18 ms·

In case anyone is wondering, once again nothing will enter the public domain in the United States because of Congress' perpetual habit of retroactively extendin

In case anyone is wondering, once again nothing will enter the public domain in the United States because of Congress' perpetual habit of retroactively extending copyright on works. The next time anything will enter the public domain in the US is January 1, 2019. source: https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday

IndianAstronaut 12y ago
This is absurd and puts a huge damper on creative work.
- mathattack 12y ago
  It seems like the work where a dedicated minority (who stand to collect royalties) pushes against an issue that mildly benefits the majority. Taxi medallions were a similar phenomenon pre-Lyft and pre-Uber.
  - aikah 12y ago
    try "disrupting" copyright,be ready for a swat team raiding your house. http://mashable.com/2012/08/08/kim-dotcom-raid/ http://mashable.com/2012/08/08/kim-dotcom-raid/ > Taxi medallions were a similar phenomenon pre-Lyft and pre-Uber. Neither Uber nor Lyft put an end to Taxi medallion system.
    - click170 12y ago
      I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but civil disobedience is a valid and legitimate form of protest. If you disagree with a law, ignore it. If enough people do the same, the burden from enforcing the law becomes too much and it simply stops being enforced or is legislated away due to the societal harm it causes. An arguable example of this in action is the War On Drugs. This war has been waged for years, and the black market has not only survived, it has thrived in the economy of scarcity that is created and maintained by said war. People and legislators all over the country (the world?) are beginning to see that this war isn't benefiting anyone and have begun legalizing marijuana. Marijuana is one of many drugs, but it's a step in the right direction.
      - gknoy 12y ago
        The key with civil disobedience is that you have to be willing to face the penalty. The GP was right that doing so is risky, and one should not engage in civil disobedience without a full grasp of the consequences (and willingness to submit to / fight them legally).
      - amagumori 12y ago
        this is a kamikaze approach to reform and requires countless people sacrificing years of their life (or their entire life) to the prison system. for instance if LSD is your drug of choice instead of cannabis, possession is a class B felony with up to $100K in fines and up to 10 years in prison (OR).
    - soperj 12y ago
      That's not what Kim dotcom was doing.
      - unreal37 12y ago
        The point stands that there is a well-established, well-funded and well-connected group protecting copyright, so going against it in any form will not be easy. If a citizen tries to get copyright law amended through the courts, they will face an epic battle from all sides.
        walterbell 12y ago
        http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/how-an-ebay-bookseller-defeated-a-publishing-giant-at-the-supreme-court/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/how-an-ebay-books... "Sometimes all it takes to alter the course of history is one pissed-off person. Supap Kirtsaeng wasn’t a crusader or lone nut; he was just an eBay trader who got backed into a legal corner and refused to give up. To help pay for grad school at USC, he sold textbooks online—legitimate copies that he’d purchased overseas. But academic publishing behemoth John Wiley & Sons sued Supap, claiming that his trade in Wiley’s foreign-market textbooks constituted copyright infringement. ... Once Supap’s struggle hit the spotlight, powerful supporters such as eBay, Public Knowledge, Costco, and Goodwill Industries joined the fray. But the forces pitted against Supap were arguably more powerful: the movie and music industries, publishers of books and software, and even the US Solicitor General."
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - fragmede 12y ago
      > Neither Uber nor Lyft put an end to Taxi medallion system. Maybe not just yet, but a 20% price drop is likely only the beginning. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/upshot/new-york-taxi-medallion-prices-fall-again.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/upshot/new-york-taxi-medal...
      - mathattack 12y ago
        Exactly. The alternative is now there, and it's coming with a lobbying force of it's own. Once people are used to Taxi alternatives, they may start fighting back against the medallions.
    - bbcbasic 12y ago
      But isn't the permissive licences such as MIT, GPLv3, CopyLeft etc. also a disruption to copyright? Yes the original author will retain copyright, but the intent of it, to prevent free distribution and collaboration disappears. Now we see the mighty MS open sourcing the server side of .NET. IMO they are forced to do so because of the pressure from awesome platforms like Ruby on Rails, Python, Node.JS etc. that would soon make them irrelevant unless they follow suit. In 50 years time, the best creative work both art, writing and tech will be available freely on permissive licences, and we won't care if it enters the public domain, even though it probably will anyway. The great thing is the stuff you need (tools, information) is available this way. The stuff you want but don't need (awful Hollywood films, etc.) is protected by copyright and you have to pay for it. Also the illegal file sharing has disrupted music massively. We now have so many songs you can listen to on Youtube for free. Imagine telling someone in 1990 you can listen to unlimited free music legally (albeit with ads!).
