Slashdot Mirror
Alternative 2009 Copyright Expirations
jrincayc writes "It's nearly the end of 2009. If the 1790 copyright maximum term of 28 years was still in effect, everything that had been published by 1981 would be now be in the public domain — like the original Ultima and God Emperor of Dune — and would be available for remixing and mashing up. If the 1909 copyright maximum term of 56 years (if renewed) were still in force, everything published by 1953 would now be in the public domain, freeing The City and the Stars and Forbidden Planet. If the 1976 copyright act term of 75* years (* it's complicated) still applied, everything published by 1934 would now be in the public domain, including Murder on the Orient Express. But thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, nothing in the US will go free until 2018, when 1923 works expire." Assuming Congress doesn't step in with a Copyright Extension Act of 2017. What are the odds?
I give you a prediction:
New law - Copyright doesn't expire.
Consequences - Not enough people care and life goes on.
I vomit a little bit when I think about the state of copyright. Surely this is advancing the collective cultural repository?
Sent from my PDP-11
I think this graph in the wiki links sums the problem up nicely.
These copyright extensions are simply ridiculous. It's pretty obvious that the copyrights are going to continue being extended indefinitely, even though this clearly wasn't the original purpose of our IP laws. What gives?
Give them 7 years, after 7 years, they have to renew the copyright every year for $50-100. If they fail to renew it it becomes public domain. Prohibit the outsourcing of this process, require the actual copyright holder to submit a signed statement each year with the renewal, change the forms yearly to prevent them from stockpiling 100 years of renewals. This process should have a search-able registry of all active copyrights and who to contact about licensing rights. This would allow economically supported works to continue in copyright as long as it is economically supported, but it would also allow orphan works to enter the public domain much faster. It's called balance, and would be a revenue generator for the Government.
Also they could require the work to actually be available for purchase during the previous year, or else you can not renew it. This would stop the Disney-ish practice of copyright holders removing their their copyrighted works from the market to generate a artificial demand later on for their product.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
Melancholy Elephants by Spider Robinson. This is the best-written argument I've seen against non-expiring copyrights (and, by extension, copyrights of inanely long duration).
The next copyright extension will be by 2023. Why? Because that's when the Walt Disney Corp will lose it's copyright on Mickey Mouse. And there is no way they would ever willingly lose their symbol. Walt Disney is the largest lobbying force in the Copyright Term Extensions, primarily because of all their older, but well recognized artistic works.
Politicians, from both parties, are easily purchased to vote for Copyright laws. Copyright laws appeal to both Democrats and Republican lawmakers. Democrats, because by keeping copyright laws in effect makes them seem like they are protecting the (copy) "rights" of the people, making their constituents happy. Republicans, because by keeping copyright laws in effect makes them seem like they are protecting the rights of business, making their constituents happy. And when both parties agree... everyone loses.
The biggest problem with copyrights though isn't that it is becoming such a big political issue, at least with some groups of people, or that it is easy to "presuade" lawmakers to side with the copyright holders; it's that Copyright laws are merely a symptom of the disease. Simply rolling copyright laws back to 1790 levels would only be a temporary solution. That fix would be repealed within the decade. The voters need to completely re-shape the political atmosphere of America, perhaps removing the 2 party system entirely (5 political parties, anyone?), or at least reforming the political parties so that Special Interests have much less of a say on future laws and bills. But if we only see more of the same, I expect to eventually see copyrights last an "indetermined" amount of time. Your great-grand-children may live to see the Mickey Mouse copyright expire...maybe.
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
The odds fall somewhere between slim and you-have-got-to-be-fucking-kidding-me...
(There is supposed to be a Sarcmark® here, but my $1.99 check hasn't cleared, yet...)
I have a hard time getting excited about this. Whether copyright expired in 1, 10 or 100 years, people would still violate it, whether it be by torrent or some other means of sharing. Copyright infringement has taken the same character as speeding to many people: while people get caught and fined, almost everyone does it to some degree or another, and almost nobody feels guilty about doing so.
