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

What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

law.duke.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 132 posts

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#21

Post by slantyyz »

griftah wrote: post #16
cookiecaper wrote: post #10

Copyright law is really disappointing here. How do such long terms contribute to the progress of sciences or the arts? The writers and main contributors to most of the pieces named are dead. The publishers have made their cash time and time again and now most of these pieces are by no means "hot sellers", though they may be of cultural or historical interest. And, there's 40 years left before the copyright expires. A…

Why having Lord of the Rings in public domain is so important?

Maybe for the same reason that having Romeo & Juliet and King Lear in the public domain is so important.

Would West Side Story or Ran have been made if they weren't?

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#22

Post by donaldc »

javert wrote: post #9
ajays wrote: post #7

The current copyright law is a prime example of the impotence of the electorate in the face of the power of Big Money. It is in the public interest to have works move into the public domain, so that others can build upon them (I'll refrain from linking to the myriad talks by Lessig and others about how the current copyright system is broken). And yet Hollywood keeps buying the legislators and perpetuates this broken…

There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property. It typically gets ignored (e.g. by people like Lessig). Basically: The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property; that's part and parcel of living in a civilized society. Doesn't matter if that work is entirely "intellectual" or not. The fact that it's physically easy to steal intellectual property does not make it right. P…

The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property; that's part and parcel of living in a civilized society.

This argument is only considering one side of the equation. The other side:

Pretty much all products of a human being's work in a civilized society are built on top of previous products of other people's works, in both a material and especially in an intellectual sense.

Giving such an unreasonably long time for copyright protection is breaking the chain. It argues, wrongly, that it is ok to build on the previous products of civilization while effectively locking up anyone from building on yours for 100-200 years.

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#24

Post by wtallis »

javert wrote: post #9
ajays wrote: post #7

The current copyright law is a prime example of the impotence of the electorate in the face of the power of Big Money. It is in the public interest to have works move into the public domain, so that others can build upon them (I'll refrain from linking to the myriad talks by Lessig and others about how the current copyright system is broken). And yet Hollywood keeps buying the legislators and perpetuates this broken…

There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property. It typically gets ignored (e.g. by people like Lessig). Basically: The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property; that's part and parcel of living in a civilized society. Doesn't matter if that work is entirely "intellectual" or not. The fact that it's physically easy to steal intellectual property does not make it right. P…

That natural rights justification needs to be subordinate to the actual text of the US constitution, which makes it clear that intellectual property rights can only be granted by legislation, with limited term, and only for the purpose of stimulating progress. Without appropriate action by congress, the default under US law is for writings to be public domain, and it is unconstitutional to grant someone power over their writings simply out of the sense that they deserve it.

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#25

Post by wtallis »

[deleted] wrote: post #23
wtallis wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is more that continued copyright protections don't serve any purpose, and thus are unconstitutional.

[deleted]

Right. But a copyright law that doesn't have the purpose and effect of promoting that progress is unconstitutional. Congress can't just hand out intellectual property rights on a whim, nor can they be used to stand in the way of progress.

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#26

Post by FluidDjango »

[deleted] wrote: post #23
wtallis wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is more that continued copyright protections don't serve any purpose, and thus are unconstitutional.

[deleted]

Let them defend the current policies as promoting, "the progress of science and useful arts..." - as opposed to promoting corporate wealth.

Then let's also define "for limited times..." in terms of decades not centuries.

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#28

Post by follower »

javert wrote: post #9
ajays wrote: post #7

The current copyright law is a prime example of the impotence of the electorate in the face of the power of Big Money. It is in the public interest to have works move into the public domain, so that others can build upon them (I'll refrain from linking to the myriad talks by Lessig and others about how the current copyright system is broken). And yet Hollywood keeps buying the legislators and perpetuates this broken…

There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property. It typically gets ignored (e.g. by people like Lessig). Basically: The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property; that's part and parcel of living in a civilized society. Doesn't matter if that work is entirely "intellectual" or not. The fact that it's physically easy to steal intellectual property does not make it right. P…

> There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property

But Copyright as law is only about 300 years old and wasn't implemented because of "natural rights".

> If people's intellectual property rights are not respected, it will not be profitable to develop intellectual property.

And, yet, a lack of copyright didn't appear to stop people from creating works before copyright existed. And maybe there's more important things for a culture than profit.

Even more so, there are people creating works today who go out of their way to specifically disclaim copyright protection using Creative Commons Zero and similar licenses. So copyright isn't a requirement for creation.

> In this case: you claim that it's important for the public good to move works into the public domain. Well, how is it good for the public to move Horton Hears a Who or Sports Illustrated into the public domain?

Well, in some cases, because that was the agreement at the time the work was created until the law retroactively changed the terms of the contract.

And in other cases, because then the next generation of film-makers gets to make their animated re-interpretation of Horton Hears a Who (or even Horton Hears a Sports Illustrated) without it being illegal or financially prohibitive thus ensuring society more culture works.

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#29

Post by javert »

wtallis wrote: post #24
javert wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property. It typically gets ignored (e.g. by people like Lessig). Basically: The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property; that's part and parcel of living in a civilized society. Doesn't matter if that work is entirely "intellectual" or not. The fact that it's physically easy to steal intellectual property does not make it right. P…

That natural rights justification needs to be subordinate to the actual text of the US constitution, which makes it clear that intellectual property rights can only be granted by legislation, with limited term, and only for the purpose of stimulating progress. Without appropriate action by congress, the default under US law is for writings to be public domain, and it is unconstitutional to grant someone power over th…

That natural rights justification needs to be subordinate to the actual text of the US constitution

An argument for natural rights is totally independent of the government of any particular country. If the U.S. Constitution has it wrong (which it may), that's what amendments are for.

Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

#30

Post by collint »

ShabbyDoo wrote: post #17
cookiecaper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I don't think it should be exclusively about the life of the author, as I explain later in the comment. I think a relatively short general term from date of publication is good regardless of life of author. I am merely indicating that in cases where the author died many years ago, all the extension of copyright does is allow non-creative people that were once attached to people that were attached to the origina…

It seems that your argument is generalizable to the inherit-ability of wealth.

One needs not inherit wealth through death to carry it on.

That's what living is for.

The privileges afforded from wealth certainly give you a leg up. Take it, or get out of the way.

Post reply on HN