Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Woman Who Established Fair Use

Posted by kdawson on from the one-of-a-kind dept.

The Narrative Fallacy writes "The Washington Post has an interesting profile on Barbara A. Ringer, who joined the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress in 1949 and spent 21 years drafting the legislation and lobbying Congress before the Copyright Act of 1976 was finally passed. Ringer wrote most of the bill herself. 'Barbara had personal and political skills that could meld together the contentious factions that threatened to tear apart every compromise in the 20 year road to passage of the 1976 Act,' wrote copyright lawyer William Patry. The act codified the fair use defense to copyright infringement. For the first time, scholars and reviewers could quote briefly from copyrighted works without having to pay fees. With the 1976 act that Ringer conceived, an author owned the copyright for his or her lifetime plus 50 years. Previously under the old 1909 law, an author owned the copyright for 28 years from the date of publication and unless the copyright was renewed, the work entered the public domain, and the author lost any right to royalties. Ringer received the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service, the highest honor for a federal worker. Ringer remained active in copyright law for years, attending international conferences and filing briefs with the Supreme Court before her death earlier this year at age 83. 'Her contributions were monumental,' said Marybeth Peters, the Library of Congress's current register of copyrights. 'She blazed trails. She was a heroine.'"

59 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Now I know who to blame by Daengbo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now I know who to blame for the demise of the public domain. It's all her fault! Get her! I've got my pitchfork. j/k

    --
    Put identity in the browser.
    1. Re:Now I know who to blame by Gerzel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Her law as written wasn't too bad. Back then a lifetime +50 wasn't that bad; though I do think it is a bit much. I'd say lifetime or n years, where n is the average life span of the time and set n every 20 years, which ever is greater if you don't want to have to establish stricter registrations(to establish start dates).

    2. Re:Now I know who to blame by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Can we attempt to put this into a little better perspective?

      A lifetime is generally unfair to a lot of authors - if the old dude wrote his greatest work only days, months, or two or three years before croaking, he and his estate make very little.

      Lifetime +50 might be a little to much, but I can live with it.

      Lifetime +25 seems reasonable to me - even if the old goat's work is published the day he dies, his estate has a quarter CENTURY to make something of his work.

      The problem is, WHO OWNS MOST COPYRIGHT TODAY?!?!?!

      It isn't the old goat who wrote a book, a song, or a software. It's the CORPORATIONS!

      And, what, precisely, is the lifetime of any given corporation? In effect, we have non-expiring copyright law today. Even if a corporation goes bankrupt, someone, somewhere BUYS their assets, becoming the new corporate owner of the copyright.

      Time limits on copyright needs to be addressed all over again, bearing in mind that the vast bulk of copyrights are either created by corporations and/or their employees in the name of the corporation, OR bought by corporations.

      Personally, I could justify limiting all copyright to 50 years, period.

      Aside from that, fair use really needs to be defined quite clearly. Copyright law was NEVER intended to inhibit creativity and free expression. It's ONLY legitimate purpose is to prevent other people from plegiarising and/or profiting from an original work.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Now I know who to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just wanted to say thanks for this post, because it seems most folks on the 'net seem to think that the artists own the copyright, and assume that "lifetime plus x years" apply when the author/artist dies. There are very few authors, musicians, etc., who actually own the copyright to their work. This scheme would have only worked back in the days of Charles Dickens, etc.

    4. Re:Now I know who to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not quite accurate. Songwriters often own the copyright to the song just not he recorded performance.

    5. Re:Now I know who to blame by Kalten · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is, WHO OWNS MOST COPYRIGHT TODAY?!?!?!

      It isn't the old goat who wrote a book, a song, or a software. It's the CORPORATIONS!

      And, what, precisely, is the lifetime of any given corporation? In effect, we have non-expiring copyright law today. Even if a corporation goes bankrupt, someone, somewhere BUYS their assets, becoming the new corporate owner of the copyright.

      Cornell University Law School is your friend when you want to find out about things like this--they have the U.S. Code available online.

      In particular, 17 USC 302 is edifying. Copyright in works for hire persists for 95 years from first publication, or 120 years from creation, whichever comes first. If it's not a work for hire, then it's life of the author + 70 years. Older works (first published prior to 1978) are covered under different provisions.

