Slashdot Mirror


Lessig - Public Domain Dead in 35 Years

tcd004 writes "Lawrence Lessig, in an article on the Foreign Policy site, predicts that the public domain will die a slow death at the hands of anti-piracy efforts. From the article: 'The danger remains invisible to most, hidden by the zeal of a war on piracy. And that is how the public domain may die a quiet death, extinguished by self-righteous extremism, long before many even recognize it is gone.'"

31 of 469 comments (clear)

  1. Going to die? by sqlrob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing has fallen into the public domain for almost a half century before I was born.

    It's dead Jim.

    1. Re:Going to die? by sqlrob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's still the idea that *EVERYTHING* ends up in the public domain. That's what's dying.

      An author can easily purposely put something in the public domain, or use a copyleft that is almost as good. That doesn't solve the original problem.

    2. Re:Going to die? by DigitumDei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People seem to forget that the pop culture that various industries churn out is not the only creative output in the world; it's just the most visible. And yes "it" will probably never get into the public domain.

      There is however a huge, and admittedly 99% crap, amount of work that is released with creative commons style licenses, or released into the public domain immediately.

      I hope that over the years -- as popular culture becomes more and more formula driven -- that a new and burgeoning culture arises that sees the various sharing licenses as well as public domain as the best option. Where anyone can release their creative works into the world, and their merits, not their marketing budget, determines whether it is successful or not.

    3. Re:Going to die? by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Nothing has fallen into the public domain for almost a half century before I was born.


      That is amazing isn't it? Back in the days when it took years to publish and distribute a work artists were given fourteen years of protection. Today, despite near instantaneous communication, they are protected for a hundred years or better. It's no wonder that so many people don't give a damn about sharing copyrighted works.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    4. Re:Going to die? by Brunellus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...and now let's go back to reality. Marketing budgets cut through the babel of thousands--millions !--of other products competing for attention in the marketplace. The only "merit" that ensures survival in the marketplace is marketability.

      That's a hard truth, but it's what it is. Great work is seldom popular work.

    5. Re:Going to die? by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I never understood that...

      I do like to buy DVD's of movies that I enjoy, and the industry's insistence that they don't release movies in certain regions just gives me one less reason to give them my money.

      There's three reasons I can think for this.

      The first reason is simply that while digital content may cost a lot to produce originally, making copies is basically free. This means that every sale is profitable, no matter how low the cost. This, in turn, means that there is no market where selling the product wouldn't be profitable, no matter how low a price you must set in order to sell it. So, you sell the same product for a high price in rich western countries, and for a low price in poorer countries, maximizing the profits in each particular area. However, this model breaks down if someone buys the product in areas of low price and sells it in areas of high price.

      In other words, companies want the benefits of globalization for themselves but not for their customers.

      The second reason is that companies like to sell the same product several times. First you buy a ticket to see a movie in a theater, then you buy it in a DVD. If theater and DVD versions were available at the same time, they would compete with each other - you might decide to simply rent the DVD and skip the theater completely. Because of this, the DVD version only appears after the movie has disappeared from the theater.

      Now, movies are shown at different times at different countries. This means that a movie that debuted in the US is already released as a DVD there when it is shown in theaters here in Europe. Againt, the companies don't want their customers to get the benefits of globalization, but want them reserved for themselves.

      The third reason is the simple fact that company executives are human beings (as hard as that might be to believe sometimes), and human beings like power; telling others what they can and cannot do gives them kicks, so why not do so ?

      Of course, I'm sure most future players will be hackable/flashable.

      Isn't circumventing access control a crime nowadays in the US ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Going to die? by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's no wonder that so many people don't give a damn about sharing copyrighted works.
      *cough*

      You mistake the freeloader attitude for an understanding and rejection of the issue.

      Most people don't give a damn cause they get it for free, not because of some political opinion.

    7. Re:Going to die? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're mostly right, but the mess that is copyright law today certainly contributes to people's attitudes about violating those copyrights. People don't feel bad about downloading songs without paying for them because they don't see it having a meaningful effect upon the artists. If, however, musicians were actually paid the money for those songs a lot of people might feel guilty about "ripping off" their favorite bands. As it is now most musicians survive on touring and merchandising.

    8. Re:Going to die? by antiMStroll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Freeloaders? You mean people who pay the taxes, go to war, police the streets, put in all the gruntwork to maintain the safe and stable society in which 'creative types' flourish? Or did you mean the freeloaders who create the folklores, myths, legends and stories others rework and repackage as their personal IP? I'll venture the framers of the Constituition would have used the term citizenry instead, whether they cared about the politics or not, but the country's changed a great deal from those heady and idealistic days.

