Hacker News Reader

Comment by audiodude | Hacker News Reader

In case anyone is wondering, once again nothing will enter the public domain in the United States because of Congress' perpetual habit of retroactively extending copyright on works. The next time anything will enter the public domain in the US is January 1, 2019. source: https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday

View on HN

As I've said before, insanely long copyright terms are one of the biggest modern cultural tragedies we face.

If things stay as they are (or get worse), I expect to see an interesting side effect for today's authors: the vast majority of people creating today--those who don't produce blockbuster franchises that ageless corporations can milk eternally--will be totally forgotten in fifty or a hundred year's time. And not forgotten in the "who is that, let me look it up" sense, but rather effectively not included in any meaningful records our children's children would access.

Why? Because long copyright prevents volunteers from remembering your work after you're dead.

That's not the case for centuries-old authors today. Thanks to the public domain, volunteers from all over the world at places like Project Gutenberg and Archive.org lovingly scan, transcribe, produce, catalog, store, and make available old works for today's generation to enjoy. Not just famous stuff like Dracula, but obscure works, works that were unpopular in their day, works that didn't matter then and maybe don't even matter now. The public domain makes this possible--it keeps the memory of authors alive, because as humans we instinctively know it's important to our culture.

But the work you produce today, unless it's highly profitable to a corporation, will be shackled by draconian laws and punishments for hundreds of years. Why should volunteers risk their freedom and treasure to transcribe your 150-year-old work still under copyright? They won't, and you and your work will be forgotten, while we keep re-using and sharing obscure writing from 1923.

As one of the saddest plots, look at the below article, showing the lack of availability of books from the middle of the 20th century.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-mi...

In my boyhood I had been fascinated by science fiction short stories, many of them I found in anthologies published in the middle of the 20th century in America. Being born in a non English-speaking country, I soon run out of reading material for translations were hard to find. When I learned English (and connected to the Internet the first time) I tried to find more from my favourite authors but with little luck.

When talking about the disappearance of books, Isaac Asimov's Great SF Stories anthology series[1] always comes to my mind. Around 2006 I spent a whole week searching for it - of the 25 books I managed to find only four or five.

Nevertheless, I assembled a pretty big (and pretty illegal) collection of nearly-impossible-to-find sci-fi stories during my days in high school, but lost it when my computer went wrong a few years later. (I am sure I could have recovered them somehow, but back then I had no idea.) Last year I tried to reassemble my collection but I gave up, it would have been too much work.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Isaac_Asimov%27s_Grea...

"The real incentive here is for corporate owners that bought copyrights to lobby Congress for another 20 years of revenue—not for creators who will be long dead once this term extension takes hold."

"I thought it was a moral outrage. There wasn't anyone speaking out for the public interest."

- Sen. Hank Brown, the only Senator to be against extending copyright in the 90s. Shame there were not more like that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...

It bugs me that there is never any accounting for the "loss" to the public. When a work that would otherwise enter the public domain is instead kept copyrighted, that is essentially privatisation of public property. If congress decided to sell national parks to private owners there would be a massive outcry. The idea that they would just give them to private owners for free would be considered utterly absurd. Yet this is exactly what extension of copyrights is. At very least, people would insist a proper valuation be put on them and the benefactors asked to pay a commensurate amount to the public to compensate the loss of public property. Yet none of this happens, these extensions are made as donations to private benefactors as if it means nothing to society.

This is because copyright law is unintuitive, and most don't understand its origins. People don't feel that creative works rightfully belong to the public. The existence of terms like "intellectual property" doesn't help.

Very much this. It is plain unhealthy how many people perceive copyright as being a 'measure to ensure income for artists'.

Hmm, at least in the US, the relevant sentence is: "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."

The way I read it, the intent of latter half of the sentence clearly is to enable artists to profit from their works. Note that it does not say "all artists shall be paid no matter what". But by having exclusive rights to their works, it can work roughly like any other property in a capitalistic society: that is, artists may be able to capture rewards proportionate to the amount of the value they provide.

I am not a legal scholar, but to me the intent of the latter half is clearly stated by the first half: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

One way to promote scientists and creators is to allow them to warn money so they can keep sciencing and creating.

Nobody is arguing that. What people are arguing is that if copyright does not promote the progress of science and useful arts, it fails to fulfill the intent of its existence. The follow-on argument is then that indefinitely extending copyright undermines that promotion of progress. If you buy both arguments, then you see why many people find the extensions so objectionable on Constitutional grounds. I don't think many people disagree with the first argument, because it's right there in the text (which is the point I believe your parent was making), but of course lots of people disagree with the second argument, believing that longer copyright terms better promote creation.

