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

71–80 of 165 posts

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

#71

Post by erikpukinskis »

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…

> No one (rational) is arguing for no legal protections.

There are many quite rational anarchists who would argue for that. Personally, I wouldn't advocate for throwing that switch in today's world, because we only have like 5% of the infrastructure needed to support a healthy anarchistic society. But if in the future we have a fairly complete complement of anarchistic technology and culture I could rationally argue that copyright would be superfluous, if not outright harmful in that world.

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

#72

Post by will_brown »

horseapples wrote: post #40
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…

I can create and distribute any creation for free thanks to the internet. Your argument assumes that a publisher/studio is required, when this is simply not the case, and not the direction the world is headed. Copyright and all IP law stifles creation at the cost of creativity. I create because I'm a creator, not because there is a fiscal reward. I create because I want to make a great product, not because I want to…

>I can create and distribute any creation for free thanks to the internet. >I create because I'm a creator, not because there is a fiscal reward.

Then there is nothing stopping you from doing just that...Just because the protections exist does not mean you must avail yourselves to them, you can give your work away for free all you want or let others take your work reproduce it and sell it as their own (maybe even take credit as the original creator).

However, if your saying you need to create your work off anthers work which is copyrighted and they want to enforce the same, then I would say IP is not what is stifling creativity, rather an unoriginal artist with no creativity to begin with.

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

#73

Post by danielweber »

stanmancan wrote: post #21

I know nothing on the subject, but would it be possibly for Disney (or any other creator for that matter) to start a Mickey Mouse company, with Mickey as the logo and mascot, that sells Mickey Mouse paraphernalia and protect the characters as a trademark?

I got into a long discussion with a lawyer-colleague who insisted that Disney doesn't have "Mickey Mouse" trademarked, but only a handful of very specific renderings of him. His preferred solution was to give Disney a "right to publicity" for Mickey Mouse (as if Mickey Mouse were a real person) which would let their old stuff enter the public domain while still maintaining control of the character.

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

#74

Post by pessimizer »

will_brown wrote: post #64
ewillbefull wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

>What tangible difference in incentive exists for creating new works if your protection is 60 years or 1000 years after you die? You think Disney or anyone else will invest if they lose their copyright protections in 60 years? No, it is stability that encourages creation and investment. >Information cannot be permanently locked behind a paywall, especially as it becomes important to study it historically That is the…

>You think Disney or anyone else will invest if they lose their copyright protections in 60 years?

Is this an appeal to imagination?

Yes I do, because I'm going to speculate that most of the income derived from a creative work is extracted in its first 60 years, and going to mention the historical fact that none of the media created 60 years ago was expected to be marketable 60 years later, and was often just destroyed.

So I don't think Disney would invest if they thought they couldn't make money from product 60 years later, it's just the truth. If your view of the issue requires as an axiom that all creativity would stop under a measly 60 year copyright term, it is clearly wrong.

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

#75

Post by ewillbefull »

will_brown wrote: post #64
ewillbefull wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

>What tangible difference in incentive exists for creating new works if your protection is 60 years or 1000 years after you die? You think Disney or anyone else will invest if they lose their copyright protections in 60 years? No, it is stability that encourages creation and investment. >Information cannot be permanently locked behind a paywall, especially as it becomes important to study it historically That is the…

There is no evidence Disney is canning movies because they won't be able to profit from them 60 years from now. They are not thinking that far ahead (because they can't); you are deluded.

You keep bringing up fair use, but that does not apply to public performances.

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

#77

Post by mrcactu5 »

Works from 1916 and before are public domain? Not a bad start.

It is a really great to read the beautiful color version of the *First Six Books of the Elements of Euclid" online for free. https://archive.org/details/firstsixbooksofe00byrn

Meanwhile it is selling on Amazon for up to $100 http://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Byrne-Six-Books-Euclid/dp/38365...

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

#78

Post by acjohnson55 »

salient wrote: post #31
benihana wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't really fault Disney for this. Mickey Mouse is one of the most recognizable symbols/brands on earth. The difference between Disney and McDonalds and Coca Cola is that there isn't an expectation we all get unfettered access to use the Golden Arches or the Coke logo. Disney is still making new IP with Mickey Mouse; why should they be expected to give up their rights to their most recognizable character that they…

I'm still not convinced any one entity deserves to keep a creation for so long under monopoly given by the society (some interesting discussions in 1869 [1] about this), but let's assume they do. I'd still like to see a system where you only get copyright for new works for 5 years. Then you have to pay $1,000 to renew it for another 5 years. And then the fee increases geometrically (and also adjusted to inflation), t…

I like the sound of that a lot. If your copyright is really profitable, you should be able to afford to pay for its protection.

Should this perhaps apply to patent law as well?

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

#79

Post by dragonwriter »

will_brown wrote: post #64
ewillbefull wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

>What tangible difference in incentive exists for creating new works if your protection is 60 years or 1000 years after you die? You think Disney or anyone else will invest if they lose their copyright protections in 60 years? No, it is stability that encourages creation and investment. >Information cannot be permanently locked behind a paywall, especially as it becomes important to study it historically That is the…

> You think Disney or anyone else will invest if they lose their copyright protections in 60 years?

Yes, because people did when copyright terms were shorter than that, and virtually all of the income from most things subject to copyright is derived in the first decade or so.

> Copyrighted work is subject to fair use and a number of other exceptions such as academic/scientific purposes.

Academic/scientific purpose is a factor in evaluating fair use, not a separate exception. And DMCA anti-circumvention provisions make it a crime to make it possible to get access to copyrighted material (when it is distributed in particular forms) beyond what the copyright owner chooses to allow even if the purpose of that access is to make use that is covered by fair use or other exceptions to copyright.

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

#80

Post by [deleted] »

jellicle wrote: post #54
bbanyc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN