Slashdot Mirror
O'Reilly Commits to Short Copyright Durations
Sam King writes "I found the following link on the lisnews.com site: O'Reilly Adopts 1790 Copyright Durations. A small but encouraging step taken by a publisher." We should provide direct links to O'Reilly's announcement and the Founder's Copyright website.
How could it possibly be a dupe? The O'Reilly announcement dates one month later than the old Slashdot article you were pointing at. The fact that this new slashdot article first was posted one week after the announcement is another issue though.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
This would be more interesting if O'Reilly published CS books instead of software manuals. But even though this gift horse has no teeth, it's still rude (and pointless) to be looking in its mouth, so let's all shut up and smile.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
An even better idea is the Baen Free Library
It makes much more sense to put older works out there for everyone at no charge in order to generate interest in newer works. And it's been working just like that for Baen. I know that I've bought quite a few books from various Baen authors after reading some of their work through the Free Library.
"Suppose you were an idiot..... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeate myself."
I have a idea that just jumped into my head while reading this thread.
Why not make copyrights variable? The author could choose to accept the free default (short) copyright, or pay to register for a longer one. And the extra premium you pay for additional years gets more expensive the longer you want it.
Ok, in order to clarify what I mean, how's this for an example.
20 years copyright: Free, no registration required.
30 years: $10,000 registration fee
40 years: $25,000 registration fee
50 years: $100,000 registration fee
75 years: $1,000,000 registration fee
That way, if you're a big company like Disney and you have something you think will be big, you can pay more to lock it up longer. But if you're willing to let your stuff go into the public domain sooner you don't pay anything.
Maybe you would allow a copyright holder to change their mind and extend the copyrights later. If you didn't regiser to extend it and your product was a big hit, maybe you could sign up for the longer protection at a later time. Although I think that should be even more expensive than buying the longer copyright protection up front since you could wait till you see how successful your product is before registering (less risk = more cost).
Even better would be a way to make the copyright charge based on the "value" of the property. Like you'd pay more for a long copyright on Star Wars than you would for a long copyright on Battlestar Galactica. I have no idea how that would work, but it would obviously be a better system than a fixed rate since people who make less from their item don't pay as much to register it.
I don't know if even *I* like this idea, but it seemed to me that it might be worth throwing out there. Thoughts?
My motto is: Never give up - unless it's harder than you want it to be.
And copyright law becomes an issue of choice, in the same way that you still have the choice to close-source your software. You think copyright terms should be shorter? Vote with your work. You think it should be 130 years? You have that option.
This is just what I'd expect from a publisher who espouses the value of choice, including the choice to not share. This could be good.
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
One would imagine so. Otherwise mere commerce power trademark law would consume a constitutional limit on copyrights.
But I haven't seen it come up much. There's the Comedy III Productions thing; the Amos 'n Andy case is vaguely related.
However, there is a very important caveat. Consider Mickey Mouse: the original Mickey Mouse from the 1928 shorts (Steamboat Willy, The Galloping Gaucho, and Plane Crazy) looks and acts and talks differently than the 'modern' Mickey.
If the copyright on the original Mickey expired, you could create new works that were derivative of that. But they could NOT be derivative of later works that were still copyrighted. So the later changes to the character (e.g. facial structure) couldn't be used by you, though you could change your own Mickey in new ways.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Even if "Steamboat Willy" becomes public domain people would still have to pay Disney to use Mickey Mouse.
Then it doesn't sound like it's in the public domain to me. The only sensible answer is that the trademark on the character cannot block other people from using the character in order to make derivative works or to duplicate the existing public domain works.
It sounds like a nominative use to me -- it _IS_ Mickey Mouse. There's no getting around it. It isn't as though the derivative creators can reasonably call him something else.
At best Disney could only retreat to a trademark on "Disney's Mickey Mouse" and even that wouldn't be likely to work for straight reproductions of actual Disney Mickey Mouse materials.
Roughly the same thing already goes on with their fairy tale cartoons. Disney cannot stop you from making movies about Aladdin, and calling them Aladdin. But they can stop you -- for now -- from calling them Disney's Aladdin.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Authors retain the copyright to most books published in the United States; they simply license reproduction and distribution rights to a publisher. Terms vary, but typically the rights revert to the author when the book goes out-of-print. So my original question was how can the O'Reily (the publisher) decide to release something to the public domain?
But now I see a strange pattern as I investigate the books on my nearest shelf. Every copyright notice has the author's name except for the O'Reily books. Has O'Reily been forcing its authors to assign all copyrights?
OK ... but if they only have a 5 year shelf life, why invoke protection for 5 times their expected life?
