Live data from Hacker News

What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

web.law.duke.edu

1–10 of 165 posts

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#4

If this stuff did start to enter the public domain after 28+28 years, the modern entertainment industry would be screwed because they would have to compete with it. Rationally, they'd rather it burned than free.

There's some interesting stuff on that list but I don't think it'd be competition to anything. I like the idea that the kids would be watching Bridge on the River Kwai instead of the latest recruitment video but it doesn't seem likely.

Of course, the studios would lose the long-tail revenue from controlling movies like Bridge on the River Kwai (or licensing the movie rights to things like the old version of 3:10 to Yuma) and that does add up.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#7
post #5

i would love to hear from our libertarian friends on what they think about copyright and the public domain.

"Government enforced monopolies are bad" is what particularly doctrinaire libertarians say, but libertarians aren't know for their ability to agree with each other.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#8

If this stuff did start to enter the public domain after 28+28 years, the modern entertainment industry would be screwed because they would have to compete with it. Rationally, they'd rather it burned than free.

And in the case of some old films, and despite offers to store it for them, many studios have literally burned their material.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#9
post #5

i would love to hear from our libertarian friends on what they think about copyright and the public domain.

That would probably depend on whether they were minarchist or anarchist libertarians. Minarchists would likely defend copyright with more rational time limits, whereas anarchists would contend that copyright is not rational or enforceable, and that artistic patronage is the only viable business model.

In either case, "stealing" an artistic work would be interpreted as plagiarism rather than unauthorized copying.

Artists capable of doing live performances could also sell tickets, I suppose. Authors might be paid to attend conventions and book signings. Without copyright, the works are disseminated widely to generate a fan base, and the revenue is derived from the truly limited resource: the artist's time.

Post reply on HN