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

Access denied

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 109 posts

Re: Access denied

#11

Post by rdl »

mullingitover wrote: post #10
_delirium wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the country: some have explicitly extended the copyrights for people who died in the war. For example, writers who died in active service of the French military have copyright for 100 rather than 70 years postmortem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mort_pour_la_France

This makes a lot of sense. By extending copyright even further after their deaths, it will incent these authors to create more posthumous works!

Presumably it was to not discourage people in the future from enlisting/responding to the draft for fear of copyright, and to avoid the "poor windows and orphans of the famous writers who died in the war". Maybe the French are different, but "will my copyright endure longer if I die" would not really be on my list of concerns in war.

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry is the only one on the list who I've heard of.

Re: Access denied

#12

Post by lmm »

simonsarris wrote: post #6

It saddens me a good deal that most of us can come up with very compelling arguments that un-restricting these works would benefit society, yet there seems there's very little we could do to make even a splash of change. In fact, I gander the comments here will soon be filled with of "here's how I would do it" comments, none of which will make a mote of a difference. What can we do, really? It seems insane that the r…

Well, we can vote - but this is hardly the most important issue on which we vote.

We could get a bit smarter, and lobby - but we're unlikely to be able to out-spend Disney.

Or we can ignore the legal system and share things, which is probably the most practical and effective approach. They can't imprison us all.

Re: Access denied

#13

Post by Anm »

I also agree with purchasable extensions, as long as the prices increase exponentially from a very modest price in the first renewal.

Further, I think there is room to tie trademark into the process for media properties. In cases like Steamboat Willy, the character reflect a trademark for the Disney business. If it were applied as such, one might argue that a public domain version of the film (which could be seen as a product in the trademark domain) might be freely distributable but not modifiable without risking trademark infringement. This protects the free flow of information to later generations, as well as provides the company a means to protect the its brand from confusing or abusing variants/remixes. Further, registered trademarks already require regular renewal from a living person or operating business.

Not sure how one would apply that music and non-fiction (or if one should even try); seems about useful as copyrighting N seconds of silence.

(Obligatory: I am not a lawyer.)

Re: Access denied

#14

Post by _delirium »

drpgq wrote: post #3

How much does Canada's terms differ from the US?

It's typically shorter than both the U.S. and Europe: 50 years postmortem. For example, Ernest Hemingway (died 1961) entered the public domain in Canada last year. In most of Europe (life+70) his works will enter the public domain in 2032, and in the U.S. (95 years from publication, for works published before 1978) they'll enter at staggered times starting from the 2020s.

That's why this exists: http://www.gutenberg.ca/

Re: Access denied

#15

Post by martincmartin »

praptak wrote: post #8

To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a reasonable amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said consumers…

Because two wrongs don't make a right.

Re: Access denied

#16

Post by mcculley »

It's only tangentially related, but I had to make a comment: http://www.economist.com/comment/1835110#comment-1835110

I happily pay for my subscription to The Economist and enjoy reading it on my iPad. But they don't even allow you to select a single word in an article, which would make it possible to look things up in a dictionary.

This kind of limitation to attempt enforcement of copyright is part of the whole problem right now.

Re: Access denied

#17

Post by _delirium »

rdl wrote: post #11
mullingitover wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes a lot of sense. By extending copyright even further after their deaths, it will incent these authors to create more posthumous works!

Presumably it was to not discourage people in the future from enlisting/responding to the draft for fear of copyright, and to avoid the "poor windows and orphans of the famous writers who died in the war". Maybe the French are different, but "will my copyright endure longer if I die" would not really be on my list of concerns in war. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry is the only one on the list who I've heard of.

I think it was some kind of feeling of fairness: that, absent the war, they would've lived longer, so there should be an adjustment to make copyright expire according to when they would've "normally" died. On the other hand, that's true of any copyright system based on years postmortem: you could argue the same about someone killed by a drunk driver, or hit by lightning, or murdered. That's one reason I prefer publication-date-based systems rather than years-postmortem systems (the other reason is that death dates for lesser-known authors are often very hard to actually find, whereas publication dates are typically printed right in the book).

Plus, I think the argument is weaker when duration is already life+70. If it were, say, life+0, or life+10, you might have an argument about their widow/orphan, but life+70 is already enough to cover any survivors comfortably for the rest of their own lives. Life+100 gets into territory where their great-grandkids are getting the money.

Re: Access denied

#18

Post by w1ntermute »

njl wrote: post #5

There are two competing interests here. First, Disney wants to keep control of Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel unreasonable at all that they should. Second, the rest of the stuff that is of little commercial value but of potential cultural value should be freed from uncertain or uninterested ownership. The answer feels trivial to me, which means I'm probably missing something. Fixed term for a few decades…

> Disney wants to keep control of Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel unreasonable at all that they should.

It feels completely unreasonable to me. There's no reason why Disney should be given an exception when others aren't. It's idiotic to suggest that they should get special treatment just because their IP is commercially valuable.

Re: Access denied

#19

Post by jarjoura »

njl wrote: post #5

There are two competing interests here. First, Disney wants to keep control of Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel unreasonable at all that they should. Second, the rest of the stuff that is of little commercial value but of potential cultural value should be freed from uncertain or uninterested ownership. The answer feels trivial to me, which means I'm probably missing something. Fixed term for a few decades…

I'm sure an idea of a similar framework gets proposed all the time, however once stakeholders look at the huge cost in it, it gets tabled.

An argument people make on Hollywood's side is that sure, there are entire storage facilities of content that should be moved into the public domain, but who is going to fund the conversion (old deteriorated 35mm film) to media usable by the mass public?

Then on the public side, who is going to manage/fund the perpetual database and management of what's public domain now and what's still copyright protected.

I'm glad that Europe is stubborn and is moving works into the public domain. As more and more good content is becoming freely accessible, it gives our policy makers here material to argue with.

Re: Access denied

#20

Post by TheAmazingIdiot »

martincmartin wrote: post #15
praptak wrote: post #8

To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a reasonable amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said consumers…

Because two wrongs don't make a right.

And trite sayings don't mean they are correct, either.

The social contract in the constitution was to grant people with limited exclusivity for works they created. Patents have roughly stayed within that parameter (with exception to patent abuses on design and software).

For copyright, it was originally 17 years, extendable another 17 years. Works released in 1981 (my date of birth) will expire in 120 years. I will be dead before they are in public domain.

The social contract was 'reneogiated' by campaign donations, without input from the people. The supreme court found that forever extensions the way congress is implementing them as 'constitutional' and it was Congress's problem.

So yes, I believe that should open up the debate on piracy as a legitimate solution.

Post reply on HN