      - joepie91_ 12y ago
        GPLv3 and "copyleft" are not permissive licenses. They are copyleft licenses. MIT, BSD, etc. are permissive licenses. Aside from that, there is a considerable difference between public domain and 'freely licensed'. The latter involves an absolute nightmare of tracking down licenses and understanding the interactions between licenses, when working on a project of significant size (and influence). And licenses like the GPL make this even harder by being very restrictive. > Also the illegal file sharing has disrupted music massively. We now have so many songs you can listen to on Youtube for free. Imagine telling someone in 1990 you can listen to unlimited free music legally (albeit with ads!). The majority of music on Youtube is not there legally.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - mathattack 12y ago
      *Neither Uber nor Lyft put an end to Taxi medallion system.* The legal difficulty of Lyft and Uber denting the medallion system highlights what a small but highly organized minority can do again a large unorganized mass. That said, Uber and Lyft seem to have at least reduced the cost of a medallion.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  Do other countries with less draconian copyright laws gain an advantage?
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    USA (or the media corps) seems to have Europe in their pocket when it comes to these sorts of laws; mostly once it's pushed through congress [with the aid of many 'campaign donations' I'm sure] then it seems European nations get convinced to harmonise with US practice.
yeldarb 12y ago
Out of curiosity, what would happen if a Canadian company were to make a movie based off of a book that has entered the public domain in Canada? Would they just not be able to release it in the US without obtaining a license? Would a US based company be able to do the same if they only released it abroad?
- tim333 12y ago
  I presume as you suggest the Canadian company couldn't release in the US without a license. Not sure about a US company releasing abroad. The US copyright holder could probably argue they violated their copyright during production if the film was produced in the US. Then again if the filming was done in London but paid for by the US company they would be alright I guess? Popeye may be an interesting case as he's still copyright in the US but not most other places.
- walterbell 12y ago
  Canada is negotiating with the US via TPP. Some precedent has been set in CETA and NAFTA. Public opinion could influence the outcome of TPP negotiations, as ACTA did. CETA, Canada-EU: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/08/canada-shaped-copyright-rules-eu-trade-deal/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/08/canada-shaped-copyright-r... "Canadian reforms had an impact on the negotiations. Requirements to extend the term of copyright or create new rights for broadcasters and visual artists were removed from the draft text. Moreover, the digital lock rules and Internet service provider liability provisions were substantially re-written to better reflect the Canadian approach ... the “made-in-Canada” approach is gradually garnering increased attention around the world as a creative, viable alternative ... other countries have been considering adopting the Canadian model on issues such as Internet provider liability or the creation of user-generated content." NAFTA, Canada-US-Mexico: http://www.barrysookman.com/2011/02/19/is-copyright-part-of-the-fta-or-nafta/ http://www.barrysookman.com/2011/02/19/is-copyright-part-of-... TPP, Canada-US-Mexico-Australia-New Zealand-Malaysia-Singapore-Japan-Vietnam-Brunei-Peru-Chile : http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/10/new-tpp-leak-canada-emerges-leading-opponent-u-s-intellectual-property-demands/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/10/new-tpp-leak-canada-emerg... "..the U.S. wants Canada to eviscerate many of the recent reforms found in copyright and counterfeiting legislation along with court rulings on patent protection. These demands focus on enhanced criminal liability for copyright infringement, eliminating the Canadian approach to Internet service provider liability, extending the term of copyright protection, and expanding patent protection. Canadian negotiators have thus far resisted many of the proposed changes, offering alternatives that are compatible with current law. Yet as the treaty negotiations continue, the pressure to cave to U.S. pressure will no doubt increase, raising serious concerns about whether the TPP will force the Canadian government to overhaul recently enacted legislation that it has steadfastly defended as reflecting a balanced, “made in Canada” approach."
anigbrowl 12y ago
I've often wondered whether Calder vs. Bull (which courts have long interpreted to mean that the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws applies only to 'vital interests' like liberty in criminal cases) isn't subject to an originalist attack. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=3&page=386 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&...
Aldo_MX 12y ago
My expectations are that someday before January 1, 2019 there will be a new law reform to extend copyright another 20 years. Steamboat Willie will never enter the public domain.
- unreal37 12y ago
  I think that politicians should just admit what they're doing, extend copyright only for Disney Corporation, and leave the rest to enter the public domain.
  - WalterBright 12y ago
