7 ms·

Waiting 100+ Years for Version 2.0

107 points by grellas 15y ago

swombat 15y ago
I only wish that this point was intelligible to those in charge of writing the laws. Unfortunately, I think we are light-years away from this (valid) viewpoint being considered anything other than a lunatic fringe. It's a shame.
billybob 15y ago
It has never occurred to me before how odd it is for Disney to take public-domain stories, rework them into blockbusters, then lock them up with copyright indefinitely. What a strange combination of ideas.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  Well, but doesn't Disney's copyright just apply to Disney's own instance? They can't claim copyright on other adaptations of Rapunzel, just their own and the specific style of character drawings and so on, right?
  - swombat 15y ago
    I believe you're correct. The accusation of hypocrisy is based on the fact that Disney has vigorously lobbied to keep characters like Mickey Mouse out of the public domain, while happily plundering the fairy tales and characters of earlier centuries.
    - ssp 15y ago
      while happily plundering the fairy tales and characters of earlier centuries. It's even more striking if you consider that those fairy tales and characters are the products of many, many retellings and adaptations throughout history. The Grimm brothers didn't write them; they just wrote down one version of a lot of them. In a real sense, Disney's modern retellings are just the latest iteration on this process.
- replicatorblog 15y ago
  Yes, but anyone else who is interested could make their own version of Rapunzel now to, provided they didn't call it "Tangled" or directly take dialog, visual designs, etc.
- tzs 15y ago
  That would be odd, if it happened. But it does not happen. You are free to take the same public domain stories, and rework them into blockbusters, as long as you don't copy the changes Disney makes to the stories. The article was basically bullshit.
replicatorblog 15y ago
I understand the argument about reforming patents in an accelerated age, but how exactly do copyrights stifle creativity? How would the public benefit if all of a sudden Mickey Mouse was in the public domain? I can see a bunch of toy companies salivating, but how will it improve the public good? How has Mark Twain's work been remixed or creatively remained since it entered the public domain? Would publishers not have released "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" if "The Scarlett Letter" was still protected? Again, patent reform makes some sense since increased access to core tech has proven to spark innovation in unforseen places, but I can't think of many examples where copyrighted material entered the public domain to the benefit of us all. Also, copyright law seems to be pretty flexible with fair use provisions, limitations on what can be copyrighted (e.g. no recipes), etc. As a case in point consider Avatar. It was widely mocked as being "Dances with Wolves with Aliens" and it is the highest grossing movie ever. How is that possible when the IP world is as muddled as the author suggests?
- gte910h 15y ago
  >How has Mark Twain's work been remixed or creatively remained since it entered the public domain? http://blackhistorypreserved.com/2011/02/black-history-censorship-in-texts-and-literature/ http://blackhistorypreserved.com/2011/02/black-history-censo... <=Replaced an offensive word with a somewhat less offensive word, basically murduring Huck Finn. http://www.facetsdvd.com/category-s/280.htm http://www.facetsdvd.com/category-s/280.htm <= All of those Stuff like this: http://scienceblogs.com/thescian/2009/01/keir_cutlers_adapation_of_mark.php http://scienceblogs.com/thescian/2009/01/keir_cutlers_adapat...
- iwwr 15y ago
  I can see a bunch of toy companies salivating, but how will it improve the public good? Unfortunately, IP companies are devising ever draconian laws that impact liberties, legal due process and privacy. IP companies have made themselves into one of the great enemy of civil liberties; if that is the logical consequence of having to enforce IP, perhaps the whole system has to be scrapped. Still, framing everything in the context of 'public good' is a slippery slope. Some things are right or wrong without utilitarian calculus. P.S. Mickey Mouse is a Disney trademark, which makes it theirs in perpetuity. Arguably, trademarks are the weakest and least intrusive category of IP.
grellas 15y ago
Copyright terms in the U.S. did not always run into the 100+ years category. Here is a rough summary of how the terms have evolved under U.S. law (the details of which are nicely summarized here: http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/05/27/copyrights-last-for-a-limited-time-at-least-in-theory/id=17391/ http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/05/27/copyrights-last-for-a-limit...): 1790: maps, charts, and books - 14-year term 1831: 28-year term with option to renew for another 14 years (musical compositions, prints, dramatic compositions, photographs, works of art and music added to list of protected works in 1800s) 1909 (a major act): 28-year term from date of publication, renewable for another 28 years (applied to "published" works only, with state laws governing unpublished works) (motion pictures added to list of protectible works) 1976 (another major act): newly published works (life of author plus 50 years); works copyrighted before 1978 (term increased from 28 to 47 years, for 75 years total with renewal) (applies to all works, whether or not published, once in a fixed medium of expression; state laws preempted and no longer valid; computer programs also protected by the 1980s) 1998 (Copyright Term Extension - "Sonny Bono Act"): works created after 1978 (life of author plus 70 years, with joint works tied to life of longest living author, and with works-for-hire, i.e., corporate authorship, getting the shorter of a 120-year term from date of creation or a 95-year term from date of publication); works created before 1978 (total term increased from 75 to 95 years) The rough summary above is just that and many nuances exist. If this all makes your head spin, there is a nifty "public domain calculator" to assist you, found here: http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/calculator.html http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/calculator.html The trend is pretty obvious: wildly long terms for copyright are in fact a relatively recent phenomenon, as are legislative efforts to go back to early works and give them ex post facto term extensions. It didn't always used to be this way. The focus seems to have moved away from protecting primarily an author's rights to a creative work during his lifetime to protecting a "franchise," often corporate, that lasts well beyond the lives of those around when a work is created. These are policy decisions, of course, albeit (and sadly) much influenced by lobbying today.
