7 ms·

Meanwhile in Canada, a bunch of stuff will be leaving the public domain thanks to the renegotiation of NAFTA synchronizing Canadian copyright to American. Yay?

marvindanig 8y ago
This is seriously the worst part of this whole bad news cycle we're on. We need to elect people with strong moral fiber and then hold those elected accountable. There are good people in politics!
- Vinnl 8y ago
  It's not just needing to have strong moral fiber, but also be willing to sacrifice whatever other parties in a negotiation offered for you lengthen the copyright period.
comex 8y ago
Huh! I hadn’t heard about this. In theory, there’s still time to stop it from happening. Although USMCA was signed, it hasn’t been ratified by the US and, due to objections from newly elected Democratic House majority, probably won’t be ratified in its current form. Unfortunately, I don’t think those objections include anything about copyright, so in lieu of some massive public lobbying campaign, any revised version they agree to probably won’t change that part. On the other hand, there’s a substantial chance that Democrats and Republicans fail to reach a deal on revisions, nothing gets signed, and Trump’s threat to unilaterally terminate NAFTA gets put to the test (both politically and, potentially, in court). I guess we’ll see.
- adventured 8y ago
  > On the other hand, there’s a substantial chance that Democrats and Republicans fail to reach a deal on revisions There's zero chance the Democrats and Republicans fail to ratify the new USMCA. Neither party particularly wanted to dump NAFTA in the first place, it was almost entirely a Trump push to renegotiate it. USMCA is very slightly better for the US and North America, so it's better than the deal they all supported before that. It's a small group of Democrats posturing with their new control of the house. They understand the cost of letting the trade pact drop and they have no interest in owning that mistake.
  - comex 8y ago
    What you say is largely accurate, but it's worth noting that the president's ability to unilaterally terminate NATFA is a subject of debate. [1] [2] The short version is that Trump probably does have the authority to formally withdraw, but doing so without Congress's approval would leave the NAFTA Implementation Act in place, making it into a sort of zombie agreement. Certainly Congress will want to avoid things getting that far, and so the new agreement will probably pass. But as today's news demonstrates, negotiations in the Trump era tend to be... unpredictable. [1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/26/16505508/nafta-congress-block-trump-withdraw-trade-power https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/26/16505508/... [2] https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/can-trump-terminate-nafta https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/can-tru...
- bjt 8y ago
  The House doesn't ratify treaties. The Senate does.
  - comex 8y ago
    See my reply to a sibling of your post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18729955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18729955
- IncRnd 8y ago
  > Although USMCA was signed, it hasn’t been ratified by the US and, due to objections from newly elected Democratic House majority, probably won’t be ratified in its current form. The House party structure doesn't apply. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the President has the “Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Ratification is thereby approved or rejected by the Senate.
  - comex 8y ago
    To quote Wikipedia: > As of 2013, the majority of United States free trade agreements were implemented as congressional-executive agreements. Unlike treaties, such agreements require a majority of the House and Senate to pass. Under trade promotion authority (TPA), established by the Trade Act of 1974 and renewed by the Trade Act of 2002, Congress authorizes the President to negotiate "free trade agreements ... if they are approved by both houses in a bill enacted into public law and other statutory conditions are met. In the case of the USMCA, the Trump administration is seeking approval under "fast-track authority", which he has under the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015. (This authority was originally set to expire in 2018 but was successfully extended to 2021.) [2] The effect of fast-track authority is that when "implementing legislation" for a trade agreement is considered by Congress, no amendments can be proposed, debate time is limited, and (as a result of time being limited) the bill cannot be filibustered in the Senate. This makes it much easier to pass. However, the process only applies to legislation, i.e. to the congressional part of congressional-executive agreements. Passing an agreement as a true treaty would still have to follow the normal Constitutional procedure requiring a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which is generally considered more difficult than getting a bare majority of both houses. I'd say that applies even in the current political situation, because the Republicans will only have 53 seats in the Senate; a two-thirds majority is 67 votes, so they would need 14 out of 47 Democrats (30%) to vote yes, assuming all Republicans voted yes. In contrast, in the House the Republicans will have 200 seats, and would require 18 out of 235 Democrats (8%). On the other hand, the House rate would face an opposing majority leader, and the House can also vote to withdraw fast track authority. [3] In any case, regardless of what the administration could theoretically do, it's currently trying to pass the USMCA as a congressional-executive agreement, which means the change in House party structure certainly is significant. By the way, even if a true treaty is passed, in theory the House can refuse to provide funds to implement it, which is arguably[4] allowed under the Constitution. But admittedly that's very unlikely to happen unless they really hate the treaty, which wouldn't be the case with the USMCA. