4 ms·

Shorten excessive copyright terms

70 points by yakiv 14y ago

Pezmc 14y ago
Why this is on the HN home page with only 2 votes I'm not too sure, but it does raise a valid point!
- tokenizer 14y ago
  My guess is that it's programmed that way. But seriously, I think HN must have a keyword bump, namely for U.S./Copyright/Show HN. It also probably has a few elite sites that rank high, like the Atlantic, and Tech Crunch. That or because it was voted up twice in new within it's first minute of being posted, which resulted in the front page, which only exacerbates the process.
betterunix 14y ago
While we are at it, can we exempt scientific papers from copyright? Copyright only serves the interests of journal publishers, who are entirely redundant now that we have the Internet. Rather than ensuring access to scientific work, copyrights have become a way to restrict access -- even universities cannot guarantee their students and professors access to all journals. Journal articles are reviewed by volunteers, and sometimes journals are even edited by volunteers. We need to stop this nonsense already. Copyright is not an incentive for scientists, it is a burden.
- yakiv 14y ago
  Sounds like a good plan. There's probably more that needs to change than just the length of copyright terms. Registration should perhaps be required to get copyright. I don't know if having copyright at all is a net benefit. Whatever is best, it might be something to approach in several steps and not all at once. Maybe we could get all scientific papers in the public domain at the same time, though.
- Raphael 14y ago
  Scientists can easily publish free papers online. No change in law needed.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    It is not just about where the papers are published. A system needs to be established that allows peer review to happen in a meaningful way, archives must be established and maintained, etc. Right now, journals are facilitating peer review and archiving papers, but that carries the cost of papers being locked behind paywalls with outrageously high prices that ensure that the general public has difficulty accessing that work. I would suggest a system in which university libraries act as archives, providing HTTP links for people who want a handful of papers or BitTorrent for people who want large batches and for distributing the archives to other libraries. Peer review would be facilitated in software, using some threshold signature scheme to assert that a paper passed review and using some secure computation protocol to protect the anonymity of authors; people would be invited to review papers by being given a share of the signing key. My point is that we have a legal system in place now that protects and promotes the existence of a publishing system that is grossly out of date, and that we have a chance to do better (and to abolish the old system).
xenos345 14y ago
If someone could provide further detail as to the benefit of this, I might be willing to consider signing. I just dont know enough about both arguments to make a determination.
- tokenizer 14y ago
  Well, considering that White House Petitions don't work. I wouldn't worry about this one... To simplify the arguments: Pro (Current) Copyright: We need to protect artists. We need to protect the invested parties interests. Against (Current) Copyright: Internet. It's companies who Copyright protects not Artists. Copyright actually stifles creativity and application of invention. That's my take of this whole thing anyway. I don't care either way to be honest. It's all high level creation issues, and I've never had a personal run in to warrant an extreme positioning either way. I'd like is someone could give a more detailed explanation or correct any of my takeaways.
  - bjustin 14y ago
    Those are not the arguments that people in the real world (tm) use. Pro current or longer copyright terms: I made something, it's mine, I should be able to control it. Forever. Forever minus 1 day, to make it "limited times". Opposing current or longer copyright terms: We (society) make deals with artists to incentivize the creation of works. Current copyright terms for most works, life + 70 years for works by individuals or 95 years for corporations, are 70-130[1] and 81 years, respectively, longer than necessary to incentivize the creation of new works. I assume that 14 years is plenty of time, perhaps one 14 year extension should be allowed. 14+14 years was the original copyright term in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790
    - tokenizer 14y ago
      Thanks. I like the idea of a 14 + 14 copyright term. Hopefully disney cartoons from the 1950's will be in the public domain by 2050...
  - 14y ago
ry0ohki 14y ago
I wanted to vote for this, but 10 years seems kind of short. Maybe something between 10 and the current "life plus 70". I think 28 years seems pretty fair.
- mtgx 14y ago
  5-10 years should be the default. But let's say you could get another 10 years extension, but you'd have to renew it, but you'd have to pay say $1,000-$5,000. I mean, if you want to renew it, presumably you're making money from it, and it's worth investing copyrights for another decade. If it's not making you money anyway, then it should go into the public domain. I think the end goal was to "enrich" the whole society indirectly, by the authors a monopoly just enough time to make their money back, and be a worthy investment.
