Slashdot Mirror

I believe The Public Domain Enhancement Act does a good job of addressing orphaned works: it requires a $1 fee be paid no earlier than 50 years after the work was published and it creates a searchable database of works and copyright holders. Legislators should be pushed to champion this bill again (and again) to get it through Congress. One-time trying doesn't do the job (as we've all seen the corporate copyright holders show us). I concur with proponents of the PDEA that most copyright holders will not find it important enough to send in the $1 fee to extend their copyright past 50 years (plus the grace period described in the proposed bill).

I wouldn't argue with Patents and Copyrights anymore, I'd deal with the Constitutionality of the existing laws.

and every time copyright gets extended, expect to see another case similar to Eldred v. Ashcroft until the government finally loses.

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.

Yes, I agree the letter of the law might be with the authors, though it's a bit of a gray area here. My point was that the law has been subverted from the intention of such laws and what Google is doing is exactly what they were intended to promote. It's a shame, especially if the authors win.

As a bit of an aside, I'm wondering if such laws are consitutional. While Eldred v. Ashcroft lost the constitutional fight on the grounds that Congress can only create such laws for a limited time and they are effectively unlimted now, I think the better argument is that Congress is only allowed to create such laws "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (Clause 8). If Google is stopped it is a clear demonstration that the laws violate this principle and are therefore unconstitutional. IANAL either, but the principle is quite clear in layman's terms, and even in Eldred the judges hinted to Lessig that he might have a better chance by arguing this over the "effectively unlimited" theory, as he outlines in Free Culture.

Speaking of which, Jack Valenti has used information like this in his MPAA stump speech. Last year, Valenti was an invited speaker at the Roger Ebert Overlooked Film Festival. He spoke at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in the Pine Lounge of the Illini Union. He gave his usual emotional arguments including how researchers can transmit a 2-hour movie in some short period of time.

It was a one-sided venue, by design. Nobody but the audience was there to speak against any of his points. Apparently, Ebert doesn't want an informative discussion expressing an array of views, so he won't invite articulate speakers like Siva Vaidhyanathan, Prof. Lawrence Lessig, or those who back interesting copyright bills like the old HR2601, the Public Domain Enhancement Act. So giving context with some copyright history, responding to his arguments including Constitutional interpretation, and generally explaining the social value of a leaky copyright system is left up to people who happen to be in the room.

I wonder why [Lawrence Lessig] does not actually act.

He tried to get parts of the most recent copyright extension declared unconstitutional, eventually personally arguing the case before the Supreme Court. He founded Creative Commons to make it easy for creators who want to make things more free to do so. That includes helping write a boilerplate license to make it easy to voluntarily put things into the public domain and another license to voluntarily limit ones own work to the "Founder's Copyright" of 28 years. What more do you want from him? The next major step will be convincing US citizens that things need to change. Once the citizenry believe that, it will be possible to convince congress to change the laws for the better. He's working on changing people's mind. You can hardly say that Lessig is a slacker.

Elvis recordings have been released into the public domain in the UK (and Europe?)

And things are still making it into the public domain every day, e.g. I have an old book that will be public domain soon (it's over 100 years old)

There's one big thing that the artical missed, DRM, DRM is so big because unless someone breaks modern cryptography in the next hundred years (and it's possible that it won't be) everything being released with 'DRM' and 'trusted' hardware will remain DRM'ed and stuck on trusted hardware even after it's passed into the public domain.

So when I live to 150 that EBook I purchased, unlke my 100+ year old book I currently own, won't be reproducable even though it's techinically in the public domain.

Fortunatly we don't have the DMCA in Europe so there's still time to save the public domain for some of us.

In particular, here's the case to which I think he's referring. Disney^H^H^H^H^H^HThe US Government won every round, including the Supreme Court. The materials in question, in some cases ones that had already entered the public domain, are now under copyright.

http://eldred.cc/eldredvashcroft.html

And the obligatory Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft

I think the Public Domain Expansion Act is almost what you're looking for. It doesn't go quite as far as your suggestion, but it's easier to implement and more likely to become law (odds 10e-6 instead of 10e-100).

You'd soon complain if a company tried to force you what to do, so what makes you think you can force them to do something?

