12 ms·
What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014
- pessimizer 13y agoIf this stuff did start to enter the public domain after 28+28 years, the modern entertainment industry would be screwed because they would have to compete with it. Rationally, they'd rather it burned than free.
- justin66 13y agoThere's some interesting stuff on that list but I don't think it'd be competition to anything. I like the idea that the kids would be watching Bridge on the River Kwai instead of the latest recruitment video but it doesn't seem likely. Of course, the studios would lose the long-tail revenue from controlling movies like Bridge on the River Kwai (or licensing the movie rights to things like the old version of 3:10 to Yuma) and that does add up.
- toyg 13y agoAt this point, it's mostly about preservation. Kwai is one of a zillion war movies produced more than 40 years ago; unlike the bridge, that movie will forever endure, but so many of its contemporaries will disappear -- a fate entirely avoidable in this age of long-tail hyper-specialized scholarly studies, unlimited data capacity and worldwide p2p redundancy. Art will be lost because of unbridled greed, and this is the real tragedy.
- pessimizer 13y agoIt's a weird feeling when you know that some of the torrents you are seeding may make you the only source of distribution of that work in the world at that moment. Gives you a sense of responsibility if it's good.
- judk 13y agoDo we need the zillions of other movies? At some point, we need to curate to not be overwhelmed
- warfangle 13y agoHow can one curate that which is lost?
- pessimizer 13y agoThe kids aren't the purchasers of the majority of entertainment products. If the kids had a choice between free River Kwai, and $12 modern version of 3:10 to Yuma (or something funner), the $12 would become $2 in no time.
- justin66 13y agoWhat? edit: so you were just restating what you already said. It wasn't persuasive the first time.
- pessimizer 13y ago>I like the idea that the kids would be watching Bridge on the River Kwai instead of the latest recruitment video but it doesn't seem likely. The kids aren't the purchasers of the majority of entertainment products. If the kids had a choice between free River Kwai, and a $12 modern version of 3:10 to Yuma (or something funner), the $12 would become $2 in no time. Prices on new product would have to be lowered to compete with free old product.
- scarecrowbob 13y ago"Prices on new product would have to be lowered to compete with free old product." I do not believe that this is true at all. Having taught film history classes at a university, where some of the most interesting, significant human artworks were rejected because they were silent, had subtitles, or simply were not in color, I can say with no hesitation that there is little or no demand for things that aren't colorful, animated explosions featuring contemporary stars. That's not a value judgement: people can watch whatever; that's just the current market as I understand it.
- chrismcb 13y agoRight, because movie ticket prices and dvd prices are going down in the face of free tv and cheap online streaming. Yes today's content has to compete with yesterday's content. But they do already. A new Robocop is coming out. I'm sure it will do just fine, even though you can find the original for cheap or free.
- thirdtruck 13y agoAnd in the case of some old films, and despite offers to store it for them, many studios have literally burned their material.
- res0nat0r 13y agoBurned? Blah. The Cat in the Hat, Atlas Shrugged and probably others from that list are still popular. The books are still being printed and sold, not being hidden away from society.
- pessimizer 13y agoI didn't say that anything had been burned. I said that rather than have it go into the public domain, publishers would rather it be burned, because it competes with their catalog.
- judk 13y agoIf they weren't still copyrighted, new media sellers would want them destroyed
- kevando 13y agoFor those curious, this is mostly a result of Disney. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-of-the-public-domain-will-they-do-it-again/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...
- theandrewbailey 13y agoIronic that a company founded upon the reuse of public domain works is campaigning against more public domain works.
- njharman 13y agoIt is too commonplace to be ironic. Incumbents in all industries (auto and utilities immediately spring to mind) have their lobbyists pass laws and regulations making it nigh impossible for new players (like they were themselves) to break into the market.
- MWil 13y agoMy IP law professor once stopped class and shouted at someone wearing a polo with the disney logo, "Sir, are you trying to antagonize me?!"
- kbenson 13y agoThanks for the laugh. I would pay a few bucks to see that play out.
- ars_technician 13y agoIt didn't happen, so all it takes is your imagination! :-)
- MWil 13y agoWhat an odd comment. Where do you draw the line on what to believe on the internet, random stranger?
- simbolit 13y agoi would love to hear from our libertarian friends on what they think about copyright and the public domain.
- Symmetry 13y ago"Government enforced monopolies are bad" is what particularly doctrinaire libertarians say, but libertarians aren't know for their ability to agree with each other.