tokenadult 14y ago
It looks like the Hacker News front page is in danger of being taken over by petitions.whitehouse.gov on this first business day of 2013. The petition kindly submitted here for comment reads in full: "Current copyright terms are much longer than necessary for promoting progress. Excessive copyright terms limit the usefulness of the works they cover without leading to the creation of more works. "I ask the government to limit copyright terms to a maximum of 10 years with no exceptions. Compared to current copyright terms 10 years may sound very short, but 10 years is a long time; it may still be too long. I also ask that currently active copyright terms all end within 10 years. "It is not society's duty to reward authors and artists for their creativity or hard work. Copyright should only exist as an incentive. The excessive monopoly terms must end." This is a typical doofus petition to the White House in that the author has not even done the elementary research work of looking up the clause in the federal Constitution about copyright: "The Congress shall have Power . . . 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." United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8 clause 8 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92preface.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92preface.html The best way to appeal to Congress (which has the authority on this issue, NOT the President) to change copyright law is to lean hard on the "limited time" language from the Constitution as well as point to real-world examples of places with shorter copyright terms (where?) with beneficial effects for the national economies of those places. Look for empirical examples when arguing about public policy. Note that the United States Supreme Court has already interpreted the "limited time" language from the Constitution broadly enough to allow the current, Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 US 186 (2003). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12147684852241107557&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1214768485224110... long copyright terms in United States law (which was adapted to European law in this regard during my lifetime). Copyright terms in the United States used to be relatively short compared to those in most other countries with modern copyright laws, perhaps because of the constitutional language. But appealing to the constitutional language would be part of the task of persuading Congress to change the current law.
bdimcheff 14y ago
I've been thinking a lot about copyright terms lately, and this is what I have come up with: You get 5 years for "free", just like we have now. The next 5 years cost you $10k. The next costs you $100k. Add a zero every 5 years. It's going to be very difficult to keep a copyright for more than 20 or 25 years, but if it's really worth that much to you, then by all means...
johnrgrace 14y ago
Copyright terms need to be reformed, but 10 years is far too short. Right now almost nothing is entering the Public domain and that's wrong, the books/music/movies of my parents and grandparents are still under copyright. Happy Brthday shows the problems with the system. A killer law review article titled "Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song" traces how a Happy Birthday to You started out life as Good Morning to All a song with the same melody but different words, written as a classroom greeting by two teachers in the 1890's is still under copyright. It's one of the best things I read in 2012 and readable by a non lawyer. http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/rbrauneis/happybirthday.htm http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/rbrauneis/happybirthday.htm The first copyright law in the english language, the Statute of Anne from 1710 had a term of 14 years renewable for another 14 years. Under those terms things like StarWars would be entering the public domain, which given where it is in culture and the profits lucas has seen sound about right. Going to 10 years would mean that most authors/comic book creators would NEVER see movie option money and film studios wouldn't
- warfangle 14y ago
  I'm not entirely against long-term copyrights, but I'm not for them either. If a company/individual still rakes an exorbitant cashflow from a given copyrighted work, why not let them keep it? Let's make the law smarter. Initial copyright is free (14 yrs); first renewal is free (+4 yrs); subsequent renewals (every four years) increase in cost exponentionally (e.g., $2^n where n is the number of renewals): if a work is still profitable after 20 years, why not extend it another four? However, for a work to be profitable under these extension guidelines after sixty or eighty years it would have to be a monumental work indeed. This also allows less profitable works to fall into the public domain more quickly. The other issue with our current copyright law is lost works: works where the rightsholder can no longer be found or even identified. This should be changed vis a vis copyright registration - register a work and after the copyright expires it is published freely online in a digital fashion.

