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

81–90 of 132 posts

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

#81

Post by follower »

jleyank wrote: post #55

I might be mis-remembering, but doesn't (L)GPL rely on copyright law for its status? If so, then there's at least one bit of IP that's "properly protected" by copyright law.

Yes, you remember correctly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft) but GNU would have an issue with the term "IP". :)

I don't have a link but my impression is that part of the need for the GPL to exist in the first place is due to restrictions of copyright and the GPL uses copyright to enforce itself as a way of reacting against the system which it would rather not exist.

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

#82

Post by profgubler »

gridspy wrote: post #52
praptak wrote: post #18

The deal between copyright holders and society was changed retroactively in favor of the former. Why then should the latter uphold their end of the deal, i.e. not pirate?

The issue isn't getting a copy of the original work for free. Of greater concern is the penalty for creating derivative works - so we can't have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_and_Zombies

Actually, I would believe you could have had that even if it was in copyright, as it would be considered parody. Would it not?

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

#83

Post by spiffytech »

grav1tas wrote: post #77
jorgem wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But copyright can prevent you from accessing less-famous works. Some of these works are out-of-print, so you can't get them and the copyright owners are nowhere to be found. These lost copyrighted works are essentially lost.

IANAL. If a copyright holder doesn't effectively exist like in this scenario, how can they charge you with copyright infringement? If a work is out of print and not findable, and the copyright holder is gone, how would you know that the work existed, and how would anybody go about printing said work again? I also think that your statement implies that society is somehow entitled to peoples' copy written works at some…

As a practical matter, an unenforced copyright is as good as no copyright. However, if citizens routinely feel they can violate the law because it is neither enforced nor harmful to do so, the law should be rewritten to restrict it to scenarios where it is meaningful.

Also, 'out of print' is not 'not findable'. When Google created their Google Books system they encountered many books they wanted to scan whose copyright holders could not be located. The same is true for many old video games: many people remember playing games in their childhood that would now only be available if someone posted a ROM because the original game cartridges or consoles are difficult to come by. However, because the copyright holder cannot be found, there can be no legal means to distribute said games for many decades.

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

#84

Post by davidcuddeback »

MessagePad2100 wrote: post #71
chc wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Public domain works can still be commercially exploited. The only difference is that LOTR wouldn't have sat in preproduction hell for years because of squabbles over the rights. Peter Jackson could have gone ahead and made his very fine movies — instead, copyright almost got him forced out of The Hobbit.

Another possibility: Instead of squabbling with the publisher/Tolkien Trust, Michael Bay could have simultaneously made a movie as well to compete with Jackson's vision of the movie.

Nothing wrong with competition. Let the makers of the better movie prosper.

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

#85

Post by ajays »

tptacek wrote: post #70
ajays wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property. It typically gets ignored (e.g. by people like Lessig)." No, it most certainly does NOT get ignored. What the proponents of change are saying is that IP rights should not be granted in perpetuity. Even patents expire after 20 years; so why not copyrights? Given the money that Disney is making, I would not be surprised if the copyright law…

It doesn't just benefit one corporation. It profoundly benefits one corporation, and significantly benefits everyone else making a living off intellectual property. The longer the copyright term is, the greater the value of a copyright is.

Why doesn't the same apply to patents too then? What makes a work of art more valuable (in terms of copyright limits) than a life-saving medicine?

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

#86

Post by pavlov »

blasdel wrote: post #56
avdempsey wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite. I don't care if WB makes a Mickey Mouse movie. Walt is dead. We're not talking about the state stealing "Rearden Metal" shortly after its invention. Generations have grown up with this character and it seems just as outrageous as state-based exploitation to hold this character captive forever. How does inifinite copyright extension do anything but favor the sad corporatism you oppose? Entire generations wi…

I wouldn't even consider Mickey Mouse to be a character - he hasn't been used that way by Disney for at least 50 years, and never had much character development to begin with even when he 'starred' in minstrel cartoons. Mickey Mouse is a logo, deserving of trademark protection and nothing more.

Mickey is an actively used character in European-drawn Disney comics. He's usually either a serious detective protagonist, or just a friend of Donald or Goofy.

For all his detective skills, he somehow has never figured out that Goofy is the same person as Super-Goofy (there is a peanut plant in Goofy's backyard that turns him into a Superman-style hero).

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

#87

Post by chc »

MessagePad2100 wrote: post #71
chc wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Public domain works can still be commercially exploited. The only difference is that LOTR wouldn't have sat in preproduction hell for years because of squabbles over the rights. Peter Jackson could have gone ahead and made his very fine movies — instead, copyright almost got him forced out of The Hobbit.

Another possibility: Instead of squabbling with the publisher/Tolkien Trust, Michael Bay could have simultaneously made a movie as well to compete with Jackson's vision of the movie.

I don't understand your point. If you mean he could have made a LOTR movie, I still don't see how that's relevant, given that:

1. That wouldn't happen, for a large number of reasons.

2. That happens even in the current system (see "The Exorcist: The Beginning" for an example in the movie world).

3. Michael Bay already had movies in competition with the LOTR franchise — copyright does nothing to prevent that. It just requires that some people distantly related to people who paid some money to Tolkien get paid if you want to use the LOTR names and characters.

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

#89

Post by tptacek »

ajays wrote: post #85
tptacek wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't just benefit one corporation. It profoundly benefits one corporation, and significantly benefits everyone else making a living off intellectual property. The longer the copyright term is, the greater the value of a copyright is.

Why doesn't the same apply to patents too then? What makes a work of art more valuable (in terms of copyright limits) than a life-saving medicine?

That's easy: the patent covers the whole idea and precludes whole avenues of further exploration. Copyright only covers a single expression of an idea.

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

#90

Post by ootachi »

profgubler wrote: post #82
gridspy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't getting a copy of the original work for free. Of greater concern is the penalty for creating derivative works - so we can't have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_and_Zombies

Actually, I would believe you could have had that even if it was in copyright, as it would be considered parody. Would it not?

Depends. Parody is covered under fair use in the United States and is subject to the same test used to determine fair use.
Post reply on HN