Copyright is a privilege, a government subsidy to fund the creation of works of authorship. Why do you believe that privileges should not come with responsibilities? Do you think letting orphan works sit unused "promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts"?

The point is, as a result of extensions, nothing published later than 1929 or so is passing into the public domain in the U.S. anymore, and nothing new will do so again until, I think, 2019 or so. That gives plenty of time for companies to lobby to have copyright extended another 20 years or so, and so on. They've put the original concept of copyright on hold, and no one knows if politicians will be brave enough and responsible enough to the public good to press "play" again.

Worse, in the digital realm, one can imagine a situation where some DRM-protected stuff will be impossible to legally preserve for the 75 or 95 years it will take for it to become public domain, because the media will fail, and it will be illegal (DCMA), technically impossible (genuinely secure encryption), or simply too costly to circumvent and copy it to new media.

Imagine a world where old, 1920s-era musical recordings were both technically, practically, and legally impossible to preserve for posterity, and therefore were permanently lost by the time they fell legally into the public domain. That is the kind of future we are facing. Everything Gates it talking about is enabling that future to come to pass.

We should not leave it only to companies to decide whether or not something is worth keeping forever, or letting it lapse into oblivion merely because they can't figure out how to make a buck off it any more.

One really good suggestion I have seen is to require that companies or artists pay some token fee (like, $1) in order to gain the benefits of a one-time longer copyright term. If they can't be bothered to pay the $1, then the work falls into the public domain, preserving both the original incentive for as long as it was worth $1 to them, and preserving the broader public interest.

Now, if the creative equivalent of the farm tools is pens, paper, instruments, and recording hardware, but you're missing out on the exclusive right to farm the land -- the tools won't do you any good.

And without a way to pay property tax on the land, the land won't do you any good either. To continue this analogy, we need an intellectual property tax such as that specified by this bill.

Her analogy stopped at leaving a legacy for one's children.

I'd take a wild guess that the mean time for children to outlive their parents is 30 years. So why do American and European copyrights last life plus 70 and not life plus 30?

Governments levy property taxes on real estate. So why can't governments levy property taxes on copyrights?

Name it Eldred.

This is great. Imagine having tons of written history available on the net. It would give those Google guys a challenge.

Maybe there should be a Gutenberg Project for old newspapers and such. Lots of metadata for easy searching.

One of the things that drives me crazy about all the stupid copyright extensions is the amount of recent history that could be digitized. Just imagine the interesting things to be learned from minor accounts from World War II and other events. Right now it's just rotting away on paper and film.

Support the Public Domain Enhancement Act!

MAME has raised the bar for this kind of work and put the lie to these proprietors who are coming along years after the fact doing what MAME has done in a far more portable fashion. This kind of work is a perfect reason to support The Public Domain Enhancement Act--we already know that the public can and will provide for themselves in this space. We don't need the proprietors to do the archiving and distribution work as we once did.

I posted this in another thread but it got buried. If you would like to see abandoned works enter into the public domain, and keep from loosing large portions of our cultural history then you should write your congress critter about the Public Domain Enhancement Act.

I thought Berne Convention covered the "automatic" copyright of your songs/poems?

13. If you win, how could copyright law change?

There are many ways Congress could change the copyright law back to a conditional system and still remain in compliance with the Berne Convention. One way would be to re-impose formalities for all works of U.S. authors -- these are most works published in the U.S., and Berne doesn't prohibit signatory nations from imposing formalities on their own authors. Another would be to pass the Public Domain Enhancement Act, which would impose a tiny renewal fee designed to move unused copyrighted work into the public domain. The PDEA also wouldn't violate Berne, because it would apply only to works of U.S. authors.

I was very much in favor of what they were trying to do in the Eldred v. Ashcroft case, and can't understand why any judge could possibly think that extending copyright terms on existing works could encourage innovation. But I have to say that my initial reaction to this is that I don't like it at all. One of the nice features of copyright in my mind is the fact that it doesn't require going through a beurocratic agency - your copyright is assumed at the time of creation. If we go back to the old system it will create an unnecisarry burden on both the government and content creators.