70 points by yakiv 14y ago

Pezmc 14y ago

Why this is on the HN home page with only 2 votes I'm not too sure, but it does raise a valid point!

tokenizer 14y ago
My guess is that it's programmed that way. But seriously, I think HN must have a keyword bump, namely for U.S./Copyright/Show HN. It also probably has a few elite sites that rank high, like the Atlantic, and Tech Crunch. That or because it was voted up twice in new within it's first minute of being posted, which resulted in the front page, which only exacerbates the process.

betterunix 14y ago

While we are at it, can we exempt scientific papers from copyright? Copyright only serves the interests of journal publishers, who are entirely redundant now that we have the Internet. Rather than ensuring access to scientific work, copyrights have become a way to restrict access -- even universities cannot guarantee their students and professors access to all journals. Journal articles are reviewed by volunteers, and sometimes journals are even edited by volunteers. We need to stop this nonsense already. Copyright is not an incentive for scientists, it is a burden.

yakiv 14y ago
Sounds like a good plan. There's probably more that needs to change than just the length of copyright terms. Registration should perhaps be required to get copyright. I don't know if having copyright at all is a net benefit. Whatever is best, it might be something to approach in several steps and not all at once. Maybe we could get all scientific papers in the public domain at the same time, though.
Raphael 14y ago
Scientists can easily publish free papers online. No change in law needed.
- betterunix 14y ago
  It is not just about where the papers are published. A system needs to be established that allows peer review to happen in a meaningful way, archives must be established and maintained, etc. Right now, journals are facilitating peer review and archiving papers, but that carries the cost of papers being locked behind paywalls with outrageously high prices that ensure that the general public has difficulty accessing that work. I would suggest a system in which university libraries act as archives, providing HTTP links for people who want a handful of papers or BitTorrent for people who want large batches and for distributing the archives to other libraries. Peer review would be facilitated in software, using some threshold signature scheme to assert that a paper passed review and using some secure computation protocol to protect the anonymity of authors; people would be invited to review papers by being given a share of the signing key. My point is that we have a legal system in place now that protects and promotes the existence of a publishing system that is grossly out of date, and that we have a chance to do better (and to abolish the old system).

xenos345 14y ago

If someone could provide further detail as to the benefit of this, I might be willing to consider signing. I just dont know enough about both arguments to make a determination.

tokenizer 14y ago
Well, considering that White House Petitions don't work. I wouldn't worry about this one... To simplify the arguments: Pro (Current) Copyright: We need to protect artists. We need to protect the invested parties interests. Against (Current) Copyright: Internet. It's companies who Copyright protects not Artists. Copyright actually stifles creativity and application of invention. That's my take of this whole thing anyway. I don't care either way to be honest. It's all high level creation issues, and I've never had a personal run in to warrant an extreme positioning either way. I'd like is someone could give a more detailed explanation or correct any of my takeaways.
- bjustin 14y ago
  Those are not the arguments that people in the real world (tm) use. Pro current or longer copyright terms: I made something, it's mine, I should be able to control it. Forever. Forever minus 1 day, to make it "limited times". Opposing current or longer copyright terms: We (society) make deals with artists to incentivize the creation of works. Current copyright terms for most works, life + 70 years for works by individuals or 95 years for corporations, are 70-130[1] and 81 years, respectively, longer than necessary to incentivize the creation of new works. I assume that 14 years is plenty of time, perhaps one 14 year extension should be allowed. 14+14 years was the original copyright term in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790
  - tokenizer 14y ago
    Thanks. I like the idea of a 14 + 14 copyright term. Hopefully disney cartoons from the 1950's will be in the public domain by 2050...
- 14y ago

ry0ohki 14y ago

I wanted to vote for this, but 10 years seems kind of short. Maybe something between 10 and the current "life plus 70". I think 28 years seems pretty fair.