... it makes a point. But, when scale is considered, the protections afforded O'Reilly by the 1790 length of time is probably longer than those provided to Disney under current copyright protections. Assuming the real entertainment value of a movie is over in ... say 50 years (personally, I enjoy movies some Disney flics from the 50s ... it's probably longer), then the equivalent protection for Disney media should be 250 years.
I understand the gesture
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
Wow. Are you way off base. Copyright is a government endorsed temporary monopoly on the distribution of a creative work.
Wow. Are you way off base. Copyright is the legal recognition of an author's natural property rights over his creation.
It is intended to be a short term incentive to artists to create and be rewarded for their work.
It is intended to provide legal protection for the rights of creators, just as laws against burglary extend legal protection to the rights of property owners.
Copyright law has nothing to do with the intrinsic or perceived value of a title.
Copyright law is based on extending legal protection to the intrinsic value of a work.
The worst novel is protected just as equally as the best.
The worst novel is protected just as equally as the best because the worst novel has the same intrinsic value as the best novel. (I guess you're unclear on what "intrinsic value" means. Here's a hint: it's the opposite of "extrinsic value." It has nothing to do with the market, or what somebody else thinks of a work. See if you can figure it out from there.)
In your mind I assume that the works of Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dickens, Milton, etc. should all still be copyright protected because they still hold value?
Yes. They should. They can't be, though. Read on.
I am not sure how you can justify that one.
Easy: copyright should be permanent. In a perfect world, creators and their delegates would have perpetual rights over their creations. But because we, as a society, recognize that our civilization as a whole benefits when works are owned by no one and freely available to all, we seize works after a certain period of time. But because the good of society NEVER outweighs the good of the individual (this is a fundamental tenet of modern political theory), we MUST NOT seize works until such time as doing so would not inflict harm on the creators. As long as a creator or delegate can make the convincing case that seizure of a work would inflict undue harm, as Disney has repeatedly done, then the term of copyright MUST be extended. Anything else is unjust, and in fact unconstitutional. (Remember the 4th Amendment? Protection against unreasonable seizures of property?)
You have a really messed up idea of what copyright means. It's almost completely backwards. Did you know that?
Yeah... I agree... that is precisely why I want short copyrights.
Humor aside, it's the political speech that scares the crap out of corporations. Disney *knows* that people are going to pound them the minute their stuff gets into public domain.
For music, however, they have no excuse. Some really terrific stuff can come out of public domain music. The political stuff will be irrelevant in this area, I believe. If people aren't buying music, they are searching for popular music for free. Few people, if anybody, search for political music. The '60s protest rock is the extent of my political noise.
Laws are for people with no friends.
For another data point, you might find it interesting to check out the changed rules at Nature magazine. For some reason, /. wouldn't accept the usual html tag, so here's the URL:
x ml /05_news.xml&style=xml/05_news.xsl
http://npg.nature.com/npg/servlet/Content?data=
In February, they basically dropped the old rule that you had to sign your paper over to them to get it published. Now their rule is that copyright must stay with the original author(s). To get it published, you assign to Nature a license that leaves you with ownership and the right to do essentially everything except give up ownership of your paper. You can use it freely in classroom material, make reprints, and put it up on web sites, as long as you maintain control. You can't hand it over to an employer, no matter what their rules may say.
If your employer already has a legal claim to your paper, Nature won't publish it. To get it published, your employer must first give you full rights.
And they are assigning ownership of all previously-published papers back to the authors under the same terms.
Their intent is to guarantee that any research that they publish can be made available to the public by the author(s), and that employers can't take any publication rights away from an author.
It'll be interesting to see what other tech publishers do.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
/. is always saying we don't need more legislation on copyrights (more extensions and such), but to work things out economically.
So here's an opportunity to send publishers a message.
Everytime you buy an O'Reily book, circle the purchase on the receipt and send it to their offices, with a short note saying something like:
"I chose this book not only because I think it will be a high-quality resource but also because of your commitment to allowing innovation by limiting the term in which you hold exclusive copyrights to it. Thank you for your intelligent stance on IP." Send a copy to one of their competitors as well, saying that you didn't buy -their- book for the same reason.
If a publisher/producer/company of any sort gets enough of this type of feedback, other companies will take notice. And that's when they start limiting themselves, and not paying congress to buy more copyright extensions.
Trolling-putting a rubber c0ck down your pants and cutting it off with a chainsaw: noisy and it makes you look d1ckless
I agree with your objection that copyright intervals should not be tied to some perceived (and, no doubt subjectively determined) intrinsic "value" to a work.