    My solution is to allow copyright extensions for those who are willing to pay an annual fee, say $1000. That would likely satisfy most interests, and abandoned works will enter the public domain.
    - unreal37 12y ago
      I totally agree with that too.
    - MereInterest 12y ago
      Except that all works should be able to be built upon. Sherlock Holmes and Bilbo Baggins, Mickey Mouse and The Terminator, Atticus Finch and Charlie Bucket, every one is a cultural idea. It isn't just abandoned works. All cultural works should eventually be available to build upon.
      - WalterBright 12y ago
        I agree, but my proposal is one that is much more likely to get through than the all-or-nothing approach.
      - unreal37 12y ago
        For the sake of a handful of older profitable works, all works will forever be held back from the public domain. Better that you concede Mickey Mouse and let the rest benefit society as public works.
k-mcgrady 12y ago
I didn't actually know about this. I wonder if this didn't happen and copyright had originally just lasted a persons lifetime if people would be less mad about copyright?
acabal 12y ago
As I've said before, insanely long copyright terms are one of the biggest modern cultural tragedies we face. If things stay as they are (or get worse), I expect to see an interesting side effect for today's authors: the vast majority of people creating today--those who don't produce blockbuster franchises that ageless corporations can milk eternally--will be totally forgotten in fifty or a hundred year's time. And not forgotten in the "who is that, let me look it up" sense, but rather effectively not included in any meaningful records our children's children would access. Why? Because long copyright prevents volunteers from remembering your work after you're dead. That's not the case for centuries-old authors today. Thanks to the public domain, volunteers from all over the world at places like Project Gutenberg and Archive.org lovingly scan, transcribe, produce, catalog, store, and make available old works for today's generation to enjoy. Not just famous stuff like Dracula, but obscure works, works that were unpopular in their day, works that didn't matter then and maybe don't even matter now. The public domain makes this possible--it keeps the memory of authors alive, because as humans we instinctively know it's important to our culture. But the work you produce today, unless it's highly profitable to a corporation, will be shackled by draconian laws and punishments for hundreds of years. Why should volunteers risk their freedom and treasure to transcribe your 150-year-old work still under copyright? They won't, and you and your work will be forgotten, while we keep re-using and sharing obscure writing from 1923.
- MereInterest 12y ago
  As one of the saddest plots, look at the below article, showing the lack of availability of books from the middle of the 20th century. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-missing-20th-century-how-copyright-protection-makes-books-vanish/255282/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-mi...
  - pgy 12y ago
    In my boyhood I had been fascinated by science fiction short stories, many of them I found in anthologies published in the middle of the 20th century in America. Being born in a non English-speaking country, I soon run out of reading material for translations were hard to find. When I learned English (and connected to the Internet the first time) I tried to find more from my favourite authors but with little luck. When talking about the disappearance of books, Isaac Asimov's Great SF Stories anthology series[1] always comes to my mind. Around 2006 I spent a whole week searching for it - of the 25 books I managed to find only four or five. Nevertheless, I assembled a pretty big (and pretty illegal) collection of nearly-impossible-to-find sci-fi stories during my days in high school, but lost it when my computer went wrong a few years later. (I am sure I could have recovered them somehow, but back then I had no idea.) Last year I tried to reassemble my collection but I gave up, it would have been too much work. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Isaac_Asimov%27s_Great_SF_Stories_anthology_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Isaac_Asimov%27s_Grea...
smsm42 12y ago
Or, rather, would enter the public domain, if only Congress were not to enact the next Mickey Mouse protection law. Look at this and weep: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Copyright_term.svg/450px-Copyright_term.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Co...
dragonwriter 12y ago
> The next time anything will enter the public domain in the US is January 1, 2019. Right, because Congress surely won't extend terms again before that.
MaysonL 12y ago
Where is the copyright Uber who will republish some of these works, and take the arguably unconstitutional copyright extensions to court?
- twoodfin 12y ago
  It's been to the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft[1] and found constitutional, 7-2. They're right, IMHO. Congress gets to set the terms of copyright, and it's "limited" so long as any particular Congress can allow it to expire at their pleasure. Don't like it? Elect a different Congress. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
The courts are no better... they've yanked works out of the public domain and back into copyright captivity.
merrua 12y ago
Frighteningly book sellers are also trashing a lot of books they are unable to sell at a profit. So when the laws change the books may not exist to be maintained.