That's obvious, but the more interesting discussion (which we're really here for) lies in the unstated part of the sentence: how were the actions stated in the second half intended to result in the goal stated in the first half?

Don't you think that authors who release their work freely under copyright believe that yes it actually is a 'measure to ensure income for artists?'

I think that a large majority believe that it is to guarantee that their descendants receive royalties for all eternity.

Or...maybe some payment to themselves for their work?

What do you do with payments after your dead?

Corporations do not own these works. They lease them.

Think about it. If you have the right to use land for 95 years, after which it reverts to my possession... you do not own that land. You're just leasing it from me.

No copyright holder owns any of this. They have a long-term lease to be sure, but it's not theirs. And they're bad tenants. They're ruining the property apparently out of spite, that is, when they're not trying to bribe politicians to steal it away from us forever.

Couldn't an author renounce copyright for certain works?

Perhaps if you want to be listed on those sites, you should do that before you die. Or your heirs can if they have no ongoing payments from that work any more.

Many authors do make their works public domain, especially for technical books published in the '80s and '90s that retain value as theoretical and conceptual works (despite referring to obsolete technology). Other authors won't go so far as to relinquish copyright, but will distribute electronic copies of their work freely.

They could always put their work in the public domain themselves. However I agree that copyright laws are now insane. Apart from the ridiculous length of the terms, it can be hard to work out if any particular work is public domain since not all author's death dates are known. I really think that if copyright has any reason to exist at all, then a term of 5 years would be sufficient.

There's a few issues with that:

1) "Putting in the public domain" isn't actually possible in considerable parts of the world; you'd have to use a license like the CC0 to achieve as such,

2) Dead people can't give out licenses, and

3) Society has largely come to rely on the (mistaken) notion that copyright is a measure for ensuring income for artists, and in return this makes it very, very hard for an artist to break that notion by CC0ing their work, and still gain an income.

And why can't they have a license that simply says: "10 years after the publication date, this work will enter the public domain"

And in countries where they do not have a concept of public domain, simply change the royalty to 0 after that period of time.

Or, simply say, after 10 years, you'll also be permitted to do x, y, z with this work (where x might be redistribution, derivatives, etc).

At least in the US, authors have the right to do this today.

The Constitution calls for a limit. I argue that and time frame greater than the average life of a human is virtually unlimited. I doubt the intent if the Founding Fathers was for the limit to be an insane amount of time.

totally forgotten in the US. The rest of the world can still enjoy old works. Also, volunteers can still scan, transcribe, produce, catalog, store old works without the world knowing it. The moment copyright expires, they can make it available (assuming you are allowed to do the first few things).

My expectations are that someday before January 1, 2019 there will be a new law reform to extend copyright another 20 years.

Steamboat Willie will never enter the public domain.

I think that politicians should just admit what they're doing, extend copyright only for Disney Corporation, and leave the rest to enter the public domain.

My solution is to allow copyright extensions for those who are willing to pay an annual fee, say $1000. That would likely satisfy most interests, and abandoned works will enter the public domain.

I totally agree with that too.

Except that all works should be able to be built upon. Sherlock Holmes and Bilbo Baggins, Mickey Mouse and The Terminator, Atticus Finch and Charlie Bucket, every one is a cultural idea.

It isn't just abandoned works. All cultural works should eventually be available to build upon.

I agree, but my proposal is one that is much more likely to get through than the all-or-nothing approach.

For the sake of a handful of older profitable works, all works will forever be held back from the public domain. Better that you concede Mickey Mouse and let the rest benefit society as public works.

And yet there are multiple literary, movie and TV adaptations of all of those characters you mentioned that were not created by their original authors. Not to mention the tons and tons of crappy fanfic that nobody reads (except me, apparently).

Also, let's not justify the desire for having things for free by calling somebody's artistic labor a "cultural idea" and implying it should be made available for free. If you find value in something, pay for it as the creators wish. If you wish to build on top of it, license it.

How far back does it go, and how far forward to creators' monopolies last? Should a license fee be paid whenever somebody references War of the Worlds? How about Shakespeare?

Small-budget adaptations should be possible, as well as large-budget.

Yes this is a good suggestion, but haven't other people previous proposed this?

Yes, and the fee should double for each added year.

You don't even need an annual fee. Even a one-time fee is sufficient deterrent to blanket extension of copyright.

