3 ms·

I think the public at large cares little for “ancient” works from 1925, because that was such a different age. There is a great cultural disconnect. We typicall

by jl6 6y ago

I think the public at large cares little for “ancient” works from 1925, because that was such a different age. There is a great cultural disconnect. We typically don’t feel those works were ours in the first place. So we don’t see a great benefit in suddenly having free access to them. This will change. I believe our current cultural continuity reaches all the way back to the end of the Second World War, and that this continuity is a stretching window not a sliding window. When works from 1945+ start to enter the public domain I think the public at large will recognize these as part of their own cultural continuity and start to appreciate the value of the public domain.

londons_explore 6y ago
I think it's a sliding window rather than a stretching window. They're the tunes that grandma remembers listening to in her childhood. In 30 years, grandma will be dead, and the cultural heritage will be the tunes mom remembers listening to in her childhood.
CaptArmchair 6y ago
I highly doubt it will change. One of the main arguments for the Sony Bono Act of 1998 was: [1] > The term extension was supported for two key reasons. First, "copyright industries give us [(the United States)] one of our most significant trade surpluses." Second, the recently enacted legislation in the European Union had extended copyright there for 20 years, and so EU works would be protected for 20 years longer than US works if the US did not enact similar term extensions. Howard Coble also stated that it was good for consumers since "When works are protected by copyright, they attract investors who can exploit the work for profit." > The term extension portion was supported by Songwriters Guild of America, National Academy of Songwriters, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Intellectual Property Law Section of the American Bar Association, the Recording Industry Association of America, National Music Publishers Association, the Information Technology Association of America and others. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act The E.U. extension pertained to recordings of performances and was meant to harmonize with the copyright terms of authors for whom a copyright term of 70 years already applied. Moreover, copyright protection in the E.U. doesn't take the "date of publication" as starting point, but the year of death of the author. It means that in the E.U., to this day, works - works of art, music, photographs, posters, postcards,... - made in the 19th century can still be protected if the author passed after 1950. It also means that clearing copyright in the E.U. is a huge obstacle for archives and libraries when when it comes to opening up their collections. The main incentives for copyright protection are economic and geostrategic. Paradoxically, in a global, digitized world, copyright protections have gained even more strategic value in trade agreements.

by jl6 6y ago

londons_explore 6y ago

I think it's a sliding window rather than a stretching window. They're the tunes that grandma remembers listening to in her childhood. In 30 years, grandma will be dead, and the cultural heritage will be the tunes mom remembers listening to in her childhood.

CaptArmchair 6y ago

I highly doubt it will change. One of the main arguments for the Sony Bono Act of 1998 was: [1] > The term extension was supported for two key reasons. First, "copyright industries give us [(the United States)] one of our most significant trade surpluses." Second, the recently enacted legislation in the European Union had extended copyright there for 20 years, and so EU works would be protected for 20 years longer than US works if the US did not enact similar term extensions. Howard Coble also stated that it was good for consumers since "When works are protected by copyright, they attract investors who can exploit the work for profit." > The term extension portion was supported by Songwriters Guild of America, National Academy of Songwriters, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Intellectual Property Law Section of the American Bar Association, the Recording Industry Association of America, National Music Publishers Association, the Information Technology Association of America and others. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act The E.U. extension pertained to recordings of performances and was meant to harmonize with the copyright terms of authors for whom a copyright term of 70 years already applied. Moreover, copyright protection in the E.U. doesn't take the "date of publication" as starting point, but the year of death of the author. It means that in the E.U., to this day, works - works of art, music, photographs, posters, postcards,... - made in the 19th century can still be protected if the author passed after 1950. It also means that clearing copyright in the E.U. is a huge obstacle for archives and libraries when when it comes to opening up their collections. The main incentives for copyright protection are economic and geostrategic. Paradoxically, in a global, digitized world, copyright protections have gained even more strategic value in trade agreements.