limit ownership rights to everything - including land, buildings, shares and stocks, bonds, art collections, all of it. Except maybe trivial items like home furnishings and portable tools. I've yet to hear any credible argument - one that doesn't reduce to entitlement and wishful thinking - for distinguishing between these a…

Personal ownership is already limited by the owner’s lifetime and automatically transfers when they die. Copyrights, on the other hand, outlive the creator.

Generational wealth is a significant problem as winner take all dynamics tend to concentrate wealth within families until they get so powerful that they form aristocracies. The US is new enough that it’s aristocracy is just getting started. Several European countries lack them because war or revolution hit the reset button, but if you look at a country like the UK, you will see it alive and well.

Re: All sound recordings prior to 1923 will enter the US public domain in 2022

#60

Post by ncallaway » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 4:10 PM UTC

natechols wrote: post #48

ncallaway wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, one of the major issues for old and abandoned work is that it can be impossible to figure out who the rights holders are for a particular work. A step of active renewal by the rights holder would at least create a public registry of the current owner for a particular right.

This is a constant problem, publishers go out of business all the time. I have a lot of photocopied sheet music that cannot be purchased anywhere, at any price, but it will be decades before any of it can be legally shared. Just ridiculous artificial scarcity - I wonder how the composers would feel about it.

Yep, I really liked the copyright change to make copyright protection automatic, instead of requiring a filing.

But it should require active regular renewal, to create the record of continued ownership.

You should get a (reasonable) protected period of time automatically, to give you time to figure out which works are worth the effort to continue protecting. But it should require (minimal) active ongoing effort to maintain that protection.

For me, this is especially relevant when it comes to abandoned digital content (like video games and other applications). It'll be *so* much harder to archive and preserve content that's 140 years old, than it will be content that's 14-28 years old.