Please deal with this inanity at once. Just grant Disney their eternal copyright on Mickey Mouse as an exception, and be done with it. Nobody wants the bloody rodent anyway.
so the original Ultima and God Emperor of Dune and would be available for remixing and mashing up.
Remixing and mashing up? I like a good remix as much as anybody, but the faddish use of these terms needs to die. Mashup, really? You think you're being edgy, but you're actually being a giant cuntnozzle. Get off my lawn!
... and then they built the supercollider.
But thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
They say we're young and we don't know.
Won't be out of copyright till we grow.
Well I don't know Babe if you think that's true
But I've got a bill that'll F*** you!
Babe.
I own you babe.
I own you babe.
They say this music won't pay the rent
But I'll increase copyright and they'll get bent
I guess that's so, this song is dross
But at least I'm sure that I won't make a loss
Babe.
I own you babe.
I own you babe.
I got money coming in
And I don't have to do a thing
And when I'm sad, I'll copyright a clown
Then laud it over parents all over the town
Don't let them say your copyright's too long
Why would I care? I can buy a thousand bongs
Then put your awful song with mine
Sit on our backside while our profits climb
Babe.
I own you babe.
I own you babe.
I got though this song's bland
I got you, you understand?
I got you if you walk like that
I've got you if you talk like that
I've got you kiss your music goodnight
I've got you and you know what you can bite
I got you, I won't let go
I got you to pay me so
I own you babe.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
1.3 billion Chinese are laughing at your legal shenanigans.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
I mean, come on, you already can't sing "Happy Birthday" without owing royalties to someone long dead. Just how low can it go?
How low? You've clearly never heard the Egyptian recording of Happy Birsday To Yooooooooou
I don't have any idea if it was made to get around that copyright but it will make your ears bleed.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Using almost the same terminology: "cultural icon"
The difference was, I thought it made sense that if one could reasonably prove in court that a copyrighted or trademarked property had become a "cultural icon", all rights to it (but not derivatives) would instantly expire and the whole thing would be free for the public to use.
Imagine if Coca-Cola tried to enforce trademark on "Santa Clause wearing red and white"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
The EFF and other consumer rights and public domain supports are pushing to ban perpetual copyright extensions which is what will happen as each extension approaches its lifespan. The judges read limited as infinity minus 1 second. They think like a computer or robot. Total lack of commonsense. But as we know, our government does not give a shit about what we, want, believe or think. Their ears are listening to the lobbyists and corporations with deep pockets that hand them a bill with a check attached to it under the table. It's bribery. Pure and simple The purpose of copyright was to promote creativity meaning that when a singer writes a song and copyrights it, they will profit from it, but when it expires, if that singer want to continue getting profits, he must continue to use his creativity. Personally, I believe copyright of movies, music and literature should be 30 years or when the original copyright holder dies. Software should be 10 years. i.e. Micheal Jackson did not create the Beetles music, yet he owned the rights to them. They were never his and never should have been. "Elvis sure makes a lot of money for a dead guy" And nor should the creators heirs and their heirs and there heirs live off the works of someone over a century ago. Along with that, of all copyrights ever filed, these extension acts are only working for the less than 10% which are still commercially exploitable. Thus all those other fall into the abyss of time. In order to preserve great works of the past, the laws must be broken
By that do you mean... ...?
A. the fact that things that should have fallen into the public domain long ago, aren't due to copyright term extensions
B. the fact that most people really don't care and will copy it anyway
It's funny, really... laws regarding copyrights are getting ever more restricting.. while the public mindset thinks ever more loosely about copyrights, and ignores those laws.
Option A: not so much - short of arguing that without copyrights, nobody will have any incentive to create any works anymore, consequently don't, and nothing new enters the regulated collective cultural repository.
Option B: yes - short of arguing that without copyrights, nobody will have any incentive to create any works anymore, consequently don't, and thus there's nothing new to copy from the regulated collective cultural repository into the unregulated collective cultural repository.
Poor Leto. Killed by *all* those inner voices demanding royalties for the copyright of their memories. Eternal royalties. The Golden Path ends before it could begin.
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
Sonny Bono's main argument in favour of the Copyright Extension Act hinged on providing a retirement fund for composers. So, it's somewhat ironic that killed himself by wrapping himself around a tree whilst skiing only a few years later.