- swombat 15y ago
  I thought this was worth putting into a chart. Assuming an average author life of 75 years, this is what the extension of maximum copyright terms looks like: https://skitch.com/swombat/fbhmf/maximum-copyright-terms-us https://skitch.com/swombat/fbhmf/maximum-copyright-terms-us Basically, it's well approximated as an exponential curve, or maybe a logistic curve (aka S-curve). Unless there's a serious change in the accepted perspective of copyrights, it's not at all unreasonable to assume that within our lifetimes, copyrights may be extended to last effectively forever. Tragic.
GHFigs 15y ago
Disney's hypocritical plundering of the past How do you "plunder" the public domain? Is there not an army of pedants out there eager to tell me that copyright infringement isn't stealing because it doesn't deprive anybody of anything? Is it not the point of the public domain that anybody can use it?
- swombat 15y ago
  See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2594477 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2594477
  - GHFigs 15y ago
    See what? You just used the same word in the same context, and it makes just as little sense as it did before. Using the public domain isn't "plundering", nor does it magically become "plundering" when a hypocrite, corporation, or hypocritical corporation does it. It's a completely normal and desirable aspect of having a public domain.
    - swombat 15y ago
      I think you have this impression that "plundering the public domain" is somehow a bad thing - maybe that's where the misunderstanding comes from. I don't think anyone who's using the term thinks plundering the public domain is a bad thing - we all wish the public domain was even larger, so there would be more plundering going on.
      - endtwist 15y ago
        Then the word you're looking for isn't "plundering" but perhaps "adapting" or "borrowing." plun·der (v) Steal goods from; (n) The violent and dishonest acquisition of property. You can't steal that which is given away freely.
      - GHFigs 15y ago
        I think you have this impression that "plundering the public domain" is somehow a bad thing I think using the public domain is a good thing. I think that describing it as "raiding" and "plundering" when someone you don't like does it is bullshit. I don't think anyone who's using the term thinks plundering the public domain is a bad thing Then why would you use the word plundering to describe it? That's like saying rape is part of a normal and healthy marriage. If you don't mean rape, don't call it rape.
noonespecial 15y ago
I think what we've actually seen is the simple realization that government can provide perpetual monopoly with the smallest of bribes (err campaign contributions). Once the idea that the government would step in give you a monopoly became understood, functionally infinite limits on it were all but guaranteed. In 100 years, Micky Mouse will still be just as copyrighted as he is today.
ralfd 15y ago
"It freezes the first release as the only release for up to several generations." This article is rather lackluster. First, I don't see a problem with this (there is rightfully only one definite version of Casablanca or Gone with the Wind) and second I would deny that this is really an adequate description of popculture of 100 media industry: Superman was restarted/remade many times. Want to adapt/change is story? Invent your own Superhero. Can't get a license for James Bond? Get a different name for your super agent. The movie rights for Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit were a few generations unavailable (which is a good thing because Tolkien feared a disneyfication of his books), but nothing stopped someone from dreaming up his own fantasy world/story with Orcs.
- hxa7241 15y ago
  Why not simply let people decide for themselves what they want to do or redo? What is the sense in having one person tell everyone else what is best for them? How does imposing some artificial restriction add anything? If someone wants to redo something old, let them decide and let others choose. If there are other versions of Casablanca or LoTR, do the originals disappear? No. They are just as they were. Except people would then have a choice of which they thought better. Would other versions 'crowd-out' the originals? To claim that sounds rather close to admitting that lifting restrictions would increase creative output. If there is a problem with abundance here, it is one of how the public can be best enabled to make a choice -- it is not properly solved by imposing the 'choice' by means of restrictions. It is no business of the creator to decide for the public what they choose.
- orangecat 15y ago
  there is rightfully only one definite version of Casablanca or Gone with the Wind That's just assuming the conclusion. Should there "rightfully" be only one version of Snow White?
  - bartl 15y ago
    >Should there "rightfully" be only one version of Snow White? And it's not the version by Disney, because that is not the original one.
pasbesoin 15y ago
It's the money. Without the money, we never would have gotten to this state. So, in that regard, it's an artificial, state-enforced monopoly. A limited monopoly affords the producer the opportunity to make a living in return for significant contributions. However, we've... "regressed" to essentially unlimited monopoly, the boundaries of which we continue to expand (e.g. DMCA). We've exchanged physical fiefdoms for "intellectual" fiefdoms, to similar effect.
zcam 15y ago
So it s not about Textmate. Disappointed.
medwezys 15y ago
When I saw the title I thought it's about Textmate...
hellojere 15y ago
After reading just the title, my hopes on Coda 2 rised up a little. Damnit.
ChuckFrank 15y ago
The Welcome to Las Vegas sign is great example of the benefits that come from something not having copyright. Instead it becomes ubiquitous and justly famous because people can include it in an infinite variety of interpretations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Fabulous_Las_Vegas_sign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Fabulous_Las_Vegas_s...

