5 ms·

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 expec

by 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...
tim333 12y ago
"The real incentive here is for corporate owners that bought copyrights to lobby Congress for another 20 years of revenue—not for creators who will be long dead once this term extension takes hold." "I thought it was a moral outrage. There wasn't anyone speaking out for the public interest." - Sen. Hank Brown, the only Senator to be against extending copyright in the 90s. Shame there were not more like that. 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...
- zmmmmm 12y ago
  It bugs me that there is never any accounting for the "loss" to the public. When a work that would otherwise enter the public domain is instead kept copyrighted, that is essentially privatisation of public property. If congress decided to sell national parks to private owners there would be a massive outcry. The idea that they would just give them to private owners for free would be considered utterly absurd. Yet this is exactly what extension of copyrights is. At very least, people would insist a proper valuation be put on them and the benefactors asked to pay a commensurate amount to the public to compensate the loss of public property. Yet none of this happens, these extensions are made as donations to private benefactors as if it means nothing to society.
  - csallen 12y ago
    This is because copyright law is unintuitive, and most don't understand its origins. People don't feel that creative works rightfully belong to the public. The existence of terms like "intellectual property" doesn't help.
    - joepie91_ 12y ago
      Very much this. It is plain unhealthy how many people perceive copyright as being a 'measure to ensure income for artists'.
      - 12y ago
unreal37 12y ago
Couldn't an author renounce copyright for certain works? Perhaps if you want to be listed on those sites, you should do that before you die. Or your heirs can if they have no ongoing payments from that work any more.
- Zuider 12y ago
  Many authors do make their works public domain, especially for technical books published in the '80s and '90s that retain value as theoretical and conceptual works (despite referring to obsolete technology). Other authors won't go so far as to relinquish copyright, but will distribute electronic copies of their work freely.
incompatible 12y ago
They could always put their work in the public domain themselves. However I agree that copyright laws are now insane. Apart from the ridiculous length of the terms, it can be hard to work out if any particular work is public domain since not all author's death dates are known. I really think that if copyright has any reason to exist at all, then a term of 5 years would be sufficient.
- joepie91_ 12y ago
  There's a few issues with that: 1) "Putting in the public domain" isn't actually possible in considerable parts of the world; you'd have to use a license like the CC0 to achieve as such, 2) Dead people can't give out licenses, and 3) Society has largely come to rely on the (mistaken) notion that copyright is a measure for ensuring income for artists, and in return this makes it very, very hard for an artist to break that notion by CC0ing their work, and still gain an income.
  - rgbrenner 12y ago
    And why can't they have a license that simply says: "10 years after the publication date, this work will enter the public domain" And in countries where they do not have a concept of public domain, simply change the royalty to 0 after that period of time. Or, simply say, after 10 years, you'll also be permitted to do x, y, z with this work (where x might be redistribution, derivatives, etc). At least in the US, authors have the right to do this today.
chrismcb 12y ago
The Constitution calls for a limit. I argue that and time frame greater than the average life of a human is virtually unlimited. I doubt the intent if the Founding Fathers was for the limit to be an insane amount of time.
nomercy400 12y ago
totally forgotten in the US. The rest of the world can still enjoy old works. Also, volunteers can still scan, transcribe, produce, catalog, store old works without the world knowing it. The moment copyright expires, they can make it available (assuming you are allowed to do the first few things).

by acabal 12y ago

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...

tim333 12y ago

"The real incentive here is for corporate owners that bought copyrights to lobby Congress for another 20 years of revenue—not for creators who will be long dead once this term extension takes hold." "I thought it was a moral outrage. There wasn't anyone speaking out for the public interest." - Sen. Hank Brown, the only Senator to be against extending copyright in the 90s. Shame there were not more like that. 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...

zmmmmm 12y ago
It bugs me that there is never any accounting for the "loss" to the public. When a work that would otherwise enter the public domain is instead kept copyrighted, that is essentially privatisation of public property. If congress decided to sell national parks to private owners there would be a massive outcry. The idea that they would just give them to private owners for free would be considered utterly absurd. Yet this is exactly what extension of copyrights is. At very least, people would insist a proper valuation be put on them and the benefactors asked to pay a commensurate amount to the public to compensate the loss of public property. Yet none of this happens, these extensions are made as donations to private benefactors as if it means nothing to society.
- csallen 12y ago
  This is because copyright law is unintuitive, and most don't understand its origins. People don't feel that creative works rightfully belong to the public. The existence of terms like "intellectual property" doesn't help.
  - joepie91_ 12y ago
    Very much this. It is plain unhealthy how many people perceive copyright as being a 'measure to ensure income for artists'.
    - 12y ago

unreal37 12y ago

Couldn't an author renounce copyright for certain works? Perhaps if you want to be listed on those sites, you should do that before you die. Or your heirs can if they have no ongoing payments from that work any more.

Zuider 12y ago
Many authors do make their works public domain, especially for technical books published in the '80s and '90s that retain value as theoretical and conceptual works (despite referring to obsolete technology). Other authors won't go so far as to relinquish copyright, but will distribute electronic copies of their work freely.

incompatible 12y ago

They could always put their work in the public domain themselves. However I agree that copyright laws are now insane. Apart from the ridiculous length of the terms, it can be hard to work out if any particular work is public domain since not all author's death dates are known. I really think that if copyright has any reason to exist at all, then a term of 5 years would be sufficient.

joepie91_ 12y ago
There's a few issues with that: 1) "Putting in the public domain" isn't actually possible in considerable parts of the world; you'd have to use a license like the CC0 to achieve as such, 2) Dead people can't give out licenses, and 3) Society has largely come to rely on the (mistaken) notion that copyright is a measure for ensuring income for artists, and in return this makes it very, very hard for an artist to break that notion by CC0ing their work, and still gain an income.
- rgbrenner 12y ago
  And why can't they have a license that simply says: "10 years after the publication date, this work will enter the public domain" And in countries where they do not have a concept of public domain, simply change the royalty to 0 after that period of time. Or, simply say, after 10 years, you'll also be permitted to do x, y, z with this work (where x might be redistribution, derivatives, etc). At least in the US, authors have the right to do this today.

chrismcb 12y ago

The Constitution calls for a limit. I argue that and time frame greater than the average life of a human is virtually unlimited. I doubt the intent if the Founding Fathers was for the limit to be an insane amount of time.

nomercy400 12y ago

totally forgotten in the US. The rest of the world can still enjoy old works. Also, volunteers can still scan, transcribe, produce, catalog, store old works without the world knowing it. The moment copyright expires, they can make it available (assuming you are allowed to do the first few things).