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

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

web.law.duke.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 165 posts

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

#41

Post by austintaylor »

will_brown wrote: post #30

I do not see a problem with indefinite copyright protections. One of the assumptions is that everything being equal the same works would exist if it were not for copyright protections. However, I would argue without the extended copyright protections, most of these [future] classic works would not exist, simply because publishers/studios would not invest in the creation/distribution of the works initially. In other w…

Copyright is traditionally an area of law that has been served by moderation. The government offers some protection to creators, but not absolute rights. For instance, songwriters have a right to receive royalties when someone else records and distributes their song, but they don't have the right (in the US) to set the price of that royalty, or to veto a particular artist covering their song. It's a balancing act.

On the one side, if you don't have copyright at all, it severely limits the ability of creators to monetize easily copied works. This became a problem with the printing press and copying has only gotten easier as technology has progressed.

On the other side, there are a number of problems with granting an absolute, indefinite copyright. One is that you stifle the creation of derivative works. Another is that obscure works can easily fall out of print and be lost forever. A larger philosophical concern is whether corporations should be allowed to hold control over the shared cultural heritage of a society long after the actual creators have died.

Almost everyone sees the need for some kind of compromise here. Personally, Canada's life+50 years sounds pretty reasonable to me.

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

#42

Post by donpdonp »

While not a solution per se, an alternative exists. If the license for current works are unacceptable, start celebrating other works! Notably, works with a Creative Commons license.

Some Creative Commons cartoons http://www.seosmarty.com/15-cartoonists-that-allow-using-the...

Creative Commons Music at Jamendo (see the FAQ http://www.jamendo.com/en/faq)

edit: 'per-say' to 'per se' (thx ansimionescu)

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

#43

Post by grahamburger »

Touche wrote: post #37
stinkytaco wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would not be relinquishing their trademarks or the rights to make more Mickey Mouse movies. Nor would this necessarily mean that the character of Mickey Mouse would go into the public domain. Simply that the discrete works would now be public domain. There are Donald Duck works in the public domain (Spirit of '43) and that doesn't seem to impact their bottom line terribly.

These days kids barely know who Donald Duck or Mickey are. I wonder how much of that is because Disney intentionally invests in other IP that isn't under this threat.

My kid knows who Mickey Mouse is. He is two, and mickey mouse is by far his favorite.

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

#44

Post by bbanyc »

kevando wrote: post #3

For those curious, this is mostly a result of Disney. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...

It's partly Disney (and the Gershwin estate) but the 56-year term was extended in 1976 to bring the US in line with the Berne Convention life-plus-50 term used in the rest of the world. The current life-plus-70 term originated in Germany, spread to the rest of the EU and then was adopted in the US for "harmonization" with Europe.

Harmonization is not necessarily a bad thing. Pre-1976 US copyright law had some outright bizarre restrictions - a book could forfeit its copyright status if the publisher printed it outside North America and imported it - that we're better off having eliminated. But when everything has to be harmonized, it's rare for anyone to question why the policies we're harmonizing with are in place.

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

#45

Post by analog31 »

Symmetry wrote: post #7
simbolit wrote: 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.

In my view, a copyright system could reach a middle ground between libertarians and the rest of us. Limiting the term of copyrights is such a middle ground.

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

#46

Post by will_brown »

ewillbefull wrote: post #34
will_brown wrote: post #30

I do not see a problem with indefinite copyright protections. One of the assumptions is that everything being equal the same works would exist if it were not for copyright protections. However, I would argue without the extended copyright protections, most of these [future] classic works would not exist, simply because publishers/studios would not invest in the creation/distribution of the works initially. In other w…

Nothing you wrote tries to justify indefinite copyright protections.

Certainly my points have counterpoints, but I included at least 3 reasons for indefinite copyright protection.

1. Indefinite protections encourages the creation of new works vis-a-vis encouraging investment in new creation/distribution.

2. That just because there is indefinite copyright protection, does not mean people can still create derivative works, engage in fair use, ect...

3. Finally, just because indefinite protection exists would not prevent works from being voluntarily entered into the public domain.

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

#47

Post by justin66 »

pessimizer wrote: post #25
justin66 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Y…

The kids aren't the purchasers of the majority of entertainment products. If the kids had a choice between free River Kwai, and $12 modern version of 3:10 to Yuma (or something funner), the $12 would become $2 in no time.

What?

edit: so you were just restating what you already said. It wasn't persuasive the first time.

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

#48

Post by cafard »

Touche wrote: post #37
stinkytaco wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would not be relinquishing their trademarks or the rights to make more Mickey Mouse movies. Nor would this necessarily mean that the character of Mickey Mouse would go into the public domain. Simply that the discrete works would now be public domain. There are Donald Duck works in the public domain (Spirit of '43) and that doesn't seem to impact their bottom line terribly.

These days kids barely know who Donald Duck or Mickey are. I wonder how much of that is because Disney intentionally invests in other IP that isn't under this threat.

About 20 years ago I was in Orlando (not to see Disney World, though we did). When the done-up characters came through the room where we were having breakfast, you could see the eyes get big as quarters on some little kids at a table over from us. I have to think this was recognition, since otherwise it should have scared them terribly.

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

#49

Post by VLM »

cubix wrote: post #20
pavel_lishin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> plagiarism rather than unauthorized copying Isn't that the definition of plagiarism?

No, plagiarism entails passing the work or idea off as your own.

You are mostly correct.

Bringing it back to the root discussion that once you remove the requirement for authorization to copy works, there aren't many ways left to steal IP other than intentionally stealing the authors reputation, which more or less is the full official definition of plagiarism. Which you can do perfectly well by miserably failing to properly document a source, not just claiming you authored it. If I claim I wrote your post, that isn't treated all that differently than if I claim PG wrote your post.

Also muddying the waters is most plagiarism definitions include some level of intentional act, not just Fing up. Negligence is a super fuzzy area. So accidentally citing you as Qubix because I've played the board game is more or less OK. Incompetent, true, but not plagiarism.

Note that SOME people insist on getting all wound up about self plagiarism which can be a fraudulent act, but is not exactly real plagiarism, they just kind of borrowed the name because it sounds evil. Much like the multiple and peculiar definitions of computer "hacker" which have very little to do with each other aside from sounding impressive. Self plagiarism has nothing at all to do with plagiarism, other than both coincidentally being more or less wrong.

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

#50

Post by Touche »

Avenger42 wrote: post #38
Touche wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These days kids barely know who Donald Duck or Mickey are. I wonder how much of that is because Disney intentionally invests in other IP that isn't under this threat.

There's a newly-created Mickey Mouse series on Disney Channel; from what little I've seen of it, Mickey's look is much more of a throwback to the Steamboat Willie age. Also, when I saw Frozen at the theater a couple of weeks ago, there was an old-style Mickey cartoon before the picture (albeit one that broke the fourth wall in ways I don't believe the old cartoons did).

Maybe I'm being nostalgic but Mickey used to be a big movie star and now he's relegated to mostly direct-to-dvd. He was still immensely popular through the 1980s with rereleases of Fantasia in theaters, Mickey's Christmas Carol, etc. Now it seems unimaginable that he'd star in a big budget Disney film. It seems reasonable to me that they are preferring IP that was created post-1976 for a reason.
Post reply on HN