All of the problems mentioned in the FAQ are really due to the fact that copyright is too long. Furthermore, I don't see how unconditional copyright creates a violation of free speech. (I haven't read the whole complaint yet, just the FAQ) But this is a good time to remind people to write their congress critters about the Public Domain Enhancement Act It will acheive the exact same goal of releasing "orphanware" into the public domain, but only requires people to register for copyright after 50 years - only putting the burden on money grubbers who want copyright for longer than it should exist anyway.

People who do not know their rights, do not really have them.

From Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright page 24

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringement of copyrights:
(i) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, ...

Nonetheless we live in a society of copyright extremists. Plese mention the Eldred Act in your political contributions to make copyrights lapse after 50 years unless re-registered with a $1 fee per year. You know, write it on the memo section of your $20 check. Also joining the EFF helps. Thanks.

Larry Lessig, Eldred counsel and all-around bad-ass, put aside his obligations for the morning on his visit to Japan to pen this response (typos retained for the grammar nerds):

More SCO fud, this time insulting the constitution

I apologize for the silence, but weve been in Japan this week announcing iCommons in Japan. (More on that soon). But after reading this extraordinary document by Darl McBride of SCO infamy, I could resist canceling this morning meetings to respond.

From the start of this pathetic lawsuit, Eben Moglen of the Free Software Foundation has argued that there was nothing behind the SCO claims. His arguments are persuasive. But if you want a clue of just how clueless this case is, consider the constitutional arguments made by SCO.

McBride's argument is grounded in the Constitution. (Well, close to the constitution. He quotes the text of the constitution to be:

Congress shall have Power [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, open-source advocates argue against copyright and patent laws, and whatever measures they take to by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Actually, the framers didn't say anything about "open source advocates.")

As he rightly is argues, the Constitution requires that Congress only grant copyrights where those copyrights "promote the Progress of Science." Thus, if Congress granted copyrights in a context where they didn't "promote progress" one might well ask whether such a law was constitutional (e.g., a law that extended the terms of existing copyrights, but let's leave that aside for the moment).

But the key move in the McBride-FUD is his claim that proponents of free software and open source software are somehow against copyright.

He claims that "GPL is exactly opposite in its effect from the 'copyright' laws adopted by the US Congress and the European Union"; that "Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights"; that "the issue is clear: do you support copyrights and ownership of intellectual property as envisioned by our elected officials in Congress and the European Union, or do you support "free" - as in free from ownership - intellectual property envisioned by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and others?"; that "SCO argues that the authority of Congress under the U.S. Constitution to "promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts" inherently includes a profit motive, and that protection for this profit motive includes a Constitutional dimension"; and that "We believe that the "progress of science" is best advanced by vigorously protecting the right of authors and inventors to earn a profit from their work."

Let's take each of these claims in turn:

"GPL is exactly opposite in its effect from the 'copyright' laws adopted by the US Congress and the European Union"

Despite RMS's aversion to the term, the GPL trades on a property right that the laws of the US and EU grant "authors" for their creative work. A property right means that the owner of the right has the right to do with his property whatever he wishes, consistent with the laws of the land. If he chooses to give his property away, that does not make it any less a property right. If he chooses to sell it for $1,000,000, that doesn't make it any less a property right. And if he chooses to license it on the condition that source code be made free, that doesn't make it

Nothing personal, I understand that people can love the characters and memories, but let's not forget what the money goes towards...

Here's two more great sites
Stop Disney and the entertainment industry from trampling your rights.
The Eric Eldred Act

Here are a few good representatives to mention if you want someone to debate on intellectual property issues:

Bruce Perens, former Debian project leader.

Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, Chair of the Creative Commons project, author of several books on intellectual property...

and,
you. Seriously. You are the best person to represent your own views. Then we know what you think. Just make sure that you know who you are speaking for - I am sure you can represent your views well, but I don't know if you represent my views very well.

If you want someone more local, start asking librarians at the local library if any of them have viewpoints on IP and DRM issues.

please post other such 'potentially good' representatives in reply.

But really, if you want someone with a suit and a long list of credentials to represent the people in a debate on intellectual property, pick the Professor of Law at Stanford, Lawrence Lessig. That's who I would pick. I like his views and his ideas. I publish some of my work under a creative commons license, and tried to follow the Elred case.