    6. Re:Now I know who to blame by belg4mit · · Score: 2, Informative

      >A lifetime is generally unfair to a lot of authors^Wother people in society

      There, fixed that for you. Seriously, why should you be able (or want to) rest
      on your laurels your whole life for the production of one item? If you make
      enough money in publication date+X years and decide to be a lazy sod or
      philanthropist, then so be it. But you, and the Nth-generation descendants
      ought not continue to collect royalties and stymie the creativity of others
      for what is effectively perpetuity i.e; the entire/majority lifespan of others.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    7. Re:Now I know who to blame by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A lifetime is generally unfair to a lot of authors - if the old dude wrote his greatest work only days, months, or two or three years before croaking, he and his estate make very little.

      You don't seem to understand why we have copyright law. The purpose of copyright isn't to enrich the creator and his heirs, it's to encourage the creator to create more. If he dies, that's over. If the heirs want to get rich on creations, let them write their own shit. And don't bother with the "pass on the family business" thing, because if a plumber wants to pass his business on to his son, he better teach him plumbing.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    8. Re:Now I know who to blame by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uh why not just make it "Y years from first publication" regardless of when the author dies?

      And frankly, I think depending on the work, the term should be from 3 years (graphics hardware and printer drivers) to, say, seven, with no more than three renews, which require payment. But we can argue about the numbers.

      Actually, I wouldn't mind if the term was indefinite, as long as you had to declare a value that you a) pay copyright taxes on and b) must sell for if offered by an organization that buys IP into the public domain. I don't like the idea of all the government revenue, but I do like the idea of not over-valuing IP. Also, there ought to be a grace period depending on industry for determining value.

      Hmm.. On second thought.. I think I know what how to handle the revenue. The copyright tax should be somewhat different from a regular tax, in that it never hits the general fund. The copyright office itself should be an organization charged with buying works into the public domain, and they should spend 100% of the "copyright tax" money on that every year. It will be easy to figure out, since they would have a database of the buy-prices for everything.

      The tax would begin after the Nth year (where N is some number that we will certainly argue about), and the office could take it's administrative costs out of the initial fees for the first issuance.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:Now I know who to blame by somanyrobots · · Score: 5, Informative

      You do know that life + 70 (the current term in the US, as of the 1998 Sonny Bono Act) only applies to the life of the original creator, right? It has no relevance to the lifetime of a corporation; even if the rights are transferred to a corporation, copyright still expires 70 years after the death of the original author.

      For works that are created by corporations (i.e. works-for-hire), copyright lasts for 95 years after publication.

      Not that I don't agree with you; copyright extension is awful, and I personally wish it were possible to revert copyright to 28+28 or even the original (1790 Copyright Act) term of 14 years + a 14 year renewal. But you should check your facts.

    10. Re:Now I know who to blame by FiloEleven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You make a good point, but I think you're being a little harsh. There are other assets that get passed on after death, like stocks and wealth and houses and boats. Why should copyright be any different? It's also no guarantee that the heirs will get rich--the vast majority of copyrighted works don't make much money, especially after the first few years.

      I personally think that the 1909 law (28 years + renewal) was a much better length of time (though I am skeptical about the renewal), and that fair use should have simply been added to that law. If the unfortunate author would still have held copyright while living, it makes sense that his heirs would retain it until it expired, yet the strict time limit would keep pressure on a still-living author to create more works.

      --
      Your brain is not a computer.
    11. Re:Now I know who to blame by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And don't bother with the "pass on the family business" thing, because if a plumber wants to pass his business on to his son, he better teach him plumbing.

      If a plumber does a job and then dies before collecting payment, his heirs are entitled to the money. That's the reasoning behind extending copyright past the life of the author.

      That being said, the current "life plus the number of years since Steamboat Willie was released" is insane.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    12. Re:Now I know who to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are other assets that get passed on after death, like stocks and wealth and houses and boats. Why should copyright be any different?

      Well let's see. All the things you mention are MATERIAL THINGS. Copyright is not. You're damned right we should treat IDEAS different from MATERIAL GOODS.