mtgx 14y ago
5-10 years should be the default. But let's say you could get another 10 years extension, but you'd have to renew it, but you'd have to pay say $1,000-$5,000. I mean, if you want to renew it, presumably you're making money from it, and it's worth investing copyrights for another decade. If it's not making you money anyway, then it should go into the public domain. I think the end goal was to "enrich" the whole society indirectly, by the authors a monopoly just enough time to make their money back, and be a worthy investment.

tokenadult 14y ago

It looks like the Hacker News front page is in danger of being taken over by petitions.whitehouse.gov on this first business day of 2013. The petition kindly submitted here for comment reads in full: "Current copyright terms are much longer than necessary for promoting progress. Excessive copyright terms limit the usefulness of the works they cover without leading to the creation of more works. "I ask the government to limit copyright terms to a maximum of 10 years with no exceptions. Compared to current copyright terms 10 years may sound very short, but 10 years is a long time; it may still be too long. I also ask that currently active copyright terms all end within 10 years. "It is not society's duty to reward authors and artists for their creativity or hard work. Copyright should only exist as an incentive. The excessive monopoly terms must end." This is a typical doofus petition to the White House in that the author has not even done the elementary research work of looking up the clause in the federal Constitution about copyright: "The Congress shall have Power . . . 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." United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8 clause 8 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92preface.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92preface.html The best way to appeal to Congress (which has the authority on this issue, NOT the President) to change copyright law is to lean hard on the "limited time" language from the Constitution as well as point to real-world examples of places with shorter copyright terms (where?) with beneficial effects for the national economies of those places. Look for empirical examples when arguing about public policy. Note that the United States Supreme Court has already interpreted the "limited time" language from the Constitution broadly enough to allow the current, Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 US 186 (2003). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12147684852241107557&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1214768485224110... long copyright terms in United States law (which was adapted to European law in this regard during my lifetime). Copyright terms in the United States used to be relatively short compared to those in most other countries with modern copyright laws, perhaps because of the constitutional language. But appealing to the constitutional language would be part of the task of persuading Congress to change the current law.

bdimcheff 14y ago

I've been thinking a lot about copyright terms lately, and this is what I have come up with: You get 5 years for "free", just like we have now. The next 5 years cost you $10k. The next costs you $100k. Add a zero every 5 years. It's going to be very difficult to keep a copyright for more than 20 or 25 years, but if it's really worth that much to you, then by all means...

johnrgrace 14y ago

Copyright terms need to be reformed, but 10 years is far too short. Right now almost nothing is entering the Public domain and that's wrong, the books/music/movies of my parents and grandparents are still under copyright. Happy Brthday shows the problems with the system. A killer law review article titled "Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song" traces how a Happy Birthday to You started out life as Good Morning to All a song with the same melody but different words, written as a classroom greeting by two teachers in the 1890's is still under copyright. It's one of the best things I read in 2012 and readable by a non lawyer. http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/rbrauneis/happybirthday.htm http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/rbrauneis/happybirthday.htm The first copyright law in the english language, the Statute of Anne from 1710 had a term of 14 years renewable for another 14 years. Under those terms things like StarWars would be entering the public domain, which given where it is in culture and the profits lucas has seen sound about right. Going to 10 years would mean that most authors/comic book creators would NEVER see movie option money and film studios wouldn't

warfangle 14y ago
I'm not entirely against long-term copyrights, but I'm not for them either. If a company/individual still rakes an exorbitant cashflow from a given copyrighted work, why not let them keep it? Let's make the law smarter. Initial copyright is free (14 yrs); first renewal is free (+4 yrs); subsequent renewals (every four years) increase in cost exponentionally (e.g., $2^n where n is the number of renewals): if a work is still profitable after 20 years, why not extend it another four? However, for a work to be profitable under these extension guidelines after sixty or eighty years it would have to be a monumental work indeed. This also allows less profitable works to fall into the public domain more quickly. The other issue with our current copyright law is lost works: works where the rightsholder can no longer be found or even identified. This should be changed vis a vis copyright registration - register a work and after the copyright expires it is published freely online in a digital fashion.