----

I for one would be grateful if places with clout, like MIT, would spend their resources advocating for better policy rather than engaging in legal contortions. If MIT, Harvard, Stanford, UC Berkeley, Princeton, Yale, NYU, etc. threw *serious* support behind good policy (like the Eldred act, IMHO), the RIAA would find it much harder to have their way with congress. Admittedly, uniting these institutions of intellectual debate is much easier said than done, but they are uniquely equipped to put forth balanced proposals that address a broader social agenda than would ever emerge from an industry lobby. We could really use someone with the clout, resources, intelligence and neutrality of MIT to help write (and right) the rules of the game that are fair to *all* the stakeholders, not just the RIAA.

What we are finding is that leaving the fox (the RIAA) to guard the hen-house (IP policy) is great for the fox and bad for everyone else.

Can the resistance stay alive?

Soon, only historians will even know what the public domain was. They don't need to violate the constitution to create perpetual copyright. They can pass another extention every 20 years, and the U.S. Supreme Court won't do anything about it. If I can't express an idea that has been expressed before without getting permission and possibly paying a fee, then I don't have freedom of speech. So much for the First Amendment. Copyright,the new censorship, has trumped it.

If you read classics ebooks are already free

Though Project Gutenberg continues to add public domain classics to its collection, the number of public domain classics in existence is now fixed, and it will never grow as long as The Walt Disney Company continues to exist, unless you back the Eldred Act (or its equivalent outside the States).

From the article:

Until 1978, copyright only lasted 52 years in the U.S. -- and then only if you remembered to renew it. There were other technical lapses that could result in the inadvertent loss of copyright -- it wasn't really user-friendly.

Sure it was, once you realize that copyright was never meant to grant a copyright holder perpetual income. Copyright was meant to be an incentive to publish, part of a bargain with the public. So a limited term of copyright (which we don't have today thanks to retroactive term extension) that expires well within someone's lifetime (which we also don't have today) were both good things. Mark Twain fought this and we (as a society) are better off for his not having gotten his wish in his lifetime. If the term of copyright was then what it is now, we wouldn't have as many of his works to share (we might not have any, they might all be tightly controlled by his estate like Mitchell or Gershwin's estate handles their works). You don't spur society to publish more work by granting them everlasting power to deem how the work can be disseminated and built upon.

I think it's reasonable to say far more works would have been lost to time because nobody could legally preserve them by copying them (a time-honored means of saving knowledge for future readers). The Public Domain Enhancement Act (H.R. 2601) attempts to restore a more reasonable effective term of copyright without violating on the Bern treaty. I encourage everyone to contact their congresspeople to co-sponsor this act.

Once you recognize that nobody makes ideas in a vacuum and we all base everything we think and do on the work of others, you get to a point where you begin to question the underlying assumptions of copyright and anyone who pitches copyright as property (a prejudicial term, at the least). I wonder about a far shorter term of copyright and whether society would benefit from not allowing certain expressions to not have copyright power at all (such as non-free software which remains non-free even after it would enter the public domain because the source code for the program is never revealed).

Visit the site that champions the Public Domain Enhancement Act (HR2601) and write your Congresspeople (House, Senate) to support this bill. If these games are no longer commercially exploitable, the proponents of this bill believe it is unlikely the copyright holders will file the form and pay the low tax to retain copyright on the work. Maybe these games will eventually enter the PD where we can all legally share and modify them so we can play them on MAME.

Here's a FAQ, previous /. discussion, and another /. discussion.

Visit the site that champions the Public Domain Enhancement Act (HR2601) and write your Congresspeople (House, Senate) to support this bill. If these games are no longer commercially exploitable, the proponents of this bill believe it is unlikely the copyright holders will file the form and pay the low tax to retain copyright on the work. Maybe these games will eventually enter the PD where we can all legally share and modify them so we can play them on MAME.

Here's a FAQ, previous /. discussion, and another /. discussion.

Sure, Wine using its own reimplemented DLLs probably doesn't run as many apps as Wine using Microsoft's DLLs, but as long as the app you want to use works "properly", then Wine works "properly" for you. Which app do you use regularly that works with Microsoft's DLLs but not with the free ones?