    13. Re:Now I know who to blame by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lifetime is generally unfair to a lot of authors - if the old dude wrote his greatest work only days, months, or two or three years before croaking, he and his estate make very little.

      You don't seem to understand why we have copyright law. The purpose of copyright isn't to enrich the creator and his heirs, it's to encourage the creator to create more. If he dies, that's over. If the heirs want to get rich on creations, let them write their own shit. And don't bother with the "pass on the family business" thing, because if a plumber wants to pass his business on to his son, he better teach him plumbing.

      And if an old dude keeps writing because he knows it will help his younger wife and children once he's gone, he's been suitably encouraged.

      I wouldn't tie life to it at all. Just make it 50 years and be done. Or make it 15, $1 renewal for another 35.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    14. Re:Now I know who to blame by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      OK, I'll repeat. "In effect, we have non-expiring copyright law today."

      A copyright on a corporate work goes into effect right now, tonight. How many people born tonight will live long enough to see that work go into the public domain? 95 years is a long time. My great-grandchildren may be dying of old age by that time!!

      So, IN EFFECT, we have non-expiring copyright law.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    15. Re:Now I know who to blame by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "only have to renew if it's worth it" is bullshit. The ONLY reason to have copyright last beyond ten years is for the case of people for whom what they have created isn't worth it, yet.

      Something like 10 years, non-renewable, starting from the time the work becomes generally available, might be sane. This means that someone who has been shopping around for a publisher for 10 years won't wake up one day to find that the first publisher to reject him has just started selling his book (in electronic form) at no risk and pure profit.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    16. Re:Now I know who to blame by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      define "generally available".
      If some college student working at one of the publishers he sends it to leaks it in a torrent has it been made "generally available"?
      If he then sues that publisher and the draft becomes part of publicly available court records has it been made "generally available"?
      What about changes between publications?
      If at age 10 I write a short story and the teacher pins it on the classroom wall for everyone to read or it gets included in some student publication and at age 20 I decide to flesh it out into a better written longer short story will I still have copyright?
      How big does the change have to be to get my 10 years back?

    17. Re:Now I know who to blame by Rakarra · · Score: 2, Informative

      When a copyright is retroactively extended every 20 years for an additional 20 years, they really do become "non-expiring."

    18. Re:Now I know who to blame by Rakarra · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, the fact is, few works are worth millions and millions of dollars to an author. An author may reach the end of his productive career, and all of his works taken together may earn him a couple thousand dollars a month. He deserves that couple of thousand, IMO. More, if he dies a short time after publication, his estate should be entitled to something.

      Why? Why should the estate get anything from the public (copyright is, after all, justified (and justifiable) taking from the public) for years after the author died? What did they do to earn this continued revenue stream, again, courtesy of the American public?

    19. Re:Now I know who to blame by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Informative
      There are very few authors, musicians, etc., who actually own the copyright to their work.

      Wrong. Most writers certainly DO own the copyright to their work. Even journalists. The publisher has the right to publish it, and keeps most of the profit, but usually even those rights expire after the book goes out of print, or for journalists, a short time after the original publication (which is why columnists can publish books collecting or based on their columns).

      Just look at the copyright notices on a book: almost always it lists the author's name.

    20. Re:Now I know who to blame by MikeBabcock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Copyright isn't and was never designed to be an asset of any kind. Art works are to be considered part of the public good, and to encourage their creation, we hold our breath and let the artists have temporary Copyright despite the stench.

      Copyright is to encourage the creation of public domain accessible works, which should be free to all within a reasonable time to enrich society and culture.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    21. Re:Now I know who to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "But that's just a nonsense. The copyright on works expire every day."

      No, they don't. Not in some countries for a while now. Not when copyright is arbitrarily and retroactively extended beyond the expiry date that applied when the work was originally created. In the U.S., there won't be any new works entering the public domain (unless people explicitly put them there) until 2019.

      How much do you want to bet that before 2019 some enterprising legislator will come up with some dubious reason for extending copyright terms yet again, and "stealing" another 20 years from the public domain?