Cliff Richards acted as a figurehead for a campaign in the UK to lengthen the copyright term on sound recordings [1] using similar arguments. If only...
[1] Very unsuccessfully - not least because some of his recordings were about to go out of copyright and the perception that he already had quite enough money.
... is not to keep commercial rights on these known books that we will still be able to buy by 2020. It is the millions of books that did not achieve enough popularity to still be easy to find. Not edited anymore but forbidden to save for posterity. Really, copyright is nothing to respect anymore.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
We're not going to have more than two parties until we change the way we vote. Our simple plurality voting system naturally leads to a two-party steady state system as surely an electron orbiting a proton leads to a hydrogen atom in the ground state. No amount of imploring, scolding, pleading or whining will change that reality.
If you really want more diverse representation, change the way we vote. Granted, a perfect voting system is impossible, but we can far better than the system we have today.
That said, I'm not sure that adding political parties will necessary end corruption. After all, the British have a multi-party proportional system and still ended up with Tony Blair and Darth Mandelson. Corruption is a different problem, and is best fought by an enthusiastic and educated public demanding sunshine laws and public campaign financing.
I think I'd rather pay some tax to support retired artists and musicians than to turn the RIAA and MPAA into private vigilante groups.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
who's "Mikey"?
SONNY BONO COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT (House of Representatives - October 07, 1998)
(should this search expire go to SONNY BONO COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT (House of Representatives - October 07, 1998) and look for page 9951)
"...Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress..."
Forever minus one day. Look for it around 2022-2023...r
--frank[at]unternet.org
It is a simple case of corrupt government ministers.
There is plenty of evidence that Peter Mandleson, an unelected (and unwanted) UK government apparatchik, has been installed to do the bidding of his friends in Big Media. Just days before the corrupt Mandleson released the despairingly bad 'Digital Britain' legislation, which in fact does little more than protect the greedy interests of the record industry, Mandleson spent time on the private island of his rich 'friend' from the record industry. There is no democratic mandate for extended copyright legislation. We need to all write the the parliamentary standards committee, and London Police, demanding investigation of this kind of corruption.
Everything surrounding 'intellectual property' hucksters stinks. They are the real pirates, robbing their customers again, and again, and again, and again, for exactly the same product. They don't innovate, and the best the can do to 'create' content these days involves zero risk, hard sell, heavy duty promotion of talentless and plastic morons. This is a reflection of the vacuum in the badly damaged society of the United States, where social cohesion has all but disintegrated.
You call that a mash-up? This is a mash-up:
The year is 315 AD, and the absolute despot of the western world, Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus has commissioned a Mission Acc^W^W triumphal arch to celebrate a battle his army* won for him three years ago. He orders that this arch be constructed in the style of triumphal arches of emperors long ago.
The only problem is that a century of warfare, overtaxation, hyperinflation, and neglect has driven the Roman middle class to extinction, along with its sculptors, masons, goldsmiths and painters. There is nobody left alive who knows how to build a triumphal arch! Yet you are a loyal imperial servant (capricious executions tend to breed a kind of loyalty), and you have to figure out a way to give the emperor what he wants.
What do you do? You build the basic framework of an arch. You take statues from the forum of Trajan and stick them on top of your arch. You chisel some ba-relief sculptures off of Hadrian's buildings, touch them up to look like your emperor, and paste them onto your structure.
At the end of the day, you show your emperor his "new" arch, and all is well. You go to bed that night and don't think anything of it, because it's routine and expected to cannibalize old monuments. If everyone does it, it can't be wrong, right? It can't indicate that your culture is terminally sick, can it?
* By that time the army had a huge portion of auxiliari^W mercenar^Wprivate security contractors. Italians go the war? That was so 100AD.
Dammit. I'd just hit "Submit" when I remembered this sublime article: Nation's Rappers Down to Last Two Samples.
lets copyright everything we do, I am sure somebody somewhere will breach my copyright - but I will only sue polliticians and move/music execs :)
FYI we DO NOT have a proportional system.
