Live data from Hacker News

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

publicdomainreview.org

131–140 of 233 posts

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

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an ideal world, copyright should last for maybe two or three years. It would still mostly fulfill its purpose to allow the creator to earn money, but would severely curtail the abuse potential. In an even more ideal world, copyright shouldn't be transferable.

Three years is probably too short, but certainly something less than 30 years. That gives people plenty of time to enjoy the profits from their work (basically their entire adult lives) while allowing it into the public domain while it is still somewhat useful. I don't think the system would function without transferable copyrights. A movie might have 10,000 people who've contributed to it. Managing the copyrights wi…

Most movies make most of their money week one. Most songs make the bulk of income within a 3 month period. 3 years is longer than necessary.

Perhaps this would affect less known artists. I would be willing to keep the copyright until the first 100,000 or 1,000,0000 worth of product is sold.

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

#132
post #18
post #8

Does this offer a sort of land-grab opportunity where anyone who has an original recording can remaster it, convert to mp3, then claim copyright over that "transformation" of the original?

No, because the original is still in the public domain. Copyright law is pretty good about defining “derivative works”, and someone’s remaster is not going to hold up as a copyrightable contribution.

While this is mostly correct, the mention of derivative works is a red herring; derivative works are copyrightable, they're just also subject to the copyright of the original.

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

#133
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> those stories have always been public domain and you can write a book or movie about them with no problem. Those stories were retelling of stories which were retelling of stories which were... Disney made it law that no one is allowed to retell their stories but them. Approaching or alluding to their retelling can carry stiff penalties. It's antithetical to a universal human institution that has existed since befor…

This is interesting to think about. The Disney retellings in some ways are evolutionary winners that are also dead ends. Outside of Disney they can’t evolve unlike pre-Disney. The Disney retellings are so popular that other retellings are almost extinct. When Disney goes away, does the story lineages disappear? Do copies of older retellings resurge? Do totally different story lineages take the place of the Disney sto…

It would be interesting to do a study on popular myths/fairy tales that have and have not been adapted by huge media companies.

For example, if I search "Beowulf" in Amazon, the first link is for 2007 movie, the second for the book, and the third for a TV show. If I search for "The Little Mermaid", the whole page is dominated by the Disney franchise or some off-brand adaptations. Hans Christian Andersen's book is nowhere to be seen.

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

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the correction. So we're at a 45% increase. Typically life expectancy is reported as the "from birth number". That's gone from ~20 to 80. The claim was that the bulk of the life expectancy number being driven by the mortality rate prior to adult hood was an "urban myth". Life expectancy in adult hood is a ~1.4x increase. Life expectancy from birth is a 4x increase. I'd say the bulk is driven by saving the…

You're still not doing apples-to-apples comparisons. The source that you cited says 12th–19th-century life expectancy at birth was 25–40 years when infant/child mortality is included, and 55 years when it is excluded. There has not been any “4x increase” in this time period. (Even if you start in the bronze age, life expectancy at birth has not increased four-fold.) Since the time period you chose, life expectancy at…

North America has a life expectancy of ~80 years. I eyeballed it so closer to 3.2x the 25 year life expectancy in the 12-19th century. What am I missing?

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

#135

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

We should eliminate copyright. Zero years.

Copyright was a reasonable bargain when printing a book involved a large up-front investment of typesetting it and then printing all the copies that would ever be printed from that setup. It didn't affect most people, just printers. And it enabled authors to make a living from writing. This held a fortiori for phonograph records.

It became fairly dubious in the age of photocopiers and tape recorders, but fortunately was little enforced, except in the USSR. A photocopier was useless without typeset or handwritten text to copy, and a tape recorder was no substitute for a recording studio, and the copies degraded every generation, so publishing houses were still needed.

Now every computer is a book-copying and music-copying machine more powerful than the entire publishing industry a few decades ago: it can transmit a gigabit per second, and for a one-megabyte book, that's 125 copies a second, 10 million copies a day, 3 billion copies a year, so copyright is a constant danger to everyone. Fanfic sites are full of people sharing stories they wrote with no expectation of making money. Soundcloud is full of indie band recordings edited in Audacity. The age of the rich celebrity authors like Isaac Asimov or Ernest Hemingway ended decades ago, not due to xeroxes but due to TV. (We still have celebrity musicians, but it's not clear that helping the Rolling Stones buy cocaine is an important public policy objective.) The best software is free software, as copyright makes proprietary software untrustworthy, creating incentives to stuff it with malware. And, even if Elsevier were paying researchers instead of vice versa, the idea that copyright on research papers could fund research is as ludicrous as the idea that people would stop singing songs and telling stories without monopoly profits.