    22. Re:Now I know who to blame by amoeba1911 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would people bother getting their dead relative's manuscript published? Why do people like drawing things? Why do people like singing music? Why do people like performing plays? Why do people express themselves artistically? Why do people enjoy art?

      Answer: People naturally create art without any financial incentive. Look at remote tribes in Africa singing, telling stories, decorating things with drawings, that's all art for the sake of art, there's no financial reward involved.

      When you get down to it, art is not a business. The moment art was made into a business was the death of art. Today there is no more art, there's people who think if there's no profit then why should I bother? Art for profit is not art, it might as well just be fart.

    23. Re:Now I know who to blame by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is what it always was.

      Society at large are bearing the burden of those creators. And if we're going to bear that burden, we should be able to maximize our return on investment by distributing the creations as far and wide as we can.

      Copyright destroys value. It's effect is to systematically remove access to knowledge and culture from the majority of people in the world.

      We need a different mechanism that doesn't destroy the value of the creation as a side effect of calculating the reward due for the creative act. If we agree on one, we'll all get richer. Societies that refuse to do so will have a population that are stupid and ignorant compared to the global average, and will be on a one way ticket to third world status.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    24. Re:Now I know who to blame by Teancum · · Score: 2, Informative

      No.

      The US was created for many reasons, one big one being because Britain didn't want us anymore(at least not enough to take us). Copyright law was not on the lips of the founding fathers. Tax law, and Torture, and lack of Due Process, where on their lips.

      This isn't quite true either. Admittedly copyright was not the leading issue of the day, but abuses of crown copyright (including "eternal copyright" and having the legal code copyright protected and exclusively printed by a single "licensed" printing house) were among the various "abuses" that did trigger the revolution against England.

      The stamp act in particular was one that incensed the publishers... where a stamp had to be paid for (and affixed to) anything created in a printing house. This also included schedules for certain items including the Bible that were simply prohibited from being published in America.

      The first Bible printed in America was a translation of the King James Version of the Bible in one of the Algonquian languages. An English-language edition of the Bible didn't even get published in America until after the Declaration of Independence, and even then it was considered an act of rebellion. The British printers wanted the revenue from bible production, which is one of the reasons for this law. The reason I'm mentioning the Bible in particular is due to what should be obvious religious influences in the USA and how much publication of the scriptures is linked to political freedoms in general, and how absurd it sounds to be arrested for simply the act of copying the contents of the Bible... even a simple excerpt that today would be considered fair-use.

      I should also note that copyright issues were important enough to the founders of the American Republic that the copyright clause was put into the very first article of the Constitution and put very strong limitations on its implementation that were designed to explicitly prohibit abuses as seen by English copyright law. In addition, one of the very first acts of the first Congress of the USA under the current constitution was the U.S. Copyright Act of 1790. This law was written by many of the original framers of the constitution and also set the model of what they desired in terms of copyright law. IMHO, this federal employee that is being honored by the original post is an example of somebody who clearly did not study, or really understand the abuses that lead to the copyright clause or why the original copyright act was written.

  2. Established in USC, not the law by QuessFan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    IANAL As a law librarian, it's always my understanding the 4 fair uses tests were already well establish by a large body of case laws. The congress merely codify them into the United State Code explicitly. Of course, the congress could had choose other directions if they wanted to, but they didn't. I haven't read the article yet. I am sure she is instrumental in the codification of the case laws into statutory language, but don't oversell it.

    1. Re:Established in USC, not the law by stinerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The infallible resource has your back:

      The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Â 107

    2. Re:Established in USC, not the law by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So in return for a codification of Fair Use, we got lifetime plus 50 years.
      Excuse me if I don't celebrate Ringer's monumental achievement.

      I guess the European Union recently celebrated her ground breaking success by passing life + 70.
      But shame on them for not going with their original plan and making it life + 95
      http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=european+union+copyright+70

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Established in USC, not the law by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Funny

      hey it's ok, only in the EU are we retarded enough to re-copyright stuff that had already fallen into public domain

      Oh please. Here in the US we've been out-retarding you for years.

    4. Re:Established in USC, not the law by mcubed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lifetime + 50 was a prerequisite for becoming party to the Berne Convention, which the U.S. was going to do anyway. Berne sets the minimum copyright term as lifetime + 50. So it wasn't Ringer's fault.