That said, if DisneyCo is using the work of the commons, why can't it give back to the commons?

I mean, only one OTHER than the fact that the media companies could and would spend BILLIONS to prevent it...

The United States government has signed numerous treaties (including the one mentioned on the Eldred page).

It would be difficult (although not impossible) for the U.S. to extricate itself from these treaties without significant damage to our already lagging credibility.

Otherwise, I'm all for it. Go ahead, lobby Congress, sign the petition. It might have some impact. eventually.

Good Luck,

-- Fareq

Everyone is griping about how long copyright is, instead lets lobby congress to reduce the length back towards the origional 28 years.

What congress can do, it can undo. All that is needed is a little pressure. In fact there is a large lobby group that already exists in trying to reduce the copyright period to 50 years, unless the owners pays $1 at:

http://eldred.cc/

So lend your support to it.

...to the link at the bottom of the editorial - http://eldred.cc - where a campaign to petition Congress to effectively add registration to patents over fifty years old is underway.

Granted, if they want to mess with anything below fifty years, they are on seriously shaky ground - a $1.00 tax isn't enough to be considered more than a formality, in my opinion. Still, just imagine how much stuff Disney will find itself dealing with on a yearly basis to keep all of its creations and movies locked from the public domain - even if they're a large enough corporation to deal with it.

If we called "file sharing" and "file swapping" something more accurate, like File Stealing. Then people couldn't go around pretending to be ignorant of copyright issues.

You can argue that there are free things out there that people can swap, but I've never actually seen them personally.

Now BitTorrent, that's another matter, that's not really file swapping/file stealing. It's an infrastructure to redistribute data in a scalable way, and often you can get stuff like RedHat ISOs and things off it. Very handy.

Generally I have no sympathy for college students who cry about getting fines for stealing thousands and thousands of copyrighted works.

It is more imporant to lobby for less evil copyright laws and promote the rights of the public to have access to material and remove the focus on private ownership of everything. Oh no, I better be careful before I come off sounding like a communist!

Eric Eldred Act

Center for Study of Public Domain

After they finish fixing the copyright system maybe Lessig, Lofgren and Doolittle will take an interest in fixing the patent system.

Actually, Eric's FAQ says the Berne treaty has a term limit of "life of the author plus 50 years."

Judging by the FAQ alone, the registration is seen as a formality, while the assumption is that a tax may not be viewed as a formality. The formality is what is at issue here. Since the Berne is concerned about this, and since the law as currently proposed seeks to avoid conflict of whether or not a tax is a formality, I say just call it a registration and be done with it. The recommendation that the IRS become involved in this is, IMO, silly.

The assertion made is that whomever choses to maintain a copyright is already paying income taxes on it has problems. What if I owned a non-profiting copyright but did not want it released into the Public Domain yet? I would not be paying income taxes on it--yet I would have to go through a rigamaroll tax form to appease the IRS. If you think this will never happen, remember that we humans are fickle like that.

Additionally, IIRC, the Library of Congress monitors copyrights, so what if there is a failure of communication between these two bureaucracies? Don't expect them to be responsive to the needs of the former copyright holder. They'll inadvertently release the copyright on the work and "Big Entertainment" Pictures will make a block buster movie based upon said work and will win in court because they, "did not know they were treading on a tax delinquient's copyright."

I like the idea. Grant copyrights automatically for the first fifty years, or so; then levy a nominal registration fee to extend. If the Berne Treaty is in the way, find out how to renegotiate said treaty. Hell, make our law at twenty years "or the minimum imposed by the Berne Treaty" and fight to conform that treaty to US law. I mean, it looks like we probably did that once before, anyway.

Either way, the tax/fee should be based upon the copyright holder's ability to pay. If it's Disney, then make them pay according to their abilities. If it's Joe Schmuck Average, then a lower fee. This may not seem fair as all should pay equally, but what will happen is Big Entertainment will lobby that tax/fee to be raised to a level such that Uncle Joe can't afford, so he'll release his copyright into 'their' Public Domain. So, set the tax/fee according to the 'current economic earnings' of the work.

The obvious complaint is that a copyright owner shouldn't have to keep track of their IP at the risk of losing it.

