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

151–160 of 233 posts

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

#151

Post by toast0 »

iamben wrote: post #61
mattl wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Honestly, I don't mind the idea that you the creator, personally, holds the copyright for life. If I write a song in my 20s that sets the world on fire and I can still live a good life at 80 off the back of it, great. The minute I sell that copyright to someone else (or it's inherited), a time limit begins to apply. Perhaps here you move into the '20 years' or something category.

For popular works, tracking the life of the creator is doable. For less popular works, figuring out who the creator is can be rather difficult. And then figuring out if they're alive isn't always easy either.

The screen actors guild has somewhat of a highlander policy, but if I release something Copyright My Name, there's hundreds or thousands of people it could be, including a Pulitzer Prize winning author who will likely predecease me.

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

#152

Post by splitstud »

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.

Abuse implies a right. What kind of right does anyone have to see IP become public domain? The only reason that it should sunset at all is to release society from the burden of enforcing old IP at some point.

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

#153

Post by kube-system »

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.

Only if:

1. You're only considering works published by huge multinational publishers with the gigantic marketing budgets required to get immediate traction

2. You assume that works are published on a large scale for their initial publishing

Small time artists can spend years trying to get a work picked up by large publisher. Those who don't choose to use large publishers may be finding new audiences over longer periods.

Assuming that copyright should be designed around the use-cases of Comcast or Disney is the reason we're in the position we're in now.

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

#154

Post by VictorPath »

chrisco255 wrote: post #81
Hokusai wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, anyone that had a personal attachment to that music is dead. The current goal of copyright is to let companies own the culture you grew with. All the movies, music, books and games that defined who you are will not enter the public domain until you are dead or very old. Companies like Disney were founded on well known stories. They will not allow anybody else too accomplish the same.

Disney was founded on Mickey Mouse. Yes, they made major motion pictures out of old myths and legends, like Cinderella and Robin Hood, but those stories have always been public domain and you can write a book or movie about them with no problem.

Disney was actually founded on Alice in Wonderland, Mickey Mouse was created years later.

At the time, Alice in Wonderland would have still been copyrighted if it were under the copyright regime Disney etc. instituted since. The corporation pulled the ladder up after it.

Incidentally, Mickey Mouse was in many ways a ripoff of Universal's Oswald the Rabbit.

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

#155

Post by not2b »

chrisco255 wrote: post #81
Hokusai wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, anyone that had a personal attachment to that music is dead. The current goal of copyright is to let companies own the culture you grew with. All the movies, music, books and games that defined who you are will not enter the public domain until you are dead or very old. Companies like Disney were founded on well known stories. They will not allow anybody else too accomplish the same.

Disney was founded on Mickey Mouse. Yes, they made major motion pictures out of old myths and legends, like Cinderella and Robin Hood, but those stories have always been public domain and you can write a book or movie about them with no problem.

Alice in Wonderland was based on a book that was 86 years old when Disney's film was released. It was public domain. But Disney fought hard to prevent Mickey Mouse from going into the public domain, and got Congress to extend the copyright term to 95 years. Under such a rule Disney couldn't have made Alice in Wonderland without permission from the heirs of Charles Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll).

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

#156

Post by Gibbon1 »

handrous wrote: post #141
grishka wrote: post #101

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.

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.

Friend that's an IP lawyer had a rant that copyright law is applied for things it has no business being applied to. The law is built around single author books and sheet music. Where the authors lifetime output is small. And commercially valuable work smaller still. Not appropriate for things like ad copy, manuals, and software.

It needs an overhaul. But the current system heavily favors entrenched interests so won't happen.

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

#157

Post by Zigurd »

splitstud wrote: post #152
grishka wrote: post #101

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.

Abuse implies a right. What kind of right does anyone have to see IP become public domain? The only reason that it should sunset at all is to release society from the burden of enforcing old IP at some point.

The term "intellectual property" is a relative legal novelty, and applying "IP" law to individuals, as opposed to rogue publishers printing works without a contract with the author and profiting from sales of that work, is an even more dubious novelty.

The purpose of copyright protection, which was a controversial issue at the time the US Constitution was drafted, is written in the Copyright Clause: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Anything beyond that stated purpose is hindering "the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

That copyright terms are limited is essential, and should optimize the purpose, not the profit of publishers who go unmentioned.

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

#158

Post by not2b »

VictorPath wrote: post #154
chrisco255 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disney was founded on Mickey Mouse. Yes, they made major motion pictures out of old myths and legends, like Cinderella and Robin Hood, but those stories have always been public domain and you can write a book or movie about them with no problem.

Disney was actually founded on Alice in Wonderland, Mickey Mouse was created years later. At the time, Alice in Wonderland would have still been copyrighted if it were under the copyright regime Disney etc. instituted since. The corporation pulled the ladder up after it. Incidentally, Mickey Mouse was in many ways a ripoff of Universal's Oswald the Rabbit.

Incorrect: Mickey Mouse was created in the 20s, Disney's Alice in Wonderland was released in 1951. You're right that the book would still have been copyrighted.

Oswald the Rabbit was also created by Walt Disney, in 1927, and sold to Universal. He then created Mickey Mouse as a replacement character for his own movie.

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

#159

Post by Tagbert »

VictorPath wrote: post #154
chrisco255 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disney was founded on Mickey Mouse. Yes, they made major motion pictures out of old myths and legends, like Cinderella and Robin Hood, but those stories have always been public domain and you can write a book or movie about them with no problem.

Disney was actually founded on Alice in Wonderland, Mickey Mouse was created years later. At the time, Alice in Wonderland would have still been copyrighted if it were under the copyright regime Disney etc. instituted since. The corporation pulled the ladder up after it. Incidentally, Mickey Mouse was in many ways a ripoff of Universal's Oswald the Rabbit.

"Mickey Mouse was in many ways a ripoff of Universal's Oswald the Rabbit"

Considering that Walt Disney created Oswald the Rabbit for Universal, it is no surprise that some elements carried over to Mickey. When Universal took Oswald away from Disney's control, he responded by creating the mouse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_the_Lucky_Rabbit#Univer...

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

#160

Post by 9000 »

Someone wrote: post #121
cool_dude85 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about their finances back then, but I have to guess that their feature films were the money makers and the shorts less so. And I think the grandparent's point is that Mickey Mouse today is in some sense analogous to your Cinderellas and Robin Hoods in the 30s... only you can't make your own movie about him.

Back then, their feature films weren’t money makers, as they didn’t make them. Their first feature film was very profitable, but it was from about 15 years later ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_and_the_Seven_Dwarf... ). However, their next two movies (Pinocchio, Fantasia) cost them money because they were released during World War Two, when they couldn’t show them in large parts of the world. They needed D…

> So, I guess it wasn’t till after World War Two that their feature films became profitable. They survived, so chances are the shorts brought in money.

According to Wikipedia [0], "The U.S. and Canadian governments commissioned the studio to produce training and propaganda films. By 1942, 90 percent of its 550 employees were working on war-related films." So, it seems they primarily survived by taking government contracts, not producing shorts. In fact, the next paragraph goes on to say, "With limited staff and little operating capital during and after the war, Disney's feature films during much of the 1940s were 'package films', or collections of shorts, [...] which performed poorly at the box office." So I wouldn't say their shorts were particular moneymakers during that time. After the war, they started releasing feature films again (Song of the South, etc).

Although it does seem that in the 20s and early 30s, prior to Snow White, animated shorts and comics (and potentially related merchandising?) were most of the company's revenue.

So, I think it's probably fair to say shorts financed the company through the release of Snow White, but not really any further.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company#1934%E...

Post reply on HN