IANAL, can they trademark something they didn't create/invent?
Tax IP like Real Property. And, like you do with real property, the tax increases with the value given.
And make destruction of IP a criminal offence, like with burning down a house to clear it without permission.
I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
Actually it is only 14 years according to the original law. Works created before the law was created had the opportunity to get double the time protection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#History
stupid question here - If a work is copyrighted in the US, does the US copyright law apply to another country, or is the local law of the land (unless there is a specific copyright agreement between US and said country).
the internet has rendered all copyright laws obsolete
let them pass all the laws they want. its unenforceable and therefore pointless. sure they can nab the occasional grandma for what her grandson's friend does, or the occasional soccer mom for what her neighbor does with her unprotected wifi. its all just more bad pr for the corporate goons
new technology changes the law. the law does not change new technology. of course they always try, but it will take a decade or more before the morons wake up to reality. until such time, happy obfuscated downloading
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Since my reply is one big spoiler for the story, you can find it behind this link.
Victor Hugo was wrong, and these long copyright terms are a disgrace - put it back to 28 years (14 years with one extension).
Now that there is an industry interest in shortening copyright, I expect to see some shortening in due course.
...Consequences - Not enough people care and life goes on....
Sonny was a good guy overall. Smarter than he looked.
I find it unlikely that the national protection that would be afforded the US National Icons could successfully be extended by treaty to other countries. Once it was mutual, one would only have to find a small enough country to bribe to make your IP into a National Icon.
Anyway, another poster has astutely pointed out that trademarks already don't expire, and companies already use them for this purpose.
So your idea is both superfluous and impractical.
Happy new copyright and merry suing to everyone of you :D
Unless people care about it specifically, you will find that it will never expire, as it will be extended every x years, until the heat-death of the universe. Why? Because as time goes by, there's more money locked up in this vault of old works, and whatever forces are there to push through these laws today, they will be there and stronger tomorrow. This will be the case until people care enough to break this lock, or your system of government collapses entirely.
I wouldn't put 2018 in your diary at all.
It seems to me that copyright is mostly ignored when it gets in the way - especially by the younger generations. The cries that 'copyright is stealing' do not stick to society as a whole in the US.. and the US is behind the rest of the world with copyright piracy.
The more ridiculous the laws, the more they get ignored.. The government and corporations can do nothing against the majority of the people if they decide to ignore the laws or copyright terms. Corporate lobbying has stacked the cards so far against the consumer that the average consumer can merely ignore them and still feel good about it.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
If I read it right, it is 14 years plus it can be renewed for 14 more years, so 28 years.
http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf
1/10
If you were running a company, corporation, or your own shop, and your "essense" would EXPIRE?
I would hope to God that I can invent more than one new idea in 75 years and not be stuck hawking century old shit when its protection expires.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Now with the schism in the Republican party and the Democrats as ineffective as ever because they'll take damn near anyone who says they're a Democrat, there's a golden opportunity for a third party. The path to victory is to field a bunch of generally-moderate and, and this is key, incredibly competent candidates to cash in on voter disenchantment.
The window of opportunity is pretty thin though -- once voters forget the pain of the current recession it'll be back to business as usual in Washington.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The article you link to explains the inefficiency of communally owned property, not privately owned property. You could hardly find a link that is more in opposition to your argument.
The "Criticism" section in that article links to Tragedy of the anticommons.
The stated purpose of these government-granted IP monopolies is "to advance the progress of science and the useful arts". Fine. Patents run 19 years, why does copyright run 95? Are Thomas Alva Edison's daughters less deserving of a legacy than Samuel Clements [Mark Twain]?
The overlong copyright is beyond irrelevant to the act of creation -- in prospect, something is worth the creative effort based on the chances of near-term success, not long term. The power of compound interest, unless the US Constitution is meant to support irrationality.
In 1995 of course with expiry looming, mediacorps wish to extend their monopolies. Long past influing creation. Perhaps media ought to be allowed in a more limited way through trademark. There can be no question Disney has maintained the Mouse as a TM, and this would give them defenses against [sexual] parodies.
Of course, this applies only for works created expressly for profitable publication. Private papers remain secret, just like trade secrets. If subsequently published, that would start the clock.
