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

61–70 of 165 posts

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

#61

Post by bluekitten »

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)

That message is only going to reach an extreme minority of people, of which an extreme minority will actually put it into action.

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

#62

Post by BlackDeath3 »

jellicle wrote: post #57
cafard wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

Oh boy...

I don't know if you're actually interested in discussing Objectivism or just bashing on Objectivists, but in an effort to stay intellectually-honest you might avoid confusing philosophies with philosophers.

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

#63

Post by stinkytaco »

jessriedel wrote: post #35
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 think you're confused. Disney is free to make new Mickey Mouse movies, and those will be protected by copyright. Likewise, they can register Mickey Mouse as a trademark for certain business situations so no one is ever tricked into thinking a 3rd party product is endorsed by Disney. Buy what they absolutely shouldn't have is the ability to prevent other people from writing new Mickey stories, from watching 70 year…

While I agree with you in principle, some of the specifics I take issue with:

1. Writing new Mickey stories - This is an odd legal/moral area for me. It's not unreasonable for Disney to want to protect Mickey and if you wrote a Mickey story, it's possible that people could feel that a 3rd party product is endorsed by Disney. That could affect Disney's future business. Distributing Steamboat Willy on YouTube will not.

2. Mickey Mouse ears - Pretty clearly a trademark violation. Outside of the domain of copyright entirely.

I don't mean to nitpick, but I don't think it helps to confuse different types of intellectual property in this discussion. Steamboat Willy is a discreet work of art that should enter the public domain. As should all other works from that time. That is good for society and really has no bearing on anyone's ability to create commercially viable works of art (other than derivative works such as a Steamboat Willy stage play or novelization).

The brand of Mickey is separate and Disney has a legitimate (though perhaps not legitimate enough, I'll admit) interest in protecting it. Part of the problem is they are deceiving people into conflating the two issues to protect a supplementary revenue stream and control their brand.

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

#64

Post by will_brown »

ewillbefull wrote: post #55
will_brown wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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 problem...misconception that copyrighted work is behind a paywall. Copyrighted work is subject to fair use and a number of other exceptions such as academic/scientific purposes.

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

#65

Post by pessimizer »

justin66 wrote: post #47
pessimizer wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The kids aren't the purchasers of the majority of entertainment products. If the kids had a choice between free River Kwai, and $12 modern version of 3:10 to Yuma (or something funner), the $12 would become $2 in no time.

What? edit: so you were just restating what you already said. It wasn't persuasive the first time.

>I like the idea that the kids would be watching Bridge on the River Kwai instead of the latest recruitment video but it doesn't seem likely.

The kids aren't the purchasers of the majority of entertainment products.

If the kids had a choice between free River Kwai, and a $12 modern version of 3:10 to Yuma (or something funner), the $12 would become $2 in no time.

Prices on new product would have to be lowered to compete with free old product.

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

#67

Post by kbenson »

MWil wrote: post #15
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...

My IP law professor once stopped class and shouted at someone wearing a polo with the disney logo, "Sir, are you trying to antagonize me?!"

Thanks for the laugh. I would pay a few bucks to see that play out.

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

#69

Post by cafard »

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…

You can copy and distribute any creation for free thanks to the internet. A publisher is not required for the next On the Road. But creating the next Bridge Over the River Kwai will require serious resources.

Samuel Johnson, who did an awful lot of writing, and was not that one can tell a greedy man, said that No man but blockhead ever wrote but for money.

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

#70

Post by ewillbefull »

will_brown wrote: post #56
Avenger42 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

There are no business models which depend on a revenue stream existing 30 years from now to encourage the creation of works. In fact I can't think of any business models that are dependent upon such lengths of time; patents don't even exceed 20 years.

You are not encouraging any additional creation by making the copyright indefinite, you are simply handing creators exclusivity enforcement forever at the expense of the public.

As a creator you are not entitled to ownership of information, it is given to you by the government. It is not relinquished from you to the people. Copyright is a social contract, not an inalienable right arbitrarily given to creators simply for the act of creation.

In the first Supreme Court case on Copyright, they ruled:

“Congress… by this act, instead of sanctioning an existing right… created it.”

Post reply on HN