IndianAstronaut 12y ago

This is absurd and puts a huge damper on creative work.

mathattack 12y ago
It seems like the work where a dedicated minority (who stand to collect royalties) pushes against an issue that mildly benefits the majority. Taxi medallions were a similar phenomenon pre-Lyft and pre-Uber.
- aikah 12y ago
  try "disrupting" copyright,be ready for a swat team raiding your house. http://mashable.com/2012/08/08/kim-dotcom-raid/ http://mashable.com/2012/08/08/kim-dotcom-raid/ > Taxi medallions were a similar phenomenon pre-Lyft and pre-Uber. Neither Uber nor Lyft put an end to Taxi medallion system.
  - click170 12y ago
    I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but civil disobedience is a valid and legitimate form of protest. If you disagree with a law, ignore it. If enough people do the same, the burden from enforcing the law becomes too much and it simply stops being enforced or is legislated away due to the societal harm it causes. An arguable example of this in action is the War On Drugs. This war has been waged for years, and the black market has not only survived, it has thrived in the economy of scarcity that is created and maintained by said war. People and legislators all over the country (the world?) are beginning to see that this war isn't benefiting anyone and have begun legalizing marijuana. Marijuana is one of many drugs, but it's a step in the right direction.
    - gknoy 12y ago
      The key with civil disobedience is that you have to be willing to face the penalty. The GP was right that doing so is risky, and one should not engage in civil disobedience without a full grasp of the consequences (and willingness to submit to / fight them legally).
    - amagumori 12y ago
      this is a kamikaze approach to reform and requires countless people sacrificing years of their life (or their entire life) to the prison system. for instance if LSD is your drug of choice instead of cannabis, possession is a class B felony with up to $100K in fines and up to 10 years in prison (OR).
  - soperj 12y ago
    That's not what Kim dotcom was doing.
    - unreal37 12y ago
      The point stands that there is a well-established, well-funded and well-connected group protecting copyright, so going against it in any form will not be easy. If a citizen tries to get copyright law amended through the courts, they will face an epic battle from all sides.
      - walterbell 12y ago
        http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/how-an-ebay-bookseller-defeated-a-publishing-giant-at-the-supreme-court/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/how-an-ebay-books... "Sometimes all it takes to alter the course of history is one pissed-off person. Supap Kirtsaeng wasn’t a crusader or lone nut; he was just an eBay trader who got backed into a legal corner and refused to give up. To help pay for grad school at USC, he sold textbooks online—legitimate copies that he’d purchased overseas. But academic publishing behemoth John Wiley & Sons sued Supap, claiming that his trade in Wiley’s foreign-market textbooks constituted copyright infringement. ... Once Supap’s struggle hit the spotlight, powerful supporters such as eBay, Public Knowledge, Costco, and Goodwill Industries joined the fray. But the forces pitted against Supap were arguably more powerful: the movie and music industries, publishers of books and software, and even the US Solicitor General."
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - fragmede 12y ago
    > Neither Uber nor Lyft put an end to Taxi medallion system. Maybe not just yet, but a 20% price drop is likely only the beginning. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/upshot/new-york-taxi-medallion-prices-fall-again.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/upshot/new-york-taxi-medal...
    - mathattack 12y ago
      Exactly. The alternative is now there, and it's coming with a lobbying force of it's own. Once people are used to Taxi alternatives, they may start fighting back against the medallions.
  - bbcbasic 12y ago
    But isn't the permissive licences such as MIT, GPLv3, CopyLeft etc. also a disruption to copyright? Yes the original author will retain copyright, but the intent of it, to prevent free distribution and collaboration disappears. Now we see the mighty MS open sourcing the server side of .NET. IMO they are forced to do so because of the pressure from awesome platforms like Ruby on Rails, Python, Node.JS etc. that would soon make them irrelevant unless they follow suit. In 50 years time, the best creative work both art, writing and tech will be available freely on permissive licences, and we won't care if it enters the public domain, even though it probably will anyway. The great thing is the stuff you need (tools, information) is available this way. The stuff you want but don't need (awful Hollywood films, etc.) is protected by copyright and you have to pay for it. Also the illegal file sharing has disrupted music massively. We now have so many songs you can listen to on Youtube for free. Imagine telling someone in 1990 you can listen to unlimited free music legally (albeit with ads!).
    - joepie91_ 12y ago
      GPLv3 and "copyleft" are not permissive licenses. They are copyleft licenses. MIT, BSD, etc. are permissive licenses. Aside from that, there is a considerable difference between public domain and 'freely licensed'. The latter involves an absolute nightmare of tracking down licenses and understanding the interactions between licenses, when working on a project of significant size (and influence). And licenses like the GPL make this even harder by being very restrictive. > Also the illegal file sharing has disrupted music massively. We now have so many songs you can listen to on Youtube for free. Imagine telling someone in 1990 you can listen to unlimited free music legally (albeit with ads!). The majority of music on Youtube is not there legally.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - mathattack 12y ago
    *Neither Uber nor Lyft put an end to Taxi medallion system.* The legal difficulty of Lyft and Uber denting the medallion system highlights what a small but highly organized minority can do again a large unorganized mass. That said, Uber and Lyft seem to have at least reduced the cost of a medallion.
happyscrappy 12y ago
Do other countries with less draconian copyright laws gain an advantage?
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  USA (or the media corps) seems to have Europe in their pocket when it comes to these sorts of laws; mostly once it's pushed through congress [with the aid of many 'campaign donations' I'm sure] then it seems European nations get convinced to harmonise with US practice.

