Slashdot Mirror
Public Domain Act Introduced Into Congress
AnElder writes "In his blog yesterday Lawrence Lessig said '...Congresswoman Lofgren (D-CA) and Congressman Doolittle (R-CA) have agreed to introduce the Public Domain Enhancement Act into Congress.' Today the Eldred Act website features two press releases announcing the act's introduction, as well as its immediate support by '...the American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library Association, and the Association of Research Libraries...'" We ran a link to the petition supporting this Act a few weeks back.
Yeah I think it would be better if it were sometime around 20 years (maybe that magical 14 that people always talk about) and starting with a long time before needing to pay the fee (10-12 years), and as time goes on, the gap between fees shrinks. Might I even call it ... progressive? =)
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
I wonder if slashdot could come up with that kind of money if it made the attempt.
The "good guys" generally don't have the money to take on the "bad guys". The "bad guys" are "bad" because they have money - LOTS of money. The "good guys" are "good", generally, because they don't.
Case in point, IBM vs SCO. There've been a number of (admittedly piss-taking) posts on here from people who say "Who do I support? IBM's mega-rich, but SCO're a bunch of fucktards."
Until the "good guys" have the financial wherewithal to take on the "bad guys", corrupt governments will be more easily influenced by the corporations - The exact groups that should have precisely zero say in anything to do with how a country is run.
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
An uncompromising conservative who has forged a reputation as a reliable ally and savvy lawmaker, he's got a wide net of influence that makes him considerably more powerful than he would seem at first. If anyone can get this thing on the agenda, it's him; his relationship with DeLay and Hastert will ensure that.
With the conservative flank well-protected, it's the Democrats -- who, let's tell a hawk from a handsaw here, have often been craven in their defense of entertainment campaign dollars -- that need to be courted.
"Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I'll spend to find out how to get people more."
Imagine: Disney pays the fee for "Steamboat Willie", but not for any other Mickey Mouse cartoons -- and then argues that all other Mickey Mouse cartoons are derivative works of "Steamboat Willie", and are naturally covered by the copyright on that work.
Is there a reason that can't happen?
-snip-
Microsoft? Oracle? Doesn't matter, really. Hell, even game developers are beginning to exploit game communities and user modifications as features to market the game -- before said things exist. I fear a burnout at some point down the road...
-------------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Unfortunatly most people just don't give a fuck, and _that_ is the problem.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I wouldn't shed any tears if the US decided to abandon the Berne Convention. It was a bad idea to begin with -- different countries tend to have different priorities with regards to copyright to begin with, and that's okay, and it's far too European a copyright system anyhow.
I think we were doing better under the 1909 Act, particularly when Congress took a look at the B.C. and rejected it.
-- 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.
With this system, one would be able to go to a web site, and enter "HP Lovecraft" and find out not only if the works are in the public domain, but who actually owns the copyright. I could see it extended so that the copyright owner can even say: You can base some stuff off of my work, Ala Lovecraft and the Cthulhu mythos.
All right, all right, settle down.
(1) Don't preach to me about John McCain. If McCain had won the primary over GWB then the world would be a lot better place today and America's popularity wouldn't be at an all-time low worldwide. Furthermore I totally agree with him on campaign finance, as I have said in other posts in this thread. Unfortunately it will not happen while the Republicans are ruled by an evangelical/neocon cabal of realpolitik nazis (no trolling intended).
(2) "Isn't that giving up the most needed of democratic liberties?" How can you give up something you don't have? What good is a vote when Dubbya can raise $20 million at a fundraising dinner and use it to fund pictures of himself landing on aircraft carriers being shown during the capaign and thereby getting thousands of dimwits to vote for him?
The whole point I was trying to make was: we are already totally marginalised. The congress doesn't give a damn about what the people want in a genuine sense; they only care in the sense that they must manipulate perceptions sufficiently to get reelected. Therefore it is only logical that if we want to exert influence over the political process we must use other avenues to do so.
(3) I don't "suggest trading $ for votes" in the sense you suggest; I suggest trading $ for votes on capital hill, because right now you or I can't trade votes on election day for votes on capital hill with any degree of certainty.
(4) "Fighting fire with fire sometimes leaves nothing but scorched earth." You can use metaphors to demonstrate pretty much anything. "Sometimes the shortest path is through the mud."
(5) Thanks, I read my sig before I chose it.
Read Pynchon.
...what will be put into the public domain that anybody actually wants?
There are many works which are not wanted by enough people to justify putting them back into print. However, if they were public domain, the few individuals who do want them would be able to print or otherwise distribute their own copies. The Gutenberg Project and others like it would benefit greatly from something like this.
