Slashdot Mirror


Public Domain Enhancement Act petition

EricEldred writes "Please sign the petition and support the proposed Public Domain Enhancement Act. See eldred.cc for details. 'This statute would require American copyright owners to pay a very low fee (for example, $1) fifty years after a copyrighted work was published. If the owner pays the fee, the copyright will continue for whatever duration Congress sets. But if the copyright is not worth even $1 to the owner, then we believe the work should pass into the public domain.'" See the brief description of the Act if you aren't familiar with what Eldred and Lessig are proposing.

9 of 669 comments (clear)

  1. So we're going to convolute the system more? by SuperDuG · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Let's make it simple, you get it for 50 years to horde and license and then WHAMMO, it's societies to be bettered and shared. You had your time to profit and since we allotted you the time to profit from it we now as society are going to keep it as our own. If in 50 years you haven't profitted from it, then we aren't going to see a use for it either, so it's not our concern and it's dead.

    This whole forever copyright thing is a pain in the ass and quite frankly a load of crap. If you want the legal protection of a copyright then you need to follow the rules, not keep profiting and profiting on it, while society is at your whim. Wuit convoluting an already convoluted system. There are other options, don't bother copyrighting something and then you don't have to worry about it being public domain in 50 years, you can keep it a secret forever.

    Online petitions also don't work, they're too easy to fradulate, if you're really concerned call your representative and talk to them about it, don't put your email address on a weblog and think you've done your civic duty.

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
  2. Re:automate it by PD · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't forget the works of silliness too. There's quite a few pulp novels from 50 years ago that are crumbling or lost, because they were literally printed on cheap paper. These "works of non-brilliance" are still important in their own way.

  3. Re:With the amount of material they generate? by PetiePooo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most copywritten material ISN'T worth $1. Corporations can't afford to pay $1 for everything.

    This is exactly the point. If a corporation can't make a single buck over the next five years on a copyrighted work, then they SHOULD let the copyright lapse and let the work pass into public domain. However, if the copyrighted work is still generating revenue, or they have plans to republish it, then they CAN afford the token fee of $1.

    Brilliant!

  4. One Possible Complaint by JWhitlock · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I imagine a minority of copyright holders will utilize the service if the law goes into effect. This brings up a problem - most government agencies that charge fees do so to save the taxpayers the cost of government services, or only charge those who use the service. One dollar is not going to cover many of the costs of processing forms, maintaining a database, and paying someone to answer the phone.

    I have no problem with taxpayer money going to support something like this, but the industry lobbyists will mention it to lawmakers as a reason to not pass the bill, and it may be hard to argue why it's so important for works from 50 years ago to pass into the public domain. It can be argued, but I doubt I'll see Lessig on CSPAN any time soon.

    While this is a reasonable solution to the problems of creeping copyrights, maybe the fee should be something more substantial ($100? $1000?), so that there is a chance that fees will pay for the service.

  5. Re:You're missing the point by Steve+B · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Or, to put it another way (and I know this will be unpopular), why SHOULD the public get the works? The public are not OWED the works at all.

    One view is that copyright is a natural property right. Another view is that copyright is a creation of the state for a public purpose.

    The latter is the one written into the US Constitution. If you think the former is a better basis for American law, fine; get cracking on obtaining the agreement of 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

    --
    /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  6. Re:automate it by Ost99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That is why the fee should start earlyer (14 years was the old magic number, why not use it again) and increase exponensially...

    If it starts at $100 for year 15, and doubles for every 5th every year after... the fee would be over $800 000 after 80 years.

    Automatic renew process for *all* published works should run any company out of bussiness whit that system.

    - Ost

    --
    ---- Sig. gone.
  7. Fifty years by poptones · · Score: 4, Interesting
    In 50 years the present notion of copyright will be completely antiquated. There is nothing at all to prevent someone RIGHT NOW from making a "project gutenberg" type online publication. The only barrier is to PROFITING from such a project; if I were of the mind I could transcribe my favorite novels, technical works and poetry collections into PDF files, zip them up with an electronic "signature" just so others who found them could be sure of their completeness (at least according to me), and make them available to the entire world. I, you, or anyone can do this right fucking now - copyright laws cannot stop it, governments cannot prevent it. If we actually care about this we should be practicing what we preach and doing exactly this - right now.

    Moreover, commercial entities in other countries (where saner - or even insanely limited - copyright laws exist) could then take those documents and make them available 24/7 in a convenient, indexed format that others could then use for research, teaching, or even pleasure. Anyone would be free to open up their own librarius to the world via p2p communities, usenet groups, and even low cost webhosting services in countries like Russia, Taiwan and Poland. This would force other nations (like ours) to compete by either changing their stupid laws (and thereby allowing US based businesses to compete with these foreign entities) or by shifting the mindshare away from intellectually oppressive regimes and toward nations that better support a creative and free exchange of information.

  8. Self-Assessed fee by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My suggestion is to have a self-assessed
    fee to keep the work in copyright, but
    make the work 'public-domainable' at the
    self-assessed value.

    For example, after an initial copyright
    period, say the 50 years required by the
    Berne convention, the copyright holder
    has to pay a fee of 1% of the value of the
    work for each 10 year extension. The
    copyright holder gets to determine the
    value of the work themselves. But anyone
    can come along and pay the determined
    value to make the work public domain.

    In the case of works with no residual
    value to the holder, or the holder is
    dead & lost, etc. the copyright will
    expire in 50 years, since no one will
    do the paperwork for the assessment.

    In the case of low to moderate value
    works, a copyright holder can keep
    it in force for a nominal fee, or get
    bought out at full value which he
    himself determined.

    In the case of high value works, like
    major motion pictures, the holders will
    get to pay a significant fee to keep it
    in force - i.e. $500k per renewal for
    a $50M movie.

    Daniel

  9. Back to basics on copyright laws! by LeBain · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The Economist had a good editorial earlier this year recommending we go back to the original 14-year copyright, renewable once (for 28 years total maximum.)

    From the editorial:

    Copyright was originally the grant of a temporary government-supported monopoly on copying a work, not a property right. Its sole purpose was to encourage the circulation of ideas by giving creators and publishers a short-term incentive to disseminate their work.
    --
    Give serendipity a chance.