- praxeologist 13y agoI guess I am a PDL but I fail to see how any government-enforced monopoly could be a good thing ever. I genuinely see people who believe such things as backwards, primitive fucks. Anyhow, among hardcore libertarian circles there is actually pretty wide agreement these days that IP laws are unjust. The work you want to look at for the sea change is Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property free online here: http://mises.org/document/3582 http://mises.org/document/3582
- analog31 13y agoIn my view, a copyright system could reach a middle ground between libertarians and the rest of us. Limiting the term of copyrights is such a middle ground.
- logfromblammo 13y agoThat would probably depend on whether they were minarchist or anarchist libertarians. Minarchists would likely defend copyright with more rational time limits, whereas anarchists would contend that copyright is not rational or enforceable, and that artistic patronage is the only viable business model. In either case, "stealing" an artistic work would be interpreted as plagiarism rather than unauthorized copying. Artists capable of doing live performances could also sell tickets, I suppose. Authors might be paid to attend conventions and book signings. Without copyright, the works are disseminated widely to generate a fan base, and the revenue is derived from the truly limited resource: the artist's time.
- sheff 13y agoOn a happier note, here is a list of authors whose works will be entering the public domain tomorrow in various parts of the world. http://publicdomainreview.org/2013/12/10/class-of-2014/ http://publicdomainreview.org/2013/12/10/class-of-2014/
- sentenza 13y agoIn the EU, we have lifetime plus 70 years. So the first released movie of the Marx Brothers, "Coacoanuts" (1929) will enter the public domain in 2048, since Groucho lived to be 87. System is broken. Please reboot.
- rurban 13y agoIn the EU had lifetime plus 30 years. The 70 years came from the US movie industry and was forced upon us.
- marcosdumay 13y agoWhat's interesting is that US people claim their lifetime+70 years terms were forced onto them by Europe. I suspect there is some manipulation going on.
- stanmancan 13y agoI know nothing on the subject, but would it be possibly for Disney (or any other creator for that matter) to start a Mickey Mouse company, with Mickey as the logo and mascot, that sells Mickey Mouse paraphernalia and protect the characters as a trademark?
- brazzy 13y agoYes, but trademark protection wouldn't prevent people from using or selling the older works, at least not in general. From http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/trademark.html http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/trademark.html : > Twentieth Century Fox was the producer of a World War II video series that was no longer protected by copyright. When a competitor used it, Fox sued — not for copyright infringement (because they couldn’t), but for trademark infringment. They lost. See Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. et al., 540 US 806 (2003), which you can read here: ( http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/support-files/dastar.pdf http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/support-files/dastar.pdf ).
- pavpanchekha 13y agoA trademark grants very different protections, though, and they'd be hard-pressed to claim a full animated short as a trademark.
- will_brown 13y agoJust to clarify this point. Disney does not need to start a separate company to Trademark Mickey Mouse. In fact you better believe Disney is the registered owner multiple dozens, because the way Trademark works there are dozens of Trademark categories which need to be registered separately, of Mickey Mouse Trademarks. See: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4802:mx64t9.1.1 http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4802... (and search "Mickey Mouse", USPTO does not permit linking to result pages) Moreover, "Mickey Mouse" can be Trademarked in name and then the actual "logo" (drawing of a mouse) can be Trademarked.
- danielweber 13y agoI got into a long discussion with a lawyer-colleague who insisted that Disney doesn't have "Mickey Mouse" trademarked, but only a handful of very specific renderings of him. His preferred solution was to give Disney a "right to publicity" for Mickey Mouse (as if Mickey Mouse were a real person) which would let their old stuff enter the public domain while still maintaining control of the character.
- BlackDeath3 13y agoThere's something really ironic about Atlas Shrugged being on that list.
- cafard 13y agoHow so?
- jellicle 13y agoSomething about Ayn Rand's heirs suckling off the government teat of copyright laws for infinite years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peikoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peikoff "Every dollar I have is because the government has forced every single person who wants to read a book I had nothing to do with writing to pay me money. I'm a Libertarian!"
- BlackDeath3 13y agoOh boy... I don't know if you're actually interested in discussing Objectivism or just bashing on Objectivists, but in an effort to stay intellectually-honest you might avoid confusing philosophies with philosophers.
- EarthLaunch 13y agoThat's not an actual quote. From the very article you linked: > He also continues Rand's opposition to libertarianism, remaining sharply opposed to any description of Objectivist political philosophy as "libertarian" and to any collaboration with most libertarian groups. He has been critical of American foreign policy, including both neoconservative and libertarian views as self-sacrificial. I will point out that your calling copyright laws "the government teat" is a Libertarian view that IP rights are coercive. Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff both argue that proper IP laws are non-coercive. For that reason and others, Objectivists don't want to be associated with Libertarians.