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)#TPP_and_2015_reauthorization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)#TPP_and_201... [2] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b4c71fc-b979-4178-8179-457c80eccbec https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b4c71fc-b979... [3] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43491.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43491.pdf (page 27) [4] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/html/CPRT-106SPRT66922.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/html/C...
ezoe 8y ago
Japan too. Copyright shall be abolished now or our generation's precious culture will be lost forever.
- Crosseye_Jack 8y ago
  I don’t believe copyright should be abolished, I believe an Author of a creative piece of work should have the right to protect their work and exploit it for profit how they see fit. I also don’t believe that copyright destroys culture. But I will agree that the time limit on such copyrights has gotten out of control and should be rained in. Disney had and exploited the benifits of copyrighted works entering the public domain. It’s only fair (IMO) they allow others to have such benefits available to themselves too.
  - Just_Smith 8y ago
    I don't believe that copyright destroys culture, but I definitely believe that it limits it. Increased copyright policing in Japan could have an effect on a lot of dōjin circles, where a lot of derivative artwork occurs. I find dōjin artwork to be quite enjoyable, as it reminds me a lot of the Star War EU or mod communities for some video games that I play.
  - emn13 8y ago
    If copyright lasted (say) a year or two - maybe. But even then, it's a terrible tool with huge social costs and limited upside. In any sane world, given the increased pace of information exchange and cultural change, copyright terms should have decreased over the years. That's not exactly what happened, now is it? It's completely laughable to assume human culture would cease to develop in the absence of copyright; which is essentially it's stated aim. Evidence: the entirety of human history. The idea wasn't the brightest from the get go: this was lawmakers simply trying to be too clever. But what bothers me most is the framing of "authors of a creative piece of work should have the right to protect their work"; when in fact it means "anybody or any organisation who made even rudimentary changes to almost any kind information can limit the rights of every other human on the planet". It's an absurdly blunt regulatory tool that's eminently vulnerable to regulatory capture, and oh hey; that actually happened many times over the centuries - and not just in terms of durations; it was expanded to corporations; penalties became more severe; exclusions were reduced; scope crept in the form of anti-circumvention measures; reach expanded by population growth and international cooperation. Copyright and derivative laws in its modern form has to be up there as one of the worst forms of regulation, with huge economic and social costs, yet no good way out and no practical sunset clauses because of extremely entrenched habits and vested interests.
hiccuphippo 8y ago
If you already got a copy of a work while it was public domain, does your copy become copyrighted when this happens? What if you made a derivative work while it was still public domain? Are you liable of copyright infringement?
- taneq 8y ago
  I'm guessing that, like most legal things, the answer is "nobody knows until some precedent is set in court." :/
- goodcanadian 8y ago
  Generally speaking, under common law, laws aren't applied retroactively. Any copy made while it was legal should be fine. You wouldn't be able to make new copies, however.
  - miguelrochefort 8y ago
    > You wouldn't be able to make new copies, however. Good thing I filled my 1TB hard drive with thousands of identical copies of this work that used to be in the public domain...
    - goodcanadian 8y ago
      As long as they stay on that hard drive, no problem. You would have to copy it to get it off, however, and that would be a violation.
      - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
        You can move it. Transferring digital goods is possible.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Mindwipe 8y ago
  http://dictionaryofiplaw.blogspot.com/2013/10/revived-copyright.html http://dictionaryofiplaw.blogspot.com/2013/10/revived-copyri...
danbolt 8y ago
I wonder what will happen to derivative works based on works that were public domain but then fell into copyright again? [1] https://literary007.com/2016/08/23/licence-expired-the-unauthorized-james-bond/ https://literary007.com/2016/08/23/licence-expired-the-unaut...
- Mindwipe 8y ago
  It will probably be something similar to the approach the UK undertook in the 90s when it had a very similar issue, with revived copyright. http://dictionaryofiplaw.blogspot.com/2013/10/revived-copyright.html http://dictionaryofiplaw.blogspot.com/2013/10/revived-copyri...
ionised 8y ago
Wait, things can be taken out of the public domain? What the fuck?
- pluma 8y ago
  Don't think of it as taking things out of the public domain. They "fixed the glitch".

marvindanig 8y ago

This is seriously the worst part of this whole bad news cycle we're on. We need to elect people with strong moral fiber and then hold those elected accountable. There are good people in politics!