      --
      "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
  3. So We Got... by akpoff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "fair use," a not clearly defined defense, meaning you get sued and have to prove you didn't infringe. Copyright holders got life + 50 years and no need to file.

    Faust got a better deal.

    1. Re:So We Got... by diodeus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then Sonny Bono came along and really screwed it up. He did it all for Micky Mouse.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

    2. Re:So We Got... by Comboman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At least we go something. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 gave copyright holders an extra 20 years, and we got nothing.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  4. A "heroine"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My heroes are rather the big bearded one for the GNU GPL and Lawrence Lessig for Creative Commons. The mess left by this "heroine" obviously needs to be cleaned up, without a flourishing public domain innovation is doomed. Life plus 50 years, come on...

  5. Reguarding by captnbmoore · · Score: 5, Informative

    Previously under the old 1909 law, an author owned the copyright for 28 years from
    the date of publication and unless the copyright was renewed,
    the work entered the public domain, and the author lost any right to royalties.

    That seems a hell of a lot more fair than the in perpetuity that we have now.
    We really should go back to that or life of the author or 20 years which ever comes later.

    --
    The Navy Motto "IF it ain't broke Fix It" "A day is wasted if you don't learn something new"
    1. Re:Reguarding by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

      But you do understand that the copyright law's intent is to encourage the creation of new works. With life plus 50 years, there are untold numbers of authors dead only 10 or 20 years who might be willing to rise and take a crack at just one more novel.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Reguarding by Robert+Plamondon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The old 28 years + optional renewal was a brilliant system. Abandonware entered the public domain after 28 years. The vast bulk of copyrighted material is abanoned well before this. The tiny fraction of material that's still making money after 28 years could be renewed for another 28. Also, you don't have to hire detectives to find out when an obscure author died, just to figure out whether a work was in the public domain or not. The old system was better.

    3. Re:Reguarding by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We really should go back to that or life of the author or 20 years which ever comes later.

      That would be a good start, but I'd argue that it's really too long.

      The question is: What's the shortest term that would enable most creators to capture most of the potential income from their works? That's what it should be, and not much more.

      The goal is to provide sufficient incentive to produce works, but get the works into the public domain as soon as possible. That's how copyright promotes progress.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Reguarding by Dan541 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why should I work again if I can do it once and still get an income.

      We need to look at the benefit of free information. Copyright is detrimental, after 10 years if everything became public domain we would have many books freely accessible online.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    5. Re:Reguarding by Dan541 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Copyright on software should be significantly lower because it becomes obsolete quicker so it needs to enter the public domain sooner for there to be any real benefit.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    6. Re:Reguarding by Ed+Avis · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but if it's just life, then there is the very real incentive to simply kill the author.

      Somebody suggested that in the future, Disney, movie studios and other big copyright holders will put authors into spacecraft that fly close to the speed of light, thus allowing hundreds of years on earth to pass while the author ages only a few minutes. Copyrights would then never expire. (I can't find the original website set up to draw attention to this looming problem.)

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  6. Re:No, a torrent is not "fair use". by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative

    what? people might mod down a snide strawman that contributes nothing to the discussion? Let me try!

    "No, strangling a composer with a piano roll is not fair use"

    wow this is fun!

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  7. Ya kiding right? by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 1976 copyright act was what got us into the mess we're in now. It was a huge power grab by the copyright owners. It extended the copyright term, retroactively, to the insane death + 50 years nonsense. It dropped the registration requirement (perhaps the biggest stupidest idea in copyright law ever). It extended both the scope of what was copyrightable and what was considered an exclusive right. Fair use was already common law, so claiming that the 1976 law established it is bullshit. It codified it, that's all. The only thing that the 1976 copyright law did was remotely good was that it clarified that transfer of copyright required a signed document.. something that wasn't actually clear before the law. But hey, Hilter made the trains run on time too.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Ya kiding right? by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Informative

      But hey, Hilter made the trains run on time too.

      That was Mussolini. Hitler was the vegetarian painter.