TTFN
Who is eligible to reregister, and when can they do it? If something like "its a wondeful life" goes into the public domain, and then 20 years later beecomes a big moneymaker again, can anyone pay $1 and put it back under copyright? Can the original owners do so? Can somone hijack a copyright once its up for renewal? Its only good if once something goes into the public domain it does so in perpetuity, and can never be returned to copyright.
I love the idea of this bill.
But there's a problem, as far as I see:
Doesn't this mean that someone can just pay their $5 immediately upon creating the work, thus registering for the ~50 year extension? That seems bad to me, since essentially every book publisher (etc.) will just pay that fee when they publish. I thought the idea was that works "abandoned" after 50 years would have nobody around to bother to "renew" them, and then they would pass into the public domain. Even with an ammendment to the law, would someone just be able to set up a service that would automatically send in the forms and payment for subscribers' works when it's due?
However, even if most people still pay the fee up front and get the full length of copyright, the database of such works will be extremely useful for things like project Gutenberg, where one of the hardest parts is simply finding out whether a work is still protected.
You also have to remember it may not be the 'RIAA' that gives that $20K. Sony could give $20K, AOLTW $15K, Disney $20k, etc... And they can also give money in other ways, such as foundations or organizations that the politican could be part of. Think about how much trouble Clinton got into over large donations to his library.
First, Movieflix lets you watch the old movies for free. It is just the soft-core pr0n you have to pay for. Second, I'm willing to grant you that there might be some great movies from that period. That isn't the point. The point is that such a small number of people have an interest in those movies that there wouldn't be any competition. (Phillistines!) Third, there are a lot of films from that period that would basically have no audience, even if there are some gems. Yet having these films in the public domain would be a great boon to film scholars. Fourth, we aren't just talking about films, but all manner of works. And what makes tracking the copyright holders down hard is that people die, and so you have to figure out who inherited the copyright. Fifth, Lessig estimates that this would put over 90% of material from 1923--532 in the public domain. But I guess you shouldn't argue with an anonymous coward; people might not be able to tell the difference.
This post is dedicated to all of those
you can't use Mickey Mouse because he's still under copyright.
Mickey has already fallen into the public domain for reasons other than the expiration of copyright. Try lack of notice when it was required.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Mickey is trademarked, so it doesn't matter what happens to Steamboat Willy. You still can't use Disney's trademarked character.
Not true. At my local Walgreens store, I find VHS copies of public-domain films starring Bugs Bunny. These films were first published before 1964, but Warner never got around to renewing their copyrights at the 28-year mark. (Copyright in all works first published in 1964-1977 was renewed automatically by a 1992 law.) The boxes of the tapes have the text "Bugs Bunny" and a drawing of a rabbit on the front and "Fresh Hare, Falling Hare, The Wabbit Who Came To Supper; this video contains public domain audiovisual works and is not sponsored or endorsed by the original authors of the works." No, I don't remember the citation of the relevant court case. Anybody else?
If Warner wants to compete, it can still compete on technical quality. The video I bought had a crappy transfer with blown highlights; Bugs often looked all-white instead of gray and white as he is supposed to appear.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If you want the EFF to buy off a congressman, send them a $20 check
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a charity. Charities do not make political campaign contributions. Political action committees (PACs) are not charities and can and do give money to candidates. Does there exist a PAC in the United States that focuses on the same issues that EFF follows?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
I just used the form to send a message to The Honorable Mark E. Souder, which went something like this:
To Slashdot readers residing in the United States (citizens and lawful permanent residents): Rephrase the above message in your own words, look up your representative, and send it to him or her. If your rep has already signed on (e.g. Lofgren or Doolittle), change the end to something like "Thank you for sponsoring the Public Domain Enhancement Act." However, if you live in 45th California, don't expect much of a response out of Rep. Mary Bono.
Will I retire or break 10K?
At my local Walgreens store, I find VHS copies of public-domain films starring Bugs Bunny.
Yeah, and those particular images of Bugs Bunny are now in the public domain, but if you try to make your own brand-new Bugs Bunny cartoon, you're still going to fall afoul of the Warners lawyers, because Bugs is still a trademark of Warners. Which was my original point.
You're right that it's not quite as simple as I originally implied, but trademarks are still a very important factor. If Steamboat Willy went into the public domain, then we might see cheap knock-offs of Steamboat Willy on the market, but not cheap knock-offs of Micky in general.
$90 times the millions of crappy RIAA songs.
$90 times the # of disney movies ever made.
$90 times the # of books that were ever written.
Unfortunately, our position isn't backed by enough money to make this a black or white issue. I'm happy starting with just a foot in the door. Hopefully we can improve our stance from there.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
When you evaluate the strength of something, you have to look at not only its immediate action, but its long term effects.
One thing we know about government is that if there's a "temporary" fee, it will last forever. And those "small" fees are almost certain to grow.