I have to ask why so many of you want other people's art to be in the public domain so badly? I simply don't understand what difference it would make if "Achy Breaky Heart" were in the public domain. Or more recently, who cares if Taylor Swift owns her song forever? It's not like that stops other people from writing songs.
If you honestly believe that it's better for the country, for us as a people and for the creators themselves for work to be in the public domain then ... go create your own art (music, movies, paintings, whatever) and release it to the public domain. It is the right of the creator to control copy and distribution of the work (which is of course why it's called "Copyright"). So go create a killer song and exercise your right to release it to the world for free.
I just don't get the hubub. What do you think will be gained by reducing Copyright?
Right, so the country's culture and artistic freedom should be reduced so that a few individuals continue to make money the way they always have. Is that about right?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
And kill the business of copyright trolls? The nerve!
The copyright as we see it now is probably going to get removed soon. The copyright advocates will of course win many fight before but their own greed will ultimately make it impossible to uphold.
The thing is that copyright was quite easy to upheld when there was only a selected few who needed to think of and work with copyright, like newspapers, publishers and so on.
However, now days almost everyone needs to take copyright into consideration. If you post a video on Youtube you first need to think about copyright. You need to make sure that your radio isn't playing in the background or you will violate copyright.
Copyright worked when only a selected elite was forced to work with it. Today, it simply don't work. Ordinary people can't keep up with all this. They also don't think that it matters - they simply don't give a damn about if the radio is playing in the Youtube video.
So if the general population really don't care and continues to break copyright laws, how will the copyright maffia act? The current trend to make the laws harder will fail. It will not work to punish everyone who breaks the laws so they can only take some and make them into scapegoates. The problem with that is that people will start to wounder why some get away and some don't. A legal system where chance plays a big role isn't working in the long run. And if they try to catch everyone, then no one will care about the conviction. A country where everyone is guilty of copyright intrusion isn't a country where copyright intrusion is a crime that people are afraid off committing.
So this strict copyright regime will simply fail in the future. You can't uphold a law against common will for to long, no matter how many congressmen you bribe. Copyright will need to be simplified and reduced or it will simply vanish.
Commie bastard? That's a horrible troll. YOU'RE the one requesting the government to step in and support your way of life. Hell, even with all the illegality it's still easier for me to get a movie for free than it is for me to actually buy it. This is truly capitalism at its finest! Stop trying to expand the government to subsidies your crappy business choices! Maybe next time invest in tangible goods, you COMMIE BASTARD moron.
What the AC said - in the UK, we also have a simple plurality voting system that has led to a two party system. The main difference is that we have a significantly sized third party (Liberal Democrats), but unfortunately the Government has been a two party system for a long while. Furthermore, the Government has a majority, so they can force whatever laws they like through even if both the opposition parties disagree (the only hope is our 2nd house, the House of Lords). The opposition party and the Lib Dems can only really influence matters when there is disagreement within the Government itself.
Condorcet voting would be a lot better for both nations.
It's amusing that you mention "Forbidden Planet", which is itself a mashup of "The Tempest" (which is in the public domain).
I totally 100% disrespect copyright. I copy any and all data as I see fit. I DON'T FUCKING CARE if its 'illegal' or not. the law has ceased to serve us (the common man). so I turn my back on the law and do as I see fit. just like the companies have turned their backs on the laws REBOUGHT new laws as they see fit.
its all good. they do what they want and feel is 'best' and so do we!
but if they think that by adding more and more time to copyright this will CHANGE our behavior, they have another thing coming.
the only way you get people to RESPECT laws is to have respectable laws (duh!). have kangaroo court (or congress; same thing, effectively) laws and you'll have people totally ignoring them and even laughing in their faces.
and so, I have NO qualms about making copies of 'paid for' works. I simply DO NOT RESPECT THE LAWS ANYMORE. they do not serve us and have not served us for decades. therefore, in my morality, they simply do not apply to me.
I'm also not a 20something or even a 30something. I can easily afford to buy my media. but due to bad behavior by the industry, overall, I CHOOSE NOT TO.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Ah, I stand corrected. Sorry about that.