    2. Re:Ya kiding right? by Kalriath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Uh, dropping the registration requirement was a requirement of the Berne Convention. Also, I happen to agree with it. Why should individuals who don't have lots of money not be able to copyright a book they wrote? Oh no, only large corporations should be able to do that. If you ask me, the current system around registrations is fine (no registration means you can only claim for actual damages, having a registration causes punitive to come into play)

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    3. Re:Ya kiding right? by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why should individuals who don't have lots of money not be able to copyright a book they wrote?

      Red herring. Copyright registration was never difficult or expensive. You just had to mail one sample and a simple form to the Library of Congress. The main reason for the change was because the volume of stuff being sent in got to be unmanageable, mostly because corporations were registering everything. One example that was used in the Congressional debates was McDonald's sending a copy of every one of the paper tray covers they used.

      no registration means you can only claim for actual damages, having a registration causes punitive to come into play

      My understanding is that without registration you can't press a copyright infringement suit at all. That's not a big deal, though, it just means you send in the registration just before you file your suit.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Ya kiding right? by stinerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why should individuals who don't have lots of money not be able to copyright a book they wrote?

      Do you have any idea what it costs to register a copyright? $35.

      If you can't pony up $35 to register the book that took you several months (if not years) to write, then well...I'm at a loss here. That's like turning down a job solely for the lack of casual Fridays. And if that scenario ever popped up, I'd think that any number of publishers would be willing to advance the guy $35.

    5. Re:Ya kiding right? by EvanED · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What about things less than a book though?

      Take The Old New Thing, Raymond Chen's blog. He posts one or two posts each weekday. Should he have to register each of these? At $35/post, that's somewhere around $10,000/year. I don't see any ads on his blog, so I'm not sure he gets any income from it except from the book that's a compilation of entries. If he doesn't copyright each entry, can he copyright the whole blog? What does he send the copyright office for the entries he hasn't written?

      What about entries to my personal blog? Or posts to /.? Do I leave them uncopyrighted?

      I'm not saying that these challenges can't be overcome, but saying that "if you can't afford $35 to register a copyright" leaves a lot of challenges that you need to overcome before it's practical today.

    6. Re:Ya kiding right? by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Welcome to Slashdot, where the libertarians want everything for free.

      If by "for free" you mean "free of legitimized violent force" then, yes, that is what libertarians want.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    7. Re:Ya kiding right? by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Funny

      First one to mention Godwin's law loses the debate.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    8. Re:Ya kiding right? by Selanit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you ask me, the current system around registrations is fine (no registration means you can only claim for actual damages, having a registration causes punitive to come into play)

      But it also has a major downside in the fact that it's not clear who owns what. Also, the lack of registration has extended copyright over basically everything. The grocery list I jotted down this afternoon is subject to copyright. Heck, this post is subject to copyright.

      And it's not as if registration is an inherently bad idea. There are two issues to address with it -- the cost, and the difficulty of processing registrations. The last time we tried mandatory registration, the price was set by the government, and the processing had to be done by hand on paper. We can do better than that.

      I would prefer mandatory registration similar to the way the domain name system works. Thus:

      1. The Copyright Office determines what information is needed for a copyright registration.
      2. The Copyright Office creates a database to track that information.
      3. The Copyright Office does not gather registration information itself. Instead, it accredits registrars to do so.
      4. The accredited copyright registrars compete with one another to offer the lowest prices and the most convenient service for registering copyrights.
      5. An author (or corporation) selects a registrar, pays whatever fee that registrar has settled on, and gives the registrar the required information.
      6. The registrar transmits the information to the Copyright Office, where it is logged in the database.

      In this way, we get a definitive record of who owns which copyright, and exactly when the work was registered. Because the registrars are in competition with one another, we get cheap registration fees and convenient service. And by making registration mandatory once again, we have ensured that copyright is only applied in cases where the author wants it.

      It's obviously not a perfect system. I imagine we'd probably have to deal with fraudulent or competing copyright registrations. But we already have those anyway.

      A bigger concern would be whether or not the market for copyright registration services would be large enough to sustain itself. Copyright terms are very, very long. The lifetime of the author plus 70 years, or 95 years for corporately owned works. Say I'm the owner of H. K. Fessenscheimer & Daughters, Copyright Registrar. If one author registers a book, that's one sale. Then I don't get any more business from that author till they've created something new to copyright, which could take years, or might never happen.