Vinnl 8y ago
It's not just needing to have strong moral fiber, but also be willing to sacrifice whatever other parties in a negotiation offered for you lengthen the copyright period.

comex 8y ago

Huh! I hadn’t heard about this. In theory, there’s still time to stop it from happening. Although USMCA was signed, it hasn’t been ratified by the US and, due to objections from newly elected Democratic House majority, probably won’t be ratified in its current form. Unfortunately, I don’t think those objections include anything about copyright, so in lieu of some massive public lobbying campaign, any revised version they agree to probably won’t change that part. On the other hand, there’s a substantial chance that Democrats and Republicans fail to reach a deal on revisions, nothing gets signed, and Trump’s threat to unilaterally terminate NAFTA gets put to the test (both politically and, potentially, in court). I guess we’ll see.

adventured 8y ago
> On the other hand, there’s a substantial chance that Democrats and Republicans fail to reach a deal on revisions There's zero chance the Democrats and Republicans fail to ratify the new USMCA. Neither party particularly wanted to dump NAFTA in the first place, it was almost entirely a Trump push to renegotiate it. USMCA is very slightly better for the US and North America, so it's better than the deal they all supported before that. It's a small group of Democrats posturing with their new control of the house. They understand the cost of letting the trade pact drop and they have no interest in owning that mistake.
- comex 8y ago
  What you say is largely accurate, but it's worth noting that the president's ability to unilaterally terminate NATFA is a subject of debate. [1] [2] The short version is that Trump probably does have the authority to formally withdraw, but doing so without Congress's approval would leave the NAFTA Implementation Act in place, making it into a sort of zombie agreement. Certainly Congress will want to avoid things getting that far, and so the new agreement will probably pass. But as today's news demonstrates, negotiations in the Trump era tend to be... unpredictable. [1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/26/16505508/nafta-congress-block-trump-withdraw-trade-power https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/26/16505508/... [2] https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/can-trump-terminate-nafta https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/can-tru...
bjt 8y ago
The House doesn't ratify treaties. The Senate does.
- comex 8y ago
  See my reply to a sibling of your post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18729955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18729955
IncRnd 8y ago
> Although USMCA was signed, it hasn’t been ratified by the US and, due to objections from newly elected Democratic House majority, probably won’t be ratified in its current form. The House party structure doesn't apply. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the President has the “Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Ratification is thereby approved or rejected by the Senate.
- comex 8y ago
  To quote Wikipedia: > As of 2013, the majority of United States free trade agreements were implemented as congressional-executive agreements. Unlike treaties, such agreements require a majority of the House and Senate to pass. Under trade promotion authority (TPA), established by the Trade Act of 1974 and renewed by the Trade Act of 2002, Congress authorizes the President to negotiate "free trade agreements ... if they are approved by both houses in a bill enacted into public law and other statutory conditions are met. In the case of the USMCA, the Trump administration is seeking approval under "fast-track authority", which he has under the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015. (This authority was originally set to expire in 2018 but was successfully extended to 2021.) [2] The effect of fast-track authority is that when "implementing legislation" for a trade agreement is considered by Congress, no amendments can be proposed, debate time is limited, and (as a result of time being limited) the bill cannot be filibustered in the Senate. This makes it much easier to pass. However, the process only applies to legislation, i.e. to the congressional part of congressional-executive agreements. Passing an agreement as a true treaty would still have to follow the normal Constitutional procedure requiring a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which is generally considered more difficult than getting a bare majority of both houses. I'd say that applies even in the current political situation, because the Republicans will only have 53 seats in the Senate; a two-thirds majority is 67 votes, so they would need 14 out of 47 Democrats (30%) to vote yes, assuming all Republicans voted yes. In contrast, in the House the Republicans will have 200 seats, and would require 18 out of 235 Democrats (8%). On the other hand, the House rate would face an opposing majority leader, and the House can also vote to withdraw fast track authority. [3] In any case, regardless of what the administration could theoretically do, it's currently trying to pass the USMCA as a congressional-executive agreement, which means the change in House party structure certainly is significant. By the way, even if a true treaty is passed, in theory the House can refuse to provide funds to implement it, which is arguably[4] allowed under the Constitution. But admittedly that's very unlikely to happen unless they really hate the treaty, which wouldn't be the case with the USMCA. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)#TPP_and_2015_reauthorization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)#TPP_and_201... [2] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b4c71fc-b979-4178-8179-457c80eccbec https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b4c71fc-b979... [3] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43491.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43491.pdf (page 27) [4] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/html/CPRT-106SPRT66922.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/html/C...

ezoe 8y ago

Japan too. Copyright shall be abolished now or our generation's precious culture will be lost forever.