Why is that? If it's making you money you're obviously keeping track of it already.

Two, 50 years from when? Creation? Publication? Technically, when I create a work it automatically is copyrighted but what if I publish some of the poems I wrote in high school 20 years ago? Do I pay my $1 in 2053 or 2033? What if I pay in 2053 and someone says I should have paid in 2033? Now I have to go to court to retain my copyright?

It's about 'published works' only (as can be read in the FAQ).

Three, it's going to get the flack that it makes us different from international/europoean standards.

Well that didn't stop you before. And the proposal is in compliance with international copyright laws (again the FAQ is helpfull).

The obvious complaint is that a copyright owner shouldn't have to keep track of their IP at the risk of losing it.

Why is that? If it's making you money you're obviously keeping track of it already.

Two, 50 years from when? Creation? Publication? Technically, when I create a work it automatically is copyrighted but what if I publish some of the poems I wrote in high school 20 years ago? Do I pay my $1 in 2053 or 2033? What if I pay in 2053 and someone says I should have paid in 2033? Now I have to go to court to retain my copyright?

It's about 'published works' only (as can be read in the FAQ).

Three, it's going to get the flack that it makes us different from international/europoean standards.

Well that didn't stop you before. And the proposal is in compliance with international copyright laws (again the FAQ is helpfull).

No, PD works cannot be taken and recopyrighted just because someone happens to have a handy dollar

If the holder doesn't pay up on or before the date that the copyright is due to expire + a 6 month grace period, then the copyright expires and the work irrevocably become Public Domain.

Berne Treaty limit is life of the author plus 50 years. This is a hack, using the world "tax" instead of registration. The 50 years from publication was decided on just to make it friendly. Of course, this is all just information I stole from the faq that an earlier comment linked to. :)

They say in the FAQ that this doesn't violate the Berne Treaty, because it isn't formally a "formality" nor a "registration", but you have to file a registration document and pay a fee to the US Copyright Register, which appears at least to this (NAL), that it is a formality and a register and in violation of the Berne Treaty.

Please RTFA.

From The Eric Eldred Act FAQ:

2. How would it work?

Fifty years after a copyrighted work was published, a copyright owner would have to pay a tiny tax. That tax could be as low as $1. If the copyright owner does not pay that tax for three years in a row, then the copyright would be forfeited to the public domain. If the tax is paid, then the form would require the listing of a copyright agent--a person charged with receiving requests about that copyright. The Copyright Office would then make the listing of taxes paid, and copyright agents, available free of charge on their website.

They're not expanding the term of copyright. They're shortening it, in most cases, and making you pay a small fee to hold it for more than 50 years, in all others.

Following the links from the posted article, I found the text of the law in PDF format. The THOMAS Congress web site does not yet have the bill online.

At really obvious Karma Whoring.

Link to the proposed bill is here.

(Not to be nasty or anything, but if you'd have clicked the link in the slashdot announcement you would have found this link immediately.)

The proper way for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to screw the Bono estate is to sign a petition to pass a law to take a bite out of the Bono Act.

However, society decides which laws are just and unjust. You'd better get convincing society.

Unfortunately, the big copyright owners control what American society decides because American society seems to base its mores on the content of news and entertainment programs broadcast by big copyright owners. For example, I don't think ABC (a division of DisneyCo, which led lobbying for the Bono Act) would let me advertise an anti-Disney activist site such as Losing Nemo. Heck, I don't think I could even mention Eldred.cc on ABC.

Everyone here familiar with the federal 'Do Not Call' list for telemarketers? Wouldn't it be possible to create a similar product for the web? A 'Do Not Spam' list? Anyone sending say... 100 emails a day would have to cross-reference the recipients addresses with those on the list. And just maybe to support the thing... pay a dollar per account to get your name added... maybe... If you care enough about your kids to keep them from seeing pr0n, pay the buck, if not, don't pay the dollar. Kinda like a mixture of the preposed Public Domain Enhancement Act and the federal 'Do Not Call' list.

It arguably should be subsidized (we're subsidizing copyright already just from all the extensions) and the Office in charge would have one year from enactment of the Act to establish procedures to collect the fees, minimize the burden of submitting the form, and make the information in the forms publicly available.