      So in order to generate enough business to sustain a strongly competitive registration market, we'd probably have to require renewal at shorter intervals. Say, a copyright registration lasts for five or ten years, and then you (or your estate) has to re-register. If you don't, then you get a grace period of maybe six months, and then the copyright expires and cannot be renewed.

      Of course, large institutions which do a lot of copyright registrations (corporations, universities) would be free to establish in-house registrars which would handle all registrations and renewals for their own copyrights without involving a third party. Hell, they could even write their own software to do it. Amortized over time, their costs for registering and renewing copyrights would be extremely low.

      I'm sure that the existing copyright holders will scream bloody murder at the idea. They worked really hard to get rid of registration. They wouldn't be happy to see it come back.

      Also, we might not be able to do anything like this without violating the Berne Treaty. So perhaps it's just a fantasy. But I really wish we could.

    9. Re:Ya kiding right? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Informative

      Welcome to Slashdot, where the libertarians want everything for free.

      I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that both sides ignore the need for a good balance between the two extremes. On one side there is a group which want to charge for ever for something, even when they aren't maintaining the work and there is another group who wants everything for free. While there may some libertarians that a anti-property, there are certainly those that a pro-property.

      The introductory text at wikipedia states: "Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty[2] and minimize or abolish the state.[3] There are a number of libertarian view points, ranging from anarchist to small government, and from anti-property to pro-property.".

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    10. Re:Ya kiding right? by russotto · · Score: 2, Funny

      With regard to trains running on time, are you sure that you aren't referring to Mussolini? I'm not saying that he had any more success in that area than Hitler, but it is he with whom the phrase "made the trains run on time" is most closely associated.

      Forget it, he's on a roll.

    11. Re:Ya kiding right? by Selanit · · Score: 3, Funny

      I stand corrected! In future I shall be sure to write my grocery lists like cheap thrillers.

      "This is a dark city. (Item: lightbulbs, 3, flourescent.) I was cleaning up from my last job (Item: Clorox; item: new scrubbie sponges; item: nitric acid) and contemplating what I'd have for dinner (Items: 5 steaks, 1 bottle steak sauce, a nice Cabernet Rosso, 1 bag potatoes, garlic, broccoli, rice) when I looked up and there she was: redheaded, green-eyed, a short compact frame and legs that went all the way down. (Item: Trojans, more Cabernet Rosso, maybe some flowers.) "Hi, gorgeous," I said. "You need anything at the grocery store?" She cocked her head prettily, and said "We're out of hand soap in the upstairs bathroom, there are only two cans of cat food left, and the kids need more pencils for school -- someone discovered our stash and reduced them all to stubs in the electric sharpener." Rinsing my hands, I asked "Are there any suspects in the case?" She glanced over her shoulder and said "The culprit, I believe, goes by the code name 'Junior.'" I nodded, checked my wallet, jotted a few notes, and headed for the door. "Well, I'll investigate, and if guilty this fiend shall be punished."

      "Oh, you dashing fellow," she replied. "Don't forget the milk."

  8. Marybeth Peters isn't a reliable source by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    said Marybeth Peters, the Library of Congress's current register of copyrights.

    Unfortunately, considering what else Marybeth Peters has said about copyright to Congress, I really can't believe anything she says about anything anymore.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  9. Heroine? by MrMista_B · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Heroine? Seriously? Extending copyright to 50 years past death? Giving major copyright holdiers just about everything they wanted?

    She should be scorned as the woman who betrayed the American People for the sake of the greed of lazy corporations.

  10. Re:Coming up at 11, by PPH · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "I'm here to put you back on schedule." - Darth Vader

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. bad deal by speedtux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems to me that codifying fair use rights in return for lifetime+50 copyright terms and no requirement for explicit copyright registration was very bad deal.

    Without explicit copyright registration, the public domain becomes severely restricted, since the burden to prove that something is public domain is on the user--often an impossible burden.

    (I won't even go into why lifetime+50 is not justified either constitutionally or economically.)