By introducing this bill as a "miniscule" fee, they've effectively planted the seed that would all but defeat the existing "eternal" copyright insanities.
In short, we would have a say because government would have a reason to listen - $$ talks louder than any number of letters, faxes, and emails.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Note that Micro$loth is on the top of the list of donors.
If you actually believe that a letter from you and a letter from Microsoft have the same weight in determining how Senator McCain votes on any specific issue, you're as clueless as the rest of your post shows you as.
The fact that you got moderated up to 5 is a demonstration of why I expect the US high-tech community to lose its freedom to create in the long run and why the laws Hollywood wants, it's going to get. Geeks think of themselves as "above" the political process, and more importantly, above bothering to find out how it works. They actually take your ideas pulled out of some half-assed memory of a high school civics class seriously
Ask the guy at MS who wrote the check to McCain, "populist hero". He knows how the process works.
You obviously don't.
This bill actually has a chance to pass, as Hollywood needs a way to strip-mine the public domain, too, and it enables the content industry to keep anything with possible commercial value while work of anybody else goes into the public domain, for our use, and theirs.
Note the name of the sponsors. They aren't exactly known for being our friends.
Tech Public Policy stuff
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).
While I think this is a good idea for enriching the public domain, why couldn't we do something similar for artists? While this may seem impractical since many forms of art and media are collabrative works, would you not agree that an artist deserves protection from corporations just as the public does? It seems to me that we should be able to protect all three of these: the public, the artists, and the businesses. Perhaps work for hire should include automatic profit sharing equal to the artists salary as a percentage of (double?) the total project cost with that percentage of the copright returning to the artist automatically after 20 years. Sure coporations would find ways around ideas but the loop holes could hopefully be plugged and hopefully in a way that doesn't create byzantine beaucracy. anyways that's just one idea and I'm am sure there even better ones out there that make for a better balance that would enrich everyone's life.
/rant
Seriously though, think about it. If you achive a good balance where artists are well provided for, and corporations are well provided for, as well as public domain being provided for, do you not create more competition? Thus loosening the grip of corporations on the public as well as on artists? Thus media would not be so sensationalistic homoganized and formulaic? Thus more people would achive more prosperity? Thus society would see a rennaisance of creativity?
All I ask for is that corporations be limited. Not limited to the point at which they cannot do business but limited to the extent as to their power to push against the artists and public. There is no need for them to have that kind of power. Would the world be so much worse off if disney was like half it's size?
You know, the more I think about it the more I convice myself that the only way to make this happen would be to start a company that worked in this manner and beat the competition so badly that it becomes more of a social norm. ie: well paid employees = happy employees = successfull company. sadly though it seems to me there will always be good and bad companies that are successfull because they are good and because they are bad -- because that's the way humans work; Some take well to "tough love" while some learn to prosper though nurturing...
oh well,
-ac
This is dumb. First off copyrighted works aren't registered or stored anywhere. They only come into play when contested. So there is no way to track what has or has not been taxed and for how long. For example Disney has zillons of copyrighted items, however there is no list or database of them anywhere so how does anyone know which ones have been taxed or not and for how long? They don't.
Second problem is there is no definition for a copyrighted work. Once again with Disney, a cartoon could be considered copyrighted, each frame could be considered copyrighted, the script could be considered copyrighted, the music could be copyrighted, etc. Now is that all ONE copyright or 15? Once again it doesn't come into play until contested.
The original system was the best idea, after X number of years it goes into public domain period. Simple easy clean and no goofy taxes to track.
As was already discussed in the previous /. discussion, and is stated in the law, the company could not extend their copyrights "into eternaty", they could only do it to when copyrights expire currently, which I believe is like 75 or 80s after publication, or maybe the author's death. Sorry, look at some other posts.
And as for the $1, thats so people who own their OWN copyrights, the 'little people', and who feel it's important to them to keep their works under copyright but just might not have $10,000 lying around. Doing what you suggest would essentially make it so only big companies could hold copyrights, which really isn't what we want.
And if you say that people who don't have much money 50 years after the publication of their work, maybe you don't know their situation. Maybe their work isn't a big seller, but maybe its a steady one, that brings in a small paycheck each month that helps the author get by (there are books like that). Or maybe the author wrote a book about being on the Titanic, and this law had been in effect a couple of years ago, and the 50 years was about to be up when the author finds out that the James Cameron movie is about to be released and he/she will be able to make alot of money off it.
I sorry about being a bit rambling with that last paragraph, I'm not sure how important it really was to include.
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
Take Linux -- multiple contributors who all hold copyright. Do *all* the copyright holders have to pay to renew their copyright, or the GPL shuts down the entire linux project? After all, you can't legally put Public Domain works under the GPL. For that matter, how does this cover derivative works of software code?