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

51–60 of 165 posts

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

#51

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

Forever is a long time. My great-great-great grandfather was a newspaper publisher in the 19th century. Should I be able to exert some sort of control over that information because someone who was dead before my grandfather was born wrote it?

So if you were an author, you would not write a book because royalties would cease coming in to your grandchildren X years after your death?

People and companies should be able to "own" their ideas for a reasonable period of time. The point of copyright is to "promote the useful arts" and to promote and reward creativity.

Allowing companies to own the Mickey Mouse story in the year 2213 does nothing to promote that. What purpose does that serve? Why should the government protect the right for generations of your descendants to be profit from the intellectual work of a distant ancestor? Why should shareholders in the year 2513 benefit from a cartoon produced in 1930?

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

#52

Post by will_brown »

austintaylor wrote: post #41
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…

I touch on this point in OP, I am not saying owners should receive some absolute right, I am saying I believe an indefinite right (referring to the term only) of existing protections subject to existing infringement and defenses (fair use, derivative, news worth, ect...)

Your use of song is a good example, just because I create a song (and receive indefinite protection) does not mean someone else can not sample it, only that I am entitled to a royalty..any why shouldn't I be whether I created the song yesterday or 100 years ago and transferred the copyright to my heirs?

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

#54

Post by jellicle »

bbanyc wrote: post #44
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 outrigh…

But who pushed for it in Germany, etc.? Oh, right: Disney and the rest of the copyright industry.

"Harmonization" somehow always ratchets upwards, never downwards. No one said to Germany: don't ratchet your copyright term upwards, keep it harmonized.

When in the next few years U.S. copyright suddenly "needs" to be extended another 20 years, no one is going to complain that this will break harmonization.

The copyright industry does not care at all about harmonization, and you should not adopt their framing by talking about it. They are copyright maximalists, pure and simple.

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

#55

Post by ewillbefull »

will_brown wrote: post #46
ewillbefull wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

The "indefinite" is not necessary in any of your points.

What tangible difference in incentive exists for creating new works if your protection is 60 years or 1000 years after you die? Copyright is a contract between creators and society: limited protection to encourage the creation of creative works, with the promise that the material will eventually be (unconditionally) available to the public.

Information cannot be permanently locked behind a paywall, especially as it becomes important to study it historically, or as it becomes culturally embedded.

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

#56

Post by will_brown »

Avenger42 wrote: post #36
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…

No one (rational) is arguing for no legal protections. However, there's a difference between "the creator gets a period of time in which they're not competing with themselves " and "nothing created post-1978 (or affected by the 1978 copyright extensions) will ever realistically enter the public domain because of continuing copyright extensions". What makes these works so much more valuable that their creators should…

>What makes these works so much more valuable that their creators should never have to give up the rights to the public, the way that creators in the USA for nearly 200 years did?

Nothing makes these works more valuable, its just the jurisprudence has caught up to modern applications of the law. Copyrightable work is an asset much like anything else I should be able to leave to my heirs, why should I be limited to making money off my work during my lifetime or any other arbitrary period of time. Especially because there is case after case that establish work that becomes popular only after the death of the creator.

So I will ask you your own question turned around, why as the creator of a work should I ever be forced to give up my rights of the same to the public?

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

#57

Post by jellicle »

cafard wrote: post #53
BlackDeath3 wrote: post #29

There's something really ironic about Atlas Shrugged being on that list.

How so?

Something about Ayn Rand's heirs suckling off the government teat of copyright laws for infinite years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peikoff

"Every dollar I have is because the government has forced every single person who wants to read a book I had nothing to do with writing to pay me money. I'm a Libertarian!"

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

#58

Post by ansimionescu »

donpdonp wrote: post #42

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)

Sorry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_se

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

#59

Post by will_brown »

Spooky23 wrote: post #51
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…

Forever is a long time. My great-great-great grandfather was a newspaper publisher in the 19th century. Should I be able to exert some sort of control over that information because someone who was dead before my grandfather was born wrote it? So if you were an author, you would not write a book because royalties would cease coming in to your grandchildren X years after your death? People and companies should be able…

Why should I on the death of an author be able to reproduce their work and sell it? Why should that be the case after 28 years or 75 years after the death of the creator be able to take their work and profit from it?

>So if you were an author, you would not write a book because royalties would cease coming in to your grandchildren X years after your death?

The chilling effect on work is not a result of the author, but the company who pays for the work that allows the author to work on the book for years. Why would a company give advance an author, spend money promoting/printing/distributing a book if they can not make royalties on it x years after the author dies?

>People and companies should be able to "own" their ideas for a reasonable period of time.

You tell me what is a reasonable time? 28 years, 28 years + 28 years, life time of the creator, lifetime +75 years?

>Allowing companies to own the Mickey Mouse story in the year 2213 does nothing to promote that. What purpose does that serve?

That serves the purpose of Disney spending billions on theme parks to further develop the brand, to further invest in their brand, establish their brand all over the world which creates jobs fueling the global economy. That is less likely if their work can be diluted by any joe schmo creating independent subpar works creating confusion in the market place in terms of origin.

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

#60

Post by BlackDeath3 »

cafard wrote: post #53
BlackDeath3 wrote: post #29

There's something really ironic about Atlas Shrugged being on that list.

How so?

Despite several attempts, I'm one of those people who has just never had the time to make it through the entire book (I hope to one day).

From what I have experienced (and I have read through The Fountainhead in its entirety), the whole "we're going to take your products, the fruits of your efforts, and release them from your possession for all of the public world to get their hands on" thing (I understand that Rand is dead), the private/public possession dichotomy, just seems so counter to a lot of what the book espouses.

Just my personal reaction.

Post reply on HN