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

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

publicdomainreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 233 posts

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

#141

Post by handrous »

grishka wrote: post #101
marcodiego wrote: post #2

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

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.

I'd be happy with it being short enough that middle-aged creatives could build on material from their childhood, and old ones, from their middle-age. Say, 20 years. People should, at least, have full ownership of a good portion of their contemporary culture.

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

#143

Post by toast0 »

filoeleven wrote: post #93
odiroot wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Alternatively, with a reinforced casket mounted on a turbine, his grave-spinning could be a viable and fitting alternative to fossil fuels.

Prior art, I believe that's where Disneyland gets its zero carbon energy to power the park.

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

#144

Post by dahart »

criddell wrote: post #139
dahart wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

True, this is a valid point. I’m under the impression that it has been studied, though I don’t have a source off the top of my head. It’s definitely been debated vigorously and often.

Anyway, keep in mind that this net benefit needs to incentivize people to get over the static friction of starting in the first place. We don’t want to make a point of handing content and ideas over to incremental producers because that will disincentivize people from trying in the first place.

Also important is that part of the net benefit to society is a trickle-down argument that we need to reward the authors first in order for society to reap the net benefit. The point is not to encourage business at the fastest possible speed be letting people borrow the ideas and inventions and content of others, the point is to protect the people who do the actual original work for a reasonable period of time, and to allow for the fact that they might be less good at business than someone who’s only reselling content.

Might be worth stating that study the economics of social net benefits is incredibly difficult, and can take a very, very long time, longer than you and I have left. The environment is a great example of how we’ve made disastrous business choices that were rationalized by “social benefit”, but turned out to be wrong.

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

#145

Post by kube-system »

grishka wrote: post #118
kube-system wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three years is too short. The people who need these protections the most are not marketing powerhouses that can achieve instant successes. I feel like a two or three year copyright could be even worse that current state — large publishers would probably just wait out artists and steal their work. “Nice album kid, bet it’ll sell great 3 years from now”

> large publishers would probably just wait out artists and steal their work But it's public domain. You can't exactly "steal" something that already belongs to everyone, including you .

I am clearly using the word in a functional, moral, non-legal sense. The entire premise of my point indicates that I understand what public domain means.

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

#146

Post by rhines »

grishka wrote: post #118
kube-system wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three years is too short. The people who need these protections the most are not marketing powerhouses that can achieve instant successes. I feel like a two or three year copyright could be even worse that current state — large publishers would probably just wait out artists and steal their work. “Nice album kid, bet it’ll sell great 3 years from now”

> large publishers would probably just wait out artists and steal their work But it's public domain. You can't exactly "steal" something that already belongs to everyone, including you .

Sure, but a big company can absolutely find some little-known creator's work, spin off their own products with it, and use their size to absolutely dominate search results, marketing, and distribution.

While it may no longer be legally considered theft, it does seem to be a shame that a creator has a window of only a couple years to find success with their work before they're at risk of it becoming worthless to them. In creative fields it often takes many years to build up a portfolio and a following, if you've not been picked up by a major promoter.

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

#148

Post by toast0 »

ipaddr wrote: post #131
mywittyname wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Most movies make most of their money week one.

Most movies are fixed in a tangeble medium months before week one. Sometimes years. Component parts (principle filming, scripts, original music, if any) are routinely finished at least a year before release. A rush to get everything out to enjoy the full 3 years of income potential would further push out the couple of films a year made where people actually cared to do things right.

20-30 years might be right, though. Or one of the escalating fees for renewal after a reasonable period, preferably with a required deposit of the work so when it becomes public domain it can be easily distributed.

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

#149

Post by rhines »

grishka wrote: post #117
t-writescode wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't. If a music studio needs to wait 4 years to not have to pay any royalties at all, then the song would be recorded (copyright created) and the music groups would just wait 4 years and then start playing it on radio stations. It needs to be something like 12 + 12 or 20 + 20, or even 20 + infinitely continuable for a gradually increasing cost. It still has the potential issue of waiting out that 24 to 40 yea…

Companies will go bankrupt. Their business models will break down. Yes. That's intended. There's no need for these middlemen in the age of the internet.

IMO if you want to end the commercialization of content, targeting copyright is not the most effective route. Big players will still be able to use their power to ensure that they have control over distribution, and will continue to profit off of content. Small players, such as the people coming up with new content, will find it harder and harder to make any money, to the benefit of the big players who no longer need to share profits with them.

The more effective approach would be to simply remove the economy entirely. In a post-scarcity or communist or whatever you want to call it society, you could abolish copyright entirely without hurting anyone, because no one's able to profit off it in the first place and spending effort on things that don't pay off is no longer penalized.

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

#150

Post by codyb »

grishka wrote: post #115
t-writescode wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2-3 years is no time at all. Someone could hand a movie studio a script in hopes of it being made a movie, the movie studio could wait 4 years, and then make the movie, with no harm to them whatsoever.

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".

No entertainment industry? So... nobody could sit and create a movie studio or a record label?

What a weird thing to rail against. I'm certainly unconvinced the world would be magically better without people organizing to produce content.

Maybe there's some issues with copyrights, but as far as I can tell, almost any organization would attempt to preserve profits. We, as a people, then go through and create legislation which curbs rampant abuses whether that's environmental pollution, or unsafe kids' toys, or overly lengthy copyright claims.

But the idea people can't get together and make movies, that's a new one.

Post reply on HN