107 points by grellas 15y ago

I only wish that this point was intelligible to those in charge of writing the laws. Unfortunately, I think we are light-years away from this (valid) viewpoint being considered anything other than a lunatic fringe. It's a shame.

billybob 15y ago

It has never occurred to me before how odd it is for Disney to take public-domain stories, rework them into blockbusters, then lock them up with copyright indefinitely. What a strange combination of ideas.

Vivtek 15y ago
Well, but doesn't Disney's copyright just apply to Disney's own instance? They can't claim copyright on other adaptations of Rapunzel, just their own and the specific style of character drawings and so on, right?
- swombat 15y ago
  I believe you're correct. The accusation of hypocrisy is based on the fact that Disney has vigorously lobbied to keep characters like Mickey Mouse out of the public domain, while happily plundering the fairy tales and characters of earlier centuries.
  - ssp 15y ago
    while happily plundering the fairy tales and characters of earlier centuries. It's even more striking if you consider that those fairy tales and characters are the products of many, many retellings and adaptations throughout history. The Grimm brothers didn't write them; they just wrote down one version of a lot of them. In a real sense, Disney's modern retellings are just the latest iteration on this process.
replicatorblog 15y ago
Yes, but anyone else who is interested could make their own version of Rapunzel now to, provided they didn't call it "Tangled" or directly take dialog, visual designs, etc.
tzs 15y ago
That would be odd, if it happened. But it does not happen. You are free to take the same public domain stories, and rework them into blockbusters, as long as you don't copy the changes Disney makes to the stories. The article was basically bullshit.

replicatorblog 15y ago

I understand the argument about reforming patents in an accelerated age, but how exactly do copyrights stifle creativity? How would the public benefit if all of a sudden Mickey Mouse was in the public domain? I can see a bunch of toy companies salivating, but how will it improve the public good? How has Mark Twain's work been remixed or creatively remained since it entered the public domain? Would publishers not have released "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" if "The Scarlett Letter" was still protected? Again, patent reform makes some sense since increased access to core tech has proven to spark innovation in unforseen places, but I can't think of many examples where copyrighted material entered the public domain to the benefit of us all. Also, copyright law seems to be pretty flexible with fair use provisions, limitations on what can be copyrighted (e.g. no recipes), etc. As a case in point consider Avatar. It was widely mocked as being "Dances with Wolves with Aliens" and it is the highest grossing movie ever. How is that possible when the IP world is as muddled as the author suggests?

