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

81–90 of 165 posts

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

#81

Post by cafard »

will_brown wrote: post #59
Spooky23 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, bu…

Copyright has always been for a limited term. Defining that limited term is a political judgment call, and I believe that the judgment is at this point wrong, erring in favor of unduly long copyright.

It is a safe bet that any book of 1957 still remembered (definitely Atlas Shrugged and On the Road, believe it or not The Anatomy of Criticism, probably not some of the others) has long since paid back the publisher's investment beyond expectations.

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

#83

Post by aestra »

will_brown wrote: post #59
Spooky23 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, bu…

It isn't just about "stealing." Allowing works to enter the public domain actually encourages more works to be created. People are free to remake and remix works in the public domain.

Think:

A REAL lot of old Disney movies (Alice and Wonderland, Jungle Book, Pinocchio...)

Pride and Prejudice with Zombies

That Romeo and Juliet movie with Leonardo DiCaprio and guns.

A Christmas Carol in play form (it lends itself really well to live theater, I suggest seeing it!)

West Side Story (inspired by Romeo and Juliet)

Clueless (based on Jane Austen's 1815 novel Emma)

The anime/manga Lupin III was inspired by the French gentleman thief Arsène Lupin, created by Maurice Leblanc. Japan didn't enforce copyright at the time of its creation but the Leblanc estate got mad once Lupin started being sold in North America. Some foreign releases changed his name as a result. In 2012, Leblanc's original Arsène Lupin entered the public domain in France

See this video for a different perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

Also read the copyright clause in the Constitution!

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

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:

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.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is the goal and purpose of copyright, as written by the founding fathers, not "financially benefit" especially not forever.

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

#84

Post by skyebook »

will_brown wrote: post #72
horseapples wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tak…

> 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.

Creativity != originality. Its been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, but plenty of Disney's works are not original. That doesn't detract from the quality of the work or the creativity involved in adapting the story.

What you argue for with indefinite control is building on someone else's work and then being allowed to say "OK, I have the final say. No more is to be done on this line."

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

#85

Post by javajosh »

Am I the only one that thinks that we should almost certainly treat scientific research entirely differently than entertainment? Frankly, when I think about it objectively, I could care less if a novel is under copyright for a very long time - it's not like there's a lack of entertainment options for people, and that they will suffer because they have to pay something to read a book or see a movie. But scientific research seems like an entirely different animal: if we as a society are so into technological progress, why wouldn't we act to make all scientific research as widely available as possible? It would seem that in the Internet age the best and easiest way to achieve that as a matter of policy is simply modifying copyright rules - and if Aaron Swartz is any indication, there will be many people more than happy to store and disseminate the information as a public service. (Although I personally believe that it would be entirely reasonable for the USG to spend a modest sum hosting the data, sort of like a federal online library. Perhaps this could even be started by generous endowment from an Internet titan, just as The Smithsonian was started by such an endowment.)

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

#86

Post by bananacurve »

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...

From the article you link to:

"In 1993, the European Union added 20 years to the term of European copyrights. Under European law, American authors would only enjoy longer copyright terms in Europe if the United States followed Europe's lead and adopted "life plus 70" copyright terms."

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

#87

Post by logfromblammo »

will_brown wrote: post #59
Spooky23 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, bu…

I think that the reasonable upper boundary one can place upon encouraging an artist to create new works is the death of the artist. To my knowledge, people simply do not go on creating things after they have died.

But since that might create a perverse incentive to murder artists or to name one's children as co-creators, it would be better to apply a fixed term instead--one well within the natural lifespan of a human.

An automatic 20 years, renewable for additional 10 year intervals only as long as the primary author still lives and holds the copyrights--that seems reasonable. Works-for-hire would thus be a fixed 20 years with no possible renewal. In contrast, patronage could be worth more to the patron in the long run, so long as the author remains satisfied.

Under such a system, I imagine it would be typical for novices to create works for hire for some time to build reputation, then graduate to patronage in exchange for exclusive licensing terms, and then finally move on to complete self-management, where the fanbase is able to fully support the artist.

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

#88

Post by kriro »

The irony that Atlas Shrugged is on the list and massively protected by government IP law is deliciously sad.

More interesting is that Tesla is part of the class of 2014 for 70 year countries :) 50 year countries get some nice additions (some real heavyweights): Robert Frost, Sylvia Plath, William Carlos Williams, Louis MacNeice, Jean Cocteau, C. S. Lewis, Aldous Huxley

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

#89

Post by JetSpiegel »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #22
austintaylor wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plagiarism is passing someone else's work off as your own. Unauthorized copying is just providing a work for others to consume without claiming credit for it, but without having a legal right to do so. Plagiarism doesn't really relate to authorization at all. If you have permission from someone to put your name on their work, that doesn't change the fact that you are lying, which can have consequences of its own (esp…

Yep. The way I used to explain it to my students was this: Distributing "Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare": not plagiarism or copyright violation. Distributing "Romeo and Juliet by Turing Machine": plagiarism, but not copyright violation. Distributing "The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien": Copyright violation, but not plagiarism. Distributing "The Lord of the Rings by Turing Machine": both plagiarism and c…

Distributing "The Lord of the Rings by George RR Martin": Boatloads of cash

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

#90

Post by Spooky23 »

will_brown wrote: post #59
Spooky23 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, bu…

> 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?

Because information truly wants to be free, and should be. Copyright is a legal construct that exists to make it financially viable to create. Creation and innovation drives society forward.

> 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?

They do already. There are 220,000 books published in the United States annually. What fraction will still be in print in a decade? 50 years? 100?

> 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.

Letting works slide into the public domain doesn't prevent that. Disney still retains the ability to evolve the story (ie. create). Let Mickey and Minnie have kids, and make that part of the Mickey Mouse canon. Two hundred years from now, Disney can and should evolve their brand, including their theme parks.

Post reply on HN