yeldarb 12y ago

Out of curiosity, what would happen if a Canadian company were to make a movie based off of a book that has entered the public domain in Canada? Would they just not be able to release it in the US without obtaining a license? Would a US based company be able to do the same if they only released it abroad?

tim333 12y ago
I presume as you suggest the Canadian company couldn't release in the US without a license. Not sure about a US company releasing abroad. The US copyright holder could probably argue they violated their copyright during production if the film was produced in the US. Then again if the filming was done in London but paid for by the US company they would be alright I guess? Popeye may be an interesting case as he's still copyright in the US but not most other places.
walterbell 12y ago
Canada is negotiating with the US via TPP. Some precedent has been set in CETA and NAFTA. Public opinion could influence the outcome of TPP negotiations, as ACTA did. CETA, Canada-EU: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/08/canada-shaped-copyright-rules-eu-trade-deal/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/08/canada-shaped-copyright-r... "Canadian reforms had an impact on the negotiations. Requirements to extend the term of copyright or create new rights for broadcasters and visual artists were removed from the draft text. Moreover, the digital lock rules and Internet service provider liability provisions were substantially re-written to better reflect the Canadian approach ... the “made-in-Canada” approach is gradually garnering increased attention around the world as a creative, viable alternative ... other countries have been considering adopting the Canadian model on issues such as Internet provider liability or the creation of user-generated content." NAFTA, Canada-US-Mexico: http://www.barrysookman.com/2011/02/19/is-copyright-part-of-the-fta-or-nafta/ http://www.barrysookman.com/2011/02/19/is-copyright-part-of-... TPP, Canada-US-Mexico-Australia-New Zealand-Malaysia-Singapore-Japan-Vietnam-Brunei-Peru-Chile : http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/10/new-tpp-leak-canada-emerges-leading-opponent-u-s-intellectual-property-demands/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/10/new-tpp-leak-canada-emerg... "..the U.S. wants Canada to eviscerate many of the recent reforms found in copyright and counterfeiting legislation along with court rulings on patent protection. These demands focus on enhanced criminal liability for copyright infringement, eliminating the Canadian approach to Internet service provider liability, extending the term of copyright protection, and expanding patent protection. Canadian negotiators have thus far resisted many of the proposed changes, offering alternatives that are compatible with current law. Yet as the treaty negotiations continue, the pressure to cave to U.S. pressure will no doubt increase, raising serious concerns about whether the TPP will force the Canadian government to overhaul recently enacted legislation that it has steadfastly defended as reflecting a balanced, “made in Canada” approach."

anigbrowl 12y ago

I've often wondered whether Calder vs. Bull (which courts have long interpreted to mean that the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws applies only to 'vital interests' like liberty in criminal cases) isn't subject to an originalist attack. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=3&page=386 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&...