- BlackDeath3 13y agoDespite several attempts, I'm one of those people who has just never had the time to make it through the entire book (I hope to one day). From what I have experienced (and I have read through The Fountainhead in its entirety), the whole "we're going to take your products, the fruits of your efforts, and release them from your possession for all of the public world to get their hands on" thing (I understand that Rand is dead), the private/public possession dichotomy, just seems so counter to a lot of what the book espouses. Just my personal reaction.
- will_brown 13y agoI do not see a problem with indefinite copyright protections. One of the assumptions is that everything being equal the same works would exist if it were not for copyright protections. However, I would argue without the extended copyright protections, most of these [future] classic works would not exist, simply because publishers/studios would not invest in the creation/distribution of the works initially. In other words, copyright protections encourages the creation of works. The OP takes an opposing stance, suggesting if copyright protections existed historically it would have stifled the creation of many classic works. This may be the case in certain instances, but to make that argument one must have an in depth understand of what constitutes copyright infringement in a legal sense - including all defenses to infringement (i.e. derivative work, fair use, educational/news worthy use, ect...)- and make the argument on a case by case basis. Very few people have any idea of what constitutes copyright infringement - and even among legal scholars, practitioners and judges there is disagreement. All I know is if you have ever created anything and had it stolen you understand the need for legal protection. Plus it would suck to live in a world where I am financially rewarding thieves because I can not distinguish if a work was original or a knockoff. Finally, legal protection is just that protection, there is nothing stopping copyright owners from giving away their works for free, in other words voluntarily releasing their work(s) to the public domain.
- ewillbefull 13y agoNothing you wrote tries to justify indefinite copyright protections.
- will_brown 13y agoCertainly my points have counterpoints, but I included at least 3 reasons for indefinite copyright protection. 1. Indefinite protections encourages the creation of new works vis-a-vis encouraging investment in new creation/distribution. 2. That just because there is indefinite copyright protection, does not mean people can still create derivative works, engage in fair use, ect... 3. Finally, just because indefinite protection exists would not prevent works from being voluntarily entered into the public domain.
- donpdonp 13y agoWhile not a solution per se, an alternative exists. If the license for current works are unacceptable, start celebrating other works! Notably, works with a Creative Commons license. Some Creative Commons cartoons http://www.seosmarty.com/15-cartoonists-that-allow-using-their-web-comics-for-free/ http://www.seosmarty.com/15-cartoonists-that-allow-using-the... Creative Commons Music at Jamendo (see the FAQ http://www.jamendo.com/en/faq http://www.jamendo.com/en/faq) edit: 'per-say' to 'per se' (thx ansimionescu)
- ansimionescu 13y agoSorry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_se http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_se
- bluekitten 13y agoThat message is only going to reach an extreme minority of people, of which an extreme minority will actually put it into action.
- streetnigga 13y agoConsequently others can ignore laws and licenses clearly out of line with the reality around them. I often find that to be far more effective in living life than seeking squeaky clean legal alternatives. We really do only have one go around. I'll buy all the knock-off Mickey Mouse crap I want.
- dublinben 13y agoI think that both of these are important, and symbiotic tactics. Officially support the artists who are doing the right thing, and rip off the ones who aren't.
- streetnigga 13y agoYea pretty much, that.
- bananacurve 13y ago
- kbenson 13y agoWhat saddens me most is that the Bugs Bunny cartoon is held back. The Barber of Seville cartoon is wonderful as well.
- aestra 13y agoDon't forget to check out Project Gutenberg for a collection of works already in public domain. http://www.gutenberg.org/ http://www.gutenberg.org/
- tunap 13y agoGutenberg.org is great. In the same vein, gotta give honorable mention to librivox.org & archive.org.
- seandougall 13y agoMy wife's response: "Although, really, Ayn Rand fan fiction does not sound like that much fun."
- mrcactu5 13y agoWorks from 1916 and before are public domain? Not a bad start. It is a really great to read the beautiful color version of the *First Six Books of the Elements of Euclid" online for free. https://archive.org/details/firstsixbooksofe00byrn https://archive.org/details/firstsixbooksofe00byrn Meanwhile it is selling on Amazon for up to $100 http://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Byrne-Six-Books-Euclid/dp/3836544717/ http://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Byrne-Six-Books-Euclid/dp/38365...
- VikingCoder 13y agoOh crap, Atlas Shrugged. That would have been awesome. I could have taken Ayn Rand's words, modified them how I wanted to, published it, and donated all of the proceeds to the Socialist Party USA.