gte910h 15y ago
>How has Mark Twain's work been remixed or creatively remained since it entered the public domain? http://blackhistorypreserved.com/2011/02/black-history-censorship-in-texts-and-literature/ http://blackhistorypreserved.com/2011/02/black-history-censo... <=Replaced an offensive word with a somewhat less offensive word, basically murduring Huck Finn. http://www.facetsdvd.com/category-s/280.htm http://www.facetsdvd.com/category-s/280.htm <= All of those Stuff like this: http://scienceblogs.com/thescian/2009/01/keir_cutlers_adapation_of_mark.php http://scienceblogs.com/thescian/2009/01/keir_cutlers_adapat...
iwwr 15y ago
I can see a bunch of toy companies salivating, but how will it improve the public good? Unfortunately, IP companies are devising ever draconian laws that impact liberties, legal due process and privacy. IP companies have made themselves into one of the great enemy of civil liberties; if that is the logical consequence of having to enforce IP, perhaps the whole system has to be scrapped. Still, framing everything in the context of 'public good' is a slippery slope. Some things are right or wrong without utilitarian calculus. P.S. Mickey Mouse is a Disney trademark, which makes it theirs in perpetuity. Arguably, trademarks are the weakest and least intrusive category of IP.

grellas 15y ago

Copyright terms in the U.S. did not always run into the 100+ years category. Here is a rough summary of how the terms have evolved under U.S. law (the details of which are nicely summarized here: http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/05/27/copyrights-last-for-a-limited-time-at-least-in-theory/id=17391/ http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/05/27/copyrights-last-for-a-limit...): 1790: maps, charts, and books - 14-year term 1831: 28-year term with option to renew for another 14 years (musical compositions, prints, dramatic compositions, photographs, works of art and music added to list of protected works in 1800s) 1909 (a major act): 28-year term from date of publication, renewable for another 28 years (applied to "published" works only, with state laws governing unpublished works) (motion pictures added to list of protectible works) 1976 (another major act): newly published works (life of author plus 50 years); works copyrighted before 1978 (term increased from 28 to 47 years, for 75 years total with renewal) (applies to all works, whether or not published, once in a fixed medium of expression; state laws preempted and no longer valid; computer programs also protected by the 1980s) 1998 (Copyright Term Extension - "Sonny Bono Act"): works created after 1978 (life of author plus 70 years, with joint works tied to life of longest living author, and with works-for-hire, i.e., corporate authorship, getting the shorter of a 120-year term from date of creation or a 95-year term from date of publication); works created before 1978 (total term increased from 75 to 95 years) The rough summary above is just that and many nuances exist. If this all makes your head spin, there is a nifty "public domain calculator" to assist you, found here: http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/calculator.html http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/calculator.html The trend is pretty obvious: wildly long terms for copyright are in fact a relatively recent phenomenon, as are legislative efforts to go back to early works and give them ex post facto term extensions. It didn't always used to be this way. The focus seems to have moved away from protecting primarily an author's rights to a creative work during his lifetime to protecting a "franchise," often corporate, that lasts well beyond the lives of those around when a work is created. These are policy decisions, of course, albeit (and sadly) much influenced by lobbying today.

swombat 15y ago
I thought this was worth putting into a chart. Assuming an average author life of 75 years, this is what the extension of maximum copyright terms looks like: https://skitch.com/swombat/fbhmf/maximum-copyright-terms-us https://skitch.com/swombat/fbhmf/maximum-copyright-terms-us Basically, it's well approximated as an exponential curve, or maybe a logistic curve (aka S-curve). Unless there's a serious change in the accepted perspective of copyrights, it's not at all unreasonable to assume that within our lifetimes, copyrights may be extended to last effectively forever. Tragic.