The old 56-year copyright term used to be split into two 28-year periods. You basically paid a one-time fee: half at the original registration, then half (adjusted for inflation) at renewal. If you didn't renew, then you got to pay half the fee for half the copyright term.

Only 15% of copyrights on books, periodicals, and music were ever renewed. The renewal rates were higher for maps (40%) and motion pictures (50%).

Thus, commercially-significant work was protected. However, the vast majority of work (85% of books!) only had an ephemeral cultural value, so the authors chose to take the fee discount and allow their works to enter the public domain.

Source: Divide 1977 renewals by 1950 registrations for each category. This is off-by-one (27 years instead of 28) because 1949 and 1978 tabulations aren't as easy to access. That's why I give round numbers.

They can't, because of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.

I thought the big value IP that Disney wants to protect from entering the public domain is Winnie the poo. The rights licensing on Winnie and friends is in the billions.

Out of curiosity, what would happen if a Canadian company were to make a movie based off of a book that has entered the public domain in Canada? Would they just not be able to release it in the US without obtaining a license?

Would a US based company be able to do the same if they only released it abroad?

I presume as you suggest the Canadian company couldn't release in the US without a license.

Not sure about a US company releasing abroad. The US copyright holder could probably argue they violated their copyright during production if the film was produced in the US. Then again if the filming was done in London but paid for by the US company they would be alright I guess? Popeye may be an interesting case as he's still copyright in the US but not most other places.

Canada is negotiating with the US via TPP. Some precedent has been set in CETA and NAFTA. Public opinion could influence the outcome of TPP negotiations, as ACTA did.

CETA, Canada-EU: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/08/canada-shaped-copyright-r...

"Canadian reforms had an impact on the negotiations. Requirements to extend the term of copyright or create new rights for broadcasters and visual artists were removed from the draft text. Moreover, the digital lock rules and Internet service provider liability provisions were substantially re-written to better reflect the Canadian approach ... the “made-in-Canada” approach is gradually garnering increased attention around the world as a creative, viable alternative ... other countries have been considering adopting the Canadian model on issues such as Internet provider liability or the creation of user-generated content."

NAFTA, Canada-US-Mexico: http://www.barrysookman.com/2011/02/19/is-copyright-part-of-...

TPP, Canada-US-Mexico-Australia-New Zealand-Malaysia-Singapore-Japan-Vietnam-Brunei-Peru-Chile : http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/10/new-tpp-leak-canada-emerg...

"..the U.S. wants Canada to eviscerate many of the recent reforms found in copyright and counterfeiting legislation along with court rulings on patent protection. These demands focus on enhanced criminal liability for copyright infringement, eliminating the Canadian approach to Internet service provider liability, extending the term of copyright protection, and expanding patent protection. Canadian negotiators have thus far resisted many of the proposed changes, offering alternatives that are compatible with current law. Yet as the treaty negotiations continue, the pressure to cave to U.S. pressure will no doubt increase, raising serious concerns about whether the TPP will force the Canadian government to overhaul recently enacted legislation that it has steadfastly defended as reflecting a balanced, “made in Canada” approach."

Or, rather, would enter the public domain, if only Congress were not to enact the next Mickey Mouse protection law. Look at this and weep: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Co...

This is absurd and puts a huge damper on creative work.

It seems like the work where a dedicated minority (who stand to collect royalties) pushes against an issue that mildly benefits the majority.

Taxi medallions were a similar phenomenon pre-Lyft and pre-Uber.

try "disrupting" copyright,be ready for a swat team raiding your house.

http://mashable.com/2012/08/08/kim-dotcom-raid/

> Taxi medallions were a similar phenomenon pre-Lyft and pre-Uber.

Neither Uber nor Lyft put an end to Taxi medallion system.

That's not what Kim dotcom was doing.

The point stands that there is a well-established, well-funded and well-connected group protecting copyright, so going against it in any form will not be easy.

If a citizen tries to get copyright law amended through the courts, they will face an epic battle from all sides.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/how-an-ebay-books...

"Sometimes all it takes to alter the course of history is one pissed-off person. Supap Kirtsaeng wasn’t a crusader or lone nut; he was just an eBay trader who got backed into a legal corner and refused to give up.

To help pay for grad school at USC, he sold textbooks online—legitimate copies that he’d purchased overseas. But academic publishing behemoth John Wiley & Sons sued Supap, claiming that his trade in Wiley’s foreign-market textbooks constituted copyright infringement.