I get this overwhelming feeling of vultures waiting to pounce on the unlucky copyrighted material that will expire and be grist for the endlessly unoriginal rehashing of other peoples work. The mish mash of once popular icons used in a muck of re-done banality simply because they were once popular.
Am I the only one wishing these people would actually think and create for themselves instead of wishing for the bits and pieces of popular culture to be available for free. Or even man up and pay the license fee if what they think is original and is possibly worth the sharing with the rest of us?
I am so fed up with the "OMG" it's still copyrighted, it's the end of the world woe is me I might have to shell out some bucks to be uncreative and use a piece of someone else's creative drivel. this post copyright 2009 by Methius Incorporated
Why bother
We, the People act together to reverse copyright terms to a maximum term of 23 years. Go on the offense. Is that unthinkable / impossible? If law can be changed in one direction to provide more profit for a few corporations why not change it in the other direction to provide relief to the public and return the wealth of knowledge, art and human genius where it belongs -- to humanity...
Even if the laws are be taken off balance to benefit the few, they can be surely brought back to a healthy balance, no?
Trusting that greed will bring the highest good for everyone, and that politicians will take care of our interest has proven inefficient. It is time to outlaw the very principles allowing tyranny, theft and oppression in the fabric of our society.
Extended copyright = extortion. Usury = exploitation and slavery. Why is that OK?
While the brits (and some other commonwealth countries) get Cliff Richard's "Living Doll" in the public domain next year (despite Cliff's best efforts), just as they got "Move It" in 2009.
I've yet to decide whether this is a good or bad :)
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I have read many of the posts in this discussion, and I thought I would weigh in.
First of all, as I went through creating the list of expiring copyrights, I noticed that as I got farther back in time the copyrights that expired were less interesting to me. For example the 28 year old ones are closing in on being able to legally start emulating most games of the older consoles. By the time we get into 1934, I had trouble finding ones that I cared about.
For the questions as to why shouldn't we just write new stories and software etc? I do agree with that up to a point, and I have certainly written quite a few things that public domain or permissively licensed. But, first of all, the economically efficient price for information is its marginal cost, or zero. Second of all, if you care about stories and software being created, it is often easier to start from an existing work, and make improvements. For example, "What Child is This" uses the tune of Greensleeves. Or Shakespeare using existing plays, but improving them. Human time is precious, and if you can use less by 'stealing' that helps society. Why reinvent the wheel? In short, economically, copyright should last long enough to compensate the creator, and then it should be freed. (I have written about this before, but I know more now than I knew then: http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2002/1/8/122920/9442 )
As for the people who think that no body follows copyright anymore, so why do we care? There is some truth to that, but things that are legal are much easier to do. For example, it is legal to download freeciv, but not starcraft. I'll let you guess which is easier to do.
Now, on to kdawson's question about the odds that Congress lets 1923 works expire in 2018. I think there is a fair chance that the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension in 1998 was the last major copyright extension that occurs in the US. Why? Because more and more people are realizing that the public domain matters and is useful. In 1976, people stated with a straight face that if it wasn't available commercially, it wasn't available. So in 1976 it could be argued that keeping it in copyright kept it available to the public. In 1998, there was protest by a few people such as Michael Hart, founder of the Project Gutenberg. In 2009 places like Project Gutenberg, Archive.org, and Google Books prove that public domain content is more accessible. Plus you have people like the pirate party calling for 5 year copyright ( http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english ). So I think there will be a serious fight to stop any further copyright extension. I wrote this slashdot story to try and get the message out that copyright is not what it used to be.
I see a point buried under the sarcasm - if copyright is really long, people would have to create new stuff because plunder-able ideas from the past are still under copyright. (That assumes that really, really, really old ideas aren't useful, which doesn't
I, however, argue for a reverse of that: With long copyright, people are afraid to make new stuff because it might accidentally be too similar to something still protected. Also, thanks to the copyright on an original, people would be less able to make good derivative works.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The Pirate Party wants a term of 5 years. I would be quite happy with 23 years.
Have you never been to /. before? Of course they can.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All