Aldo_MX 12y ago

My expectations are that someday before January 1, 2019 there will be a new law reform to extend copyright another 20 years. Steamboat Willie will never enter the public domain.

unreal37 12y ago
I think that politicians should just admit what they're doing, extend copyright only for Disney Corporation, and leave the rest to enter the public domain.
- WalterBright 12y ago
  My solution is to allow copyright extensions for those who are willing to pay an annual fee, say $1000. That would likely satisfy most interests, and abandoned works will enter the public domain.
  - unreal37 12y ago
    I totally agree with that too.
  - MereInterest 12y ago
    Except that all works should be able to be built upon. Sherlock Holmes and Bilbo Baggins, Mickey Mouse and The Terminator, Atticus Finch and Charlie Bucket, every one is a cultural idea. It isn't just abandoned works. All cultural works should eventually be available to build upon.
    - WalterBright 12y ago
      I agree, but my proposal is one that is much more likely to get through than the all-or-nothing approach.
    - unreal37 12y ago
      For the sake of a handful of older profitable works, all works will forever be held back from the public domain. Better that you concede Mickey Mouse and let the rest benefit society as public works.

k-mcgrady 12y ago

I didn't actually know about this. I wonder if this didn't happen and copyright had originally just lasted a persons lifetime if people would be less mad about copyright?

acabal 12y ago

As I've said before, insanely long copyright terms are one of the biggest modern cultural tragedies we face. If things stay as they are (or get worse), I expect to see an interesting side effect for today's authors: the vast majority of people creating today--those who don't produce blockbuster franchises that ageless corporations can milk eternally--will be totally forgotten in fifty or a hundred year's time. And not forgotten in the "who is that, let me look it up" sense, but rather effectively not included in any meaningful records our children's children would access. Why? Because long copyright prevents volunteers from remembering your work after you're dead. That's not the case for centuries-old authors today. Thanks to the public domain, volunteers from all over the world at places like Project Gutenberg and Archive.org lovingly scan, transcribe, produce, catalog, store, and make available old works for today's generation to enjoy. Not just famous stuff like Dracula, but obscure works, works that were unpopular in their day, works that didn't matter then and maybe don't even matter now. The public domain makes this possible--it keeps the memory of authors alive, because as humans we instinctively know it's important to our culture. But the work you produce today, unless it's highly profitable to a corporation, will be shackled by draconian laws and punishments for hundreds of years. Why should volunteers risk their freedom and treasure to transcribe your 150-year-old work still under copyright? They won't, and you and your work will be forgotten, while we keep re-using and sharing obscure writing from 1923.

MereInterest 12y ago
As one of the saddest plots, look at the below article, showing the lack of availability of books from the middle of the 20th century. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-missing-20th-century-how-copyright-protection-makes-books-vanish/255282/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-mi...
- pgy 12y ago
  In my boyhood I had been fascinated by science fiction short stories, many of them I found in anthologies published in the middle of the 20th century in America. Being born in a non English-speaking country, I soon run out of reading material for translations were hard to find. When I learned English (and connected to the Internet the first time) I tried to find more from my favourite authors but with little luck. When talking about the disappearance of books, Isaac Asimov's Great SF Stories anthology series[1] always comes to my mind. Around 2006 I spent a whole week searching for it - of the 25 books I managed to find only four or five. Nevertheless, I assembled a pretty big (and pretty illegal) collection of nearly-impossible-to-find sci-fi stories during my days in high school, but lost it when my computer went wrong a few years later. (I am sure I could have recovered them somehow, but back then I had no idea.) Last year I tried to reassemble my collection but I gave up, it would have been too much work. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Isaac_Asimov%27s_Great_SF_Stories_anthology_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Isaac_Asimov%27s_Grea...

smsm42 12y ago

Or, rather, would enter the public domain, if only Congress were not to enact the next Mickey Mouse protection law. Look at this and weep: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Copyright_term.svg/450px-Copyright_term.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Co...

dragonwriter 12y ago

> The next time anything will enter the public domain in the US is January 1, 2019. Right, because Congress surely won't extend terms again before that.

MaysonL 12y ago

Where is the copyright Uber who will republish some of these works, and take the arguably unconstitutional copyright extensions to court?

twoodfin 12y ago
It's been to the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft[1] and found constitutional, 7-2. They're right, IMHO. Congress gets to set the terms of copyright, and it's "limited" so long as any particular Congress can allow it to expire at their pleasure. Don't like it? Elect a different Congress. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

The courts are no better... they've yanked works out of the public domain and back into copyright captivity.

merrua 12y ago

Frighteningly book sellers are also trashing a lot of books they are unable to sell at a profit. So when the laws change the books may not exist to be maintained.