... Once Supap’s struggle hit the spotlight, powerful supporters such as eBay, Public Knowledge, Costco, and Goodwill Industries joined the fray. But the forces pitted against Supap were arguably more powerful: the movie and music industries, publishers of books and software, and even the US Solicitor General."

I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but civil disobedience is a valid and legitimate form of protest.

If you disagree with a law, ignore it. If enough people do the same, the burden from enforcing the law becomes too much and it simply stops being enforced or is legislated away due to the societal harm it causes.

An arguable example of this in action is the War On Drugs. This war has been waged for years, and the black market has not only survived, it has thrived in the economy of scarcity that is created and maintained by said war. People and legislators all over the country (the world?) are beginning to see that this war isn't benefiting anyone and have begun legalizing marijuana. Marijuana is one of many drugs, but it's a step in the right direction.

The key with civil disobedience is that you have to be willing to face the penalty. The GP was right that doing so is risky, and one should not engage in civil disobedience without a full grasp of the consequences (and willingness to submit to / fight them legally).

this is a kamikaze approach to reform and requires countless people sacrificing years of their life (or their entire life) to the prison system. for instance if LSD is your drug of choice instead of cannabis, possession is a class B felony with up to $100K in fines and up to 10 years in prison (OR).

> Neither Uber nor Lyft put an end to Taxi medallion system.

Maybe not just yet, but a 20% price drop is likely only the beginning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/upshot/new-york-taxi-medal...

Exactly. The alternative is now there, and it's coming with a lobbying force of it's own. Once people are used to Taxi alternatives, they may start fighting back against the medallions.

But isn't the permissive licences such as MIT, GPLv3, CopyLeft etc. also a disruption to copyright? Yes the original author will retain copyright, but the intent of it, to prevent free distribution and collaboration disappears.

Now we see the mighty MS open sourcing the server side of .NET. IMO they are forced to do so because of the pressure from awesome platforms like Ruby on Rails, Python, Node.JS etc. that would soon make them irrelevant unless they follow suit.

In 50 years time, the best creative work both art, writing and tech will be available freely on permissive licences, and we won't care if it enters the public domain, even though it probably will anyway.

The great thing is the stuff you need (tools, information) is available this way. The stuff you want but don't need (awful Hollywood films, etc.) is protected by copyright and you have to pay for it.

Also the illegal file sharing has disrupted music massively. We now have so many songs you can listen to on Youtube for free. Imagine telling someone in 1990 you can listen to unlimited free music legally (albeit with ads!).

GPLv3 and "copyleft" are not permissive licenses. They are copyleft licenses. MIT, BSD, etc. are permissive licenses.

Aside from that, there is a considerable difference between public domain and 'freely licensed'. The latter involves an absolute nightmare of tracking down licenses and understanding the interactions between licenses, when working on a project of significant size (and influence). And licenses like the GPL make this even harder by being very restrictive.

> Also the illegal file sharing has disrupted music massively. We now have so many songs you can listen to on Youtube for free. Imagine telling someone in 1990 you can listen to unlimited free music legally (albeit with ads!).

The majority of music on Youtube is not there legally.

  *Neither Uber nor Lyft put an end to Taxi medallion system.*

The legal difficulty of Lyft and Uber denting the medallion system highlights what a small but highly organized minority can do again a large unorganized mass. That said, Uber and Lyft seem to have at least reduced the cost of a medallion.

Do other countries with less draconian copyright laws gain an advantage?

USA (or the media corps) seems to have Europe in their pocket when it comes to these sorts of laws; mostly once it's pushed through congress [with the aid of many 'campaign donations' I'm sure] then it seems European nations get convinced to harmonise with US practice.

I've often wondered whether Calder vs. Bull (which courts have long interpreted to mean that the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws applies only to 'vital interests' like liberty in criminal cases) isn't subject to an originalist attack.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&...

> The next time anything will enter the public domain in the US is January 1, 2019.

Right, because Congress surely won't extend terms again before that.

I didn't actually know about this. I wonder if this didn't happen and copyright had originally just lasted a persons lifetime if people would be less mad about copyright?

Frighteningly book sellers are also trashing a lot of books they are unable to sell at a profit. So when the laws change the books may not exist to be maintained.

Where is the copyright Uber who will republish some of these works, and take the arguably unconstitutional copyright extensions to court?

It's been to the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft[1] and found constitutional, 7-2.

They're right, IMHO. Congress gets to set the terms of copyright, and it's "limited" so long as any particular Congress can allow it to expire at their pleasure. Don't like it? Elect a different Congress.

[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft

The courts are no better... they've yanked works out of the public domain and back into copyright captivity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com