Crosseye_Jack 8y ago
I don’t believe copyright should be abolished, I believe an Author of a creative piece of work should have the right to protect their work and exploit it for profit how they see fit. I also don’t believe that copyright destroys culture. But I will agree that the time limit on such copyrights has gotten out of control and should be rained in. Disney had and exploited the benifits of copyrighted works entering the public domain. It’s only fair (IMO) they allow others to have such benefits available to themselves too.
- Just_Smith 8y ago
  I don't believe that copyright destroys culture, but I definitely believe that it limits it. Increased copyright policing in Japan could have an effect on a lot of dōjin circles, where a lot of derivative artwork occurs. I find dōjin artwork to be quite enjoyable, as it reminds me a lot of the Star War EU or mod communities for some video games that I play.
- emn13 8y ago
  If copyright lasted (say) a year or two - maybe. But even then, it's a terrible tool with huge social costs and limited upside. In any sane world, given the increased pace of information exchange and cultural change, copyright terms should have decreased over the years. That's not exactly what happened, now is it? It's completely laughable to assume human culture would cease to develop in the absence of copyright; which is essentially it's stated aim. Evidence: the entirety of human history. The idea wasn't the brightest from the get go: this was lawmakers simply trying to be too clever. But what bothers me most is the framing of "authors of a creative piece of work should have the right to protect their work"; when in fact it means "anybody or any organisation who made even rudimentary changes to almost any kind information can limit the rights of every other human on the planet". It's an absurdly blunt regulatory tool that's eminently vulnerable to regulatory capture, and oh hey; that actually happened many times over the centuries - and not just in terms of durations; it was expanded to corporations; penalties became more severe; exclusions were reduced; scope crept in the form of anti-circumvention measures; reach expanded by population growth and international cooperation. Copyright and derivative laws in its modern form has to be up there as one of the worst forms of regulation, with huge economic and social costs, yet no good way out and no practical sunset clauses because of extremely entrenched habits and vested interests.

hiccuphippo 8y ago

If you already got a copy of a work while it was public domain, does your copy become copyrighted when this happens? What if you made a derivative work while it was still public domain? Are you liable of copyright infringement?

taneq 8y ago
I'm guessing that, like most legal things, the answer is "nobody knows until some precedent is set in court." :/
goodcanadian 8y ago
Generally speaking, under common law, laws aren't applied retroactively. Any copy made while it was legal should be fine. You wouldn't be able to make new copies, however.
- miguelrochefort 8y ago
  > You wouldn't be able to make new copies, however. Good thing I filled my 1TB hard drive with thousands of identical copies of this work that used to be in the public domain...
  - goodcanadian 8y ago
    As long as they stay on that hard drive, no problem. You would have to copy it to get it off, however, and that would be a violation.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      You can move it. Transferring digital goods is possible.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Mindwipe 8y ago
http://dictionaryofiplaw.blogspot.com/2013/10/revived-copyright.html http://dictionaryofiplaw.blogspot.com/2013/10/revived-copyri...

danbolt 8y ago

I wonder what will happen to derivative works based on works that were public domain but then fell into copyright again? [1] https://literary007.com/2016/08/23/licence-expired-the-unauthorized-james-bond/ https://literary007.com/2016/08/23/licence-expired-the-unaut...

Mindwipe 8y ago
It will probably be something similar to the approach the UK undertook in the 90s when it had a very similar issue, with revived copyright. http://dictionaryofiplaw.blogspot.com/2013/10/revived-copyright.html http://dictionaryofiplaw.blogspot.com/2013/10/revived-copyri...

ionised 8y ago

Wait, things can be taken out of the public domain? What the fuck?

pluma 8y ago
Don't think of it as taking things out of the public domain. They "fixed the glitch".