However, if a work does have high value, as measured by the degree to which it can be exploited in the market place for profit, there will be a desire on the part of the copyright holder to retain the copyright as long as possible. Hence, high-priced lobbying for effectively infinite copyright terms and extentions.
Understanding this, I wonder if it would be unreasonable to permit copyright extentions, at increasing cost, beyond the initial term (granted at no cost because of no need to formally file to get protection). The revenues collected could be redirected back to promote the development of new works.
Yes, this smells like a tax, and, as a libertarian, there are few things I detest more than taxes, particularly new ones. However, the only protection one has for a monopoly to reproduce and distribute an original work, is consent of the consumer, presumably obtained (if not by direct contract), by laws relating to issues of what could be called "intellectual property" (encompassing copyright, patent, and trademarks, in different ways). Enforcing such protection requires funding, and this "extended copyright tax" could also be a source of that funding.
These are partially baked ideas, and I reiterate that my initial reaction to such a "tax" revolts me, but I would not dismiss the notion of financial consideration in exchange for granted copyright extention out of hand.
You could've hired me.
Good comeback.
Locke talks about propery being created from things found in nature to which a person has added "the Labour of his Body and the Work of his Hands" (from his Second Treatise, On Property.) The argument in Second Treatise clearly applies to actual labour, not ideas--read it and see. Also, read Nozick's commentary in Anarchy, State and Utopia. He agrees that property rights can not be claimed if by appropriating something from a state of nature, the rights of someone else are noticeably worsened. This clearly applies to ideas as it does not to, say, acorns.
You seem like a smart coward, though, why not back up your retort with something concrete?
Milo
Likewise with Aladdin, you can make Aladdin movies, but if in your movie Aladdin had a pet monkey, the princess had a pet tiger, and Jaffar had a pet parrot, you'd probably be hearing from Disney's lawyers.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
You want to re-argue hundreds of years of philosophy on Slashdot? Ouch. If you believe your opinions have more universal validity than Locke's or Nozick's, I suggest publishing them.
I wasn't the one who dragged natural rights into this in the first place and, as mentioned by you (or some other equally indistinguishable AC--do you mind getting an ID so I can at least try not to tar other faceless people with my brush, such as it is?), natural rights are a value thesis. Arguing value theses will run into my weekend.
But, seeing as how my Milo Gwalthny persona is especially opinionated, let's have at it. Why do you think intangibles are property. Of course, what you think property is, in the first place, has to be explained first. Why do you believe the ownership of property should be protected, in terms of morality as opposed to terms of economic efficiency? How is the deprivation of property, if known prior to said property's creation, undue harm? (Conversely, if copyright terms are extended post the creation of property, isn't that, then, a seizure from the public, who would have obtained ownership otherwise, and thus a violation of the fourth?)
Milo
Well, this stuff has been prettily thoroughly hashed out in the literature. I only brought up Locke because most people don't seem to realize that the philosophical definition of property has occupied almost as much time of our greatest thinkers as justice, and had a much more significant effect on our government and laws, if not morals. I don't think I'm up to standing on the shoulders of giants here, the air is pretty rarified.
Hard to argue with the old "they are because I say they are." It may be patently obvious to you, but it can't be that obvious if you can't even defend it. Goods are property because you have given something for them: your labor (originally, later, your money.) What have you given for an idea? What if someone else has the same idea? Haven't they given exactly what you have, without depriving you of anything? Why don't they have the same property right in the idea you have?
Natural rights are exactly that: rights that exist prior to a government; they have a moral validity. If, as seems to be the case, you would rather argue utility than rights, I would also prefer that. (You do seem to be getting mixed up between rights, utility and law, though, so we should try and figure out on which grounds we are arguing... trying to draw a line between any two would be a doctoral dissertation in the making.)
If deprivation of property is "harm. Period, paragraph." then you must have a hard time holding down a job. You work, someone else gets your property. I doubt you really believe that is a hardship (although it was, essentially, the Marxist argument against capitalism.) You might argue that you know they will own what you create prior to your creating it, and they pay you, so they legitimately own the property (in the absence of you actually having arguments, I will put words in your mouth.) Similarly, if you create a work, knowing that your creation is yours for a limited time only and you decide to do it anyway, then you receive exactly the benefit you anticipated (or more if Congress decides to extend the term in the meantime.) You have not been deprived of anything. (Or, if it makes you feel better, consider the loss of rights a tax. Are taxes undue harm?)
Well, it is officially the weekend, and the bar calls. So, not knowing who you are, I guess you get the last word, which I will dutifully read on Monday.
Milo