- javajosh 13y agoAm I the only one that thinks that we should almost certainly treat scientific research entirely differently than entertainment? Frankly, when I think about it objectively, I could care less if a novel is under copyright for a very long time - it's not like there's a lack of entertainment options for people, and that they will suffer because they have to pay something to read a book or see a movie. But scientific research seems like an entirely different animal: if we as a society are so into technological progress, why wouldn't we act to make all scientific research as widely available as possible? It would seem that in the Internet age the best and easiest way to achieve that as a matter of policy is simply modifying copyright rules - and if Aaron Swartz is any indication, there will be many people more than happy to store and disseminate the information as a public service. (Although I personally believe that it would be entirely reasonable for the USG to spend a modest sum hosting the data, sort of like a federal online library. Perhaps this could even be started by generous endowment from an Internet titan, just as The Smithsonian was started by such an endowment.)
- njharman 13y agoYou have a personal bias towards hard science. Many, many people; linguists, anthropologists, historians, socialists, academics, for example; would consider what you call entertainment, their scientific research.
- kriro 13y agoThe irony that Atlas Shrugged is on the list and massively protected by government IP law is deliciously sad. More interesting is that Tesla is part of the class of 2014 for 70 year countries :) 50 year countries get some nice additions (some real heavyweights): Robert Frost, Sylvia Plath, William Carlos Williams, Louis MacNeice, Jean Cocteau, C. S. Lewis, Aldous Huxley
- throwawaykf03 13y agoIrony? Rand was a very strong proponent of IP rights. From a quick search: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.htm... http://hallingblog.com/ayn-rand-on-intellectual-property/comment-page-1/ http://hallingblog.com/ayn-rand-on-intellectual-property/com...
- darkarmani 13y agoWow. This is what passes for logic? Begging the question? > As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser’s work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the potential with the actual. The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he wasn’t.
- throwawaykf03 13y agoI don't see what this has to do with the "irony" context, but: 1) Ayn Rand's writings have had their fair share of criticism, with good reason. However, I'm not sure what the circular logic is in that snippet. Could you elaborate? 2) Randian logic aside, multiple people inventing (as opposed to "discovering") the same thing at the same time is so rare, that the USPTO changed from first-to-invent to first-to-file.
- darkarmani 13y ago
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- huskyr 13y agoAnother interesting tidbit about US copyright is the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act One of the effects of this act is restoring copyright in the U.S. to foreign works of authors that weren't dead for 70 years on january 1st 1996 in their home country. Instead, works only enter the PD 95 years after publication. So for example, the last paintings by Theo van Doesburg, a Dutch artist who entered the public domain in the Netherlands in 2002, will only be out of copyright in the U.S. in 2026. And that's why you won't see those works on a site such as Wikipedia, that is under U.S. law.
- possibilistic 13y agoThe fairest idea I've come across concerning protecting copyrighted works from falling into the public domain is actually pretty simple: tax exclusivity after the initial 30 years has elapsed. If this tax is non-negligible, companies will be obliged to keep only their best IPs protected and will let everything else fall into the public domain. The government taxes every other kind of property, so why not IP? Additionally, keeping created works out of the public domain is essentially a tax on the public; this intellectual levy placed on everyone should be balanced by a reinvestment in favor of public interests. If Disney wants to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain, they should pay a yearly fee to prevent it from becoming public property. They'd more than make up for it with the revenue they garner. I think that this would also encourage less wasteful use of copyrighted properties.
- SomeCallMeTim 13y agoNot just tax, but TRACK anything that you want to keep protected. Many books, movies, photos, and other IP instances out there are difficult to track down solid ownership info for. Sometimes the contracts surrounding the IP are so complex as to make it impossible for even a trained IP lawyer to determine who owns what. In some cases even IP claimed by a particular company may not be valid [1]. If there were a national registry that listed who owned what rights to a particular property, and you had to pay to be included (maybe the initial copyright registration pays for the first X years, but after that you have to continue to pay to continue your protection), it could not only clarify who "owns" what, it could list those people who had specific sub-licenses to the property in question, and what the details of their licenses are. To help combat orphan works, you can throw in one other important requirement: Even if we give them X years (30 or otherwise) for the initial registration requirement, they would also need to keep their contact information current at all times, on pain of losing their registration. If you try the forms of contact and get wrong numbers and returned letters, then you report that fact to the copyright registry, and if THEY can't contact the owners within, say, 60 days, then ALL the copyrights owned by that entity get released. I know of some properties (old games in particular) that have such confused licensing surrounding them (with companies buying "rights" in large packages and then ignoring them, or the companies closing down with no clear record of who ended up purchasing those particular rights...) that they are languishing in limbo. No one can make a sequel, no one can republish them on new platforms... With a registry, you could look to see WHO is currently paying the upkeep fee, and with the "keep your contact info public" requirement, at least you'd be guaranteed that you'd be able to contact the current rights holder. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/nyregion/lawsuit-aims-to-strip-happy-birthday-to-you-of-its-copyright.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/nyregion/lawsuit-aims-to-s...