    9. Re:Going to die? by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're right -- you're not a lawyer. The entire point of copyright is the idea that it expires. Copyright wasn't ever intended to be an entitlement for artists; it was intended to be a social contract to encourage creativity. Copyright expires because the natural and intended state of creative works is the Public Domain. As a society, we're giving artists a gift of limited-time monopoly. If at any point artists fail to hold up their end of the bargain (as I would assert they're doing now), we are no longer obligated to hold up our end, and are morally justified in ignoring the copyright.

      In other words, the choice is between limited copyright and no protection at all, not limited copyright and eternal entitlement.

      By the way, the 14 year term did refer to copyright -- a hundred years ago. Now, mostly because of Disney's lobbying (we couldn't have Mickey Mouse becoming public domain, now could we?), copyright is life of author + 70 years, or 100 years in the case of works created by a corporation. It cannot be passed down to your executors.

      Also, copyright lasts that long whether you assert it or not. You're thinking of trademarks -- they're the things that last indefinitely, but only while you're asserting them.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  2. Lessig? by dsginter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this really Lessig writing or is he just regurgitating Ray Bradbury?

    In any event, people simply don't care. As long as they have a cool ringtone, that is.

    --
    More
  3. People forget by Peaker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    that the main purpose of copyright, was to enhance the public domain.

    1. Re:People forget by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The main purpose of copyright was to ensure that artists would have an incentive to create new content. Period.

      Now, the US constitution (which is one of many documents the world over that calls for copyrights, etc) calls for "limited times" which implies that part of that mechanism is ensuring content falls into the public domain.

      But that's not the reason for the copyright, indeed it could be argued that putting stuff in the public domain is a part of the incentive (ie you're putting the cart before the horse): by ensuring stuff eventually gets put in the public domain, artists can build upon the works of others and, in the past when copyrights lasted a few decades, artists had an incentive to continue creating rather than relying upon a back-catalog of stuff they did in their 20s to keep them fed in their 50s and 60s.

      We want content, we want it in general circulation and accessable to everyone. Whether it's public domain or not is more a matter of practicalities, not of some greater goal.

      Disclaimer: this doesn't not mean I don't like the public domain, or am in favour of current copyright limits and evil absurdities like the DMCA's ACMs/CCMs.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  4. Fight back! by alexwcovington · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why everything I write on Wikipedia is still released into the public domain.

    --
    (It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
    1. Re:Fight back! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please-kindly-note that while YOU may release anything you write on Wikipedia into the public domain, Wikipedia itself IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN, it's available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), thankyou-verymuch.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  5. Will it be dead? by 3CRanch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What a stupid thing to suggest.

    As long as people are out there sharing ideas freely, it'll survive. It may not get as much attention as it does right now (i.e. all the attention open source gets right now), but as a concept, it cannot die.

    There, I had a thought and shared it. PD was just reborn ;)

  6. I disagree by marcantonio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In a free society the public domain will never die. It's part of our culture. There will come a point when things get so bad that people will just stop caring about the lawyers and self-righteous extremism. Look at what a joke patents are becoming. If it's get ridiculous enough and enough people care about, it will change.

    Although, things aren't so great right now, and will probably get worse before they get better.

    1. Re:I disagree by bersl2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, then this will be a great test of our "free society." Does it still exist to the extent that this problem can be corrected?

  7. Anti-piracy? by bedroll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lessig himself teaches that, since the failing of Eldred, public domain will die due to lobbying and retroactive term extensions. That's not an anti-piracy measure, it's just big companies controlling congress.

  8. Public Domain's Not Dead, Just On Hold by mikeboone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Public domain is just on hold for a while. Hey, we only have to wait until 2019 to get our hands on that hot 1923 copyrighted material.

    Congress wouldn't extend copyright again, would they?

    Of course, new stuff locked down by DRM won't know when it's supposed to expire, so 90+ years when it's supposed to expire, no one will know what to do with the scrambled bits. :(

  9. Culture of Greed by digitaldc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what happens when the motivating factor is to maximize profits. If someone can make a profit from it, it gets patented and copyrighted.
    What is the incentive for people to give away things when the trend is to become wealthy as quickly as possible?
    People who already are wealthy are the ones with the greatest means and free time to create more wealth...it is a mindset.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  10. Authors have control by G4from128k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Within every DRM system there will always be a way for the author to set the copy rights to allow freely made copies. There are always people who want their stuff copied or who don't care or who don't want the recipient encumbered by any restrictions.

    That said, PHBs and paternalist OSes from Redmond may decide the implement restrictive DRM settings for their own idiotic reasons. I noticed more than one company annual report that uses a password protected PDF to prevent copy-past operations for who knows what reason. Yet the first time a small content creator's use of DRM causes problems for their big client, the small company will "turn off" DRM.