Apps, videos, and websites constantly disappear due to (often groundless) accusations of copyright violations. Police evade accountability by playing copyrighted music, rendering any recordings of their abuses copyright violations. A friend of mine committed suicide after being prosecuted for copyright violations that might have been fair use; we'll never know.

So, I would set the copyright term at zero years. Legal monopolies on preserving and sharing knowledge are not only useless in today's world, they are harmful, a monstrous menace to the integrity of the historical record and to private communication.

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

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree wholeheartedly. The purpose of copyright is to shift money made from selling copies back into the production of new works; and anything else is just blatant rent-seeking at the expense of the larger economy. High-budget songs, movies, and video games will either make back their budgets immediately , or they will be written off as a loss. There are very few cases where a work's financial success is predicat…

this is totally false. world of warcraft was released 15 years ago and is still generating real profit. because video games receive updates and have continued micro transactions they do not necessarily make the most of their revenue immediately upon release production value has a huge impact. why would rockstar spend billions developing gta 5 if it was public domain after 10 years? it’s still the cash machine that ru…

WoW and GTA5 both made back their costs shortly after launch. The fact that there is more profit to be made afterwards isn't an argument for or against longer copyright terms. The point of copyright is not to enable the author or publisher to capture 100% of the profit - otherwise, we'd just issue perpetual copyright title and call it a day. The point is to encourage the production of new works by giving people who create them a "bite at the apple", so to speak. So the length of copyright title needs to be calibrated to allow creators the chance to make a profit, but to not gate further creativity or re-use behind a paywall.

This is, of course, very poorly bargained-for in present law.

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

#137
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. A movie studio. Yes, my proposal also has a nice side effect of filtering out those who are in it for the money, not self-expression. The world would become a better place if there were no "entertainment industry".

People who are in it for self-expression need to pay the bills too.

They usually start self-expressing just for themselves, so they still have a job. Most video bloggers started this exact way — first a hobby, then they quit their job and turned their vlogging into a Serious Business™ with obnoxious sponsorships, a studio, a ton of ridiculously expensive equipment, and optionally a crew.

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

#138
post #132
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the original is still in the public domain. Copyright law is pretty good about defining “derivative works”, and someone’s remaster is not going to hold up as a copyrightable contribution.

While this is mostly correct, the mention of derivative works is a red herring; derivative works are copyrightable, they're just also subject to the copyright of the original.

Derivative works are relevant because they’re subject to the original copyright, yes? Please note I didn’t say all derivative works are not copyrightable; I’m saying that a basic remaster won’t even qualify as a derivative work.

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

#139
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s a nice goal, but not entirely accurate. I based my statement on https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explai... > it should be set by considering what’s long enough to recoup an investment and when it’s fair for the copiers to come take your work and use it for their own financial gains I don't think we disagree really. I said the goal was to maximize overall benefit to society and I think yo…

> Nobody will know if 10 years is too short until the issue is studied. I disagree. Plenty of people already know 10 years is too short, and it doesn’t take a study to show it. Lots of businesses take longer than that to get established, even the very fastest-moving fastest-distributing businesses like software startups.

It might be bad for you if code you wrote ten years ago is no longer protected by copyright, but what about society in general? Maybe five new start ups can take that old software and build something better than you were able to. Would that disincentivize creators? Maybe. Would the copyright expiration make a thousand flowers bloom? That's what would need to be studied. What the net benefit or harm is, isn't obvious.

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

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still not doing apples-to-apples comparisons. The source that you cited says 12th–19th-century life expectancy at birth was 25–40 years when infant/child mortality is included, and 55 years when it is excluded. There has not been any “4x increase” in this time period. (Even if you start in the bronze age, life expectancy at birth has not increased four-fold.) Since the time period you chose, life expectancy at…

North America has a life expectancy of ~80 years. I eyeballed it so closer to 3.2x the 25 year life expectancy in the 12-19th century. What am I missing?

Yes, if you start from a base of 25 years (which is the extreme low end of the range from your source), then we have 30 years of increase from reduced infant/child mortality and 25 years of increase from reduced adult mortality.

Can you really look those numbers and say that one of them is highly significant while the other "has not changed much"?

Translating this into percentages or "fold" increases is misleading because you are using a different denominator for the two increases. E.g. you are claiming that reduced infant mortality is a 2.2-fold increase (55/25) while reduced adult mortality is "only" a 1.45-fold increase (80/55), even though the number of years gained is almost the same.

And if you use the other end of the 25–40 year range, then reduced infant mortality is "only" a 1.38-fold increase (55/40).

Post reply on HN