GHFigs 15y ago

Disney's hypocritical plundering of the past How do you "plunder" the public domain? Is there not an army of pedants out there eager to tell me that copyright infringement isn't stealing because it doesn't deprive anybody of anything? Is it not the point of the public domain that anybody can use it?

swombat 15y ago
See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2594477 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2594477
- GHFigs 15y ago
  See what? You just used the same word in the same context, and it makes just as little sense as it did before. Using the public domain isn't "plundering", nor does it magically become "plundering" when a hypocrite, corporation, or hypocritical corporation does it. It's a completely normal and desirable aspect of having a public domain.
  - swombat 15y ago
    I think you have this impression that "plundering the public domain" is somehow a bad thing - maybe that's where the misunderstanding comes from. I don't think anyone who's using the term thinks plundering the public domain is a bad thing - we all wish the public domain was even larger, so there would be more plundering going on.
    - endtwist 15y ago
      Then the word you're looking for isn't "plundering" but perhaps "adapting" or "borrowing." plun·der (v) Steal goods from; (n) The violent and dishonest acquisition of property. You can't steal that which is given away freely.
    - GHFigs 15y ago
      I think you have this impression that "plundering the public domain" is somehow a bad thing I think using the public domain is a good thing. I think that describing it as "raiding" and "plundering" when someone you don't like does it is bullshit. I don't think anyone who's using the term thinks plundering the public domain is a bad thing Then why would you use the word plundering to describe it? That's like saying rape is part of a normal and healthy marriage. If you don't mean rape, don't call it rape.

noonespecial 15y ago

I think what we've actually seen is the simple realization that government can provide perpetual monopoly with the smallest of bribes (err campaign contributions). Once the idea that the government would step in give you a monopoly became understood, functionally infinite limits on it were all but guaranteed. In 100 years, Micky Mouse will still be just as copyrighted as he is today.

ralfd 15y ago

"It freezes the first release as the only release for up to several generations." This article is rather lackluster. First, I don't see a problem with this (there is rightfully only one definite version of Casablanca or Gone with the Wind) and second I would deny that this is really an adequate description of popculture of 100 media industry: Superman was restarted/remade many times. Want to adapt/change is story? Invent your own Superhero. Can't get a license for James Bond? Get a different name for your super agent. The movie rights for Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit were a few generations unavailable (which is a good thing because Tolkien feared a disneyfication of his books), but nothing stopped someone from dreaming up his own fantasy world/story with Orcs.

hxa7241 15y ago
Why not simply let people decide for themselves what they want to do or redo? What is the sense in having one person tell everyone else what is best for them? How does imposing some artificial restriction add anything? If someone wants to redo something old, let them decide and let others choose. If there are other versions of Casablanca or LoTR, do the originals disappear? No. They are just as they were. Except people would then have a choice of which they thought better. Would other versions 'crowd-out' the originals? To claim that sounds rather close to admitting that lifting restrictions would increase creative output. If there is a problem with abundance here, it is one of how the public can be best enabled to make a choice -- it is not properly solved by imposing the 'choice' by means of restrictions. It is no business of the creator to decide for the public what they choose.
orangecat 15y ago
there is rightfully only one definite version of Casablanca or Gone with the Wind That's just assuming the conclusion. Should there "rightfully" be only one version of Snow White?
- bartl 15y ago
  >Should there "rightfully" be only one version of Snow White? And it's not the version by Disney, because that is not the original one.

pasbesoin 15y ago

It's the money. Without the money, we never would have gotten to this state. So, in that regard, it's an artificial, state-enforced monopoly. A limited monopoly affords the producer the opportunity to make a living in return for significant contributions. However, we've... "regressed" to essentially unlimited monopoly, the boundaries of which we continue to expand (e.g. DMCA). We've exchanged physical fiefdoms for "intellectual" fiefdoms, to similar effect.

zcam 15y ago

So it s not about Textmate. Disappointed.

medwezys 15y ago

When I saw the title I thought it's about Textmate...

hellojere 15y ago

After reading just the title, my hopes on Coda 2 rised up a little. Damnit.

ChuckFrank 15y ago

The Welcome to Las Vegas sign is great example of the benefits that come from something not having copyright. Instead it becomes ubiquitous and justly famous because people can include it in an infinite variety of interpretations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Fabulous_Las_Vegas_sign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Fabulous_Las_Vegas_s...