    As long as there are people that want to be heard as far and wide as possible, there will be a public domain.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  11. Another Prohibition by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's very likely that Lessig is right. Meanwhile, personal casual copying will continue--on a reduced level. Average consumers will have DRMed gear.

    Only about one in twenty or one in a hundred will go to the effort of buying the illegally chipped merchandise that will become available in flea markets, on the Internet, and via other black-market channels. This gear will be sold like the pressed-grape-concentrate bricks of the Prohibition era, which came with detailed instructions explaining that it was totally illegal to use them to make wine and giving careful step-by-step directions on what you must not do to stay legal.

    It will create more social unrest, injustice, and disrespect for the law. As with prohibition, and with current marijuana laws, a huge fraction of the population will be felons according to the law. Enforcement will be inconsistent and selective. Most people breaking the law will not be deterred because they will feel that getting caught is unlikely and totally a matter of bad luck.

    My analog cassette player died last year. My old CD player is starting to become unreliable. I'm not sure what the useful life of a solid-state laser is, but I'm beginning to suspect it's less than ten years. The next one I buy will probably have DRM.

    Prohibition eventually ended, the "war on drugs" will eventually end, and the war on the public domain will eventually end. Probably not in my lifetime, though, and not until a lot of damage and misery has occurred.

  12. Re:I foresee a crisis at Disney by Iriel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Warning: I'm actually serious about this.

    I'll be terrified to see the day that the USPTO actually starts selling the rights to public domain works of unknown origin.

    I can honestly see it happening.

    --
    Perfecting Discordia
    www.stevenvansickle.com
  13. Misleading Catch Phrase by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it sounds catchy, it's not really as if public domain is _really_ going to die. What's going to happen is that copyright becomes stronger and lasts longer, and eventually copyrighted material might never enter the public domain again.

    But plenty of people love to share their work and ideas. Some of these people are going to be putting stuff in the public domain. Also, with copyleft and similar policies, a lot of copyrighted material is going to provide similar benefits to public material (reusability).

    All is not lost, and all won't be lost as long as enough people behave socially rather than trying to grab as much money and power as they can.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  14. Re:I foresee a crisis at Disney by Total_Wimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does it mean that Disney will have to actually come up with new stories instead of ripping off Grimm brothers et al?

    You see, that's exactly the problem. They have you using words like "ripping off" to describe what they do with thos public domain stories. As long as the public feels like this then congress can do whatever it wants (translation:whatever is suggested to it by the media giants) with copyright law.

    I realize you were just pointing out hipochricy. But the terms you used to do it, so pervasive in our society, are the exact terms and feelings Disney counts on so the public never questions their "right" to keep their works locked away forever.

    TW

  15. Re:Seriously by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Insightful
    > Over my dead body.

    "That can be arranged."
    - RIAA

    "*shrug*, *BLAM*"
    - Your government

  16. In 35 years... by Sun+Rider · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're assuming that in 35 years the western countries will still rule the world.

    1. Re:In 35 years... by Dhaos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I assume you're hinting at future Chinese dominance and China's current attitude toward Intellectual Property?

      There are two reasons to expect these protectionist IP trends to continue, even if the Western world loses its position in the front seat of global policy.

      For one, countries will tend to use loose intellectual property standards to get the leg up on other countries if they feel they are "behind." The United States stole a good amount of British IP after divorcing themselves from the crown, but after the economy grew, they implemented more normal standards. Look for China, and other industrializing nations, to operate in the same way- IP rules and protections will come as their economy stabilizes.

      Secondly, we're talking about multinational corporations here. The fate of these large conglomerates is not necessarily tied to the waning or waxing fortunes of the Western world. These companies will leverage politicians in all countries by appealing to greed, as they always do. Rest assured that they will try to keep themselves, and their oh-so-valuable IP, well-protected.

      Our Western IP enforcers may disappear, but new ones will take their place.

      --
      It's not what you know, or even who you know- It's how many people recognize your damn .sig
  17. Re:What are you on? by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most of our culture like our music is produced in the private domain. It used to be that this work would be in the public domain after a small amount of time. In the current system copyright is being extended at such a rate that nothing will ever again be in the public domain. Lessig here is arguing, as he has in the past, that it is important that societies eventually own their culture. With the current mindset that the public should never own creative works, this will not happen. Imagine a world where the widely reproduced creative works from the Renassaince had to be licensed.

  18. Re:I foresee a crisis at Disney by ruzel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In the words of William Faulkner: "Good artist borrow each others idea's -- great artists steal them outright."

    Which also implies that draconian copyright law will make great art one day no longer possible.