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?

Comments

What did you expect?

[Thanshin]

I give you a prediction:

New law - Copyright doesn't expire.
Consequences - Not enough people care and life goes on.

Re:What did you expect?

[bl968]

It can't happen without amending the U.S. Constitution.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; -
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8

The key word there is limited time. The problem has arisen is that the courts have defined limited as anything short of forever, and I think it stretches the Constitution beyond all meaning. Originally you could register a copyright for 7 years, and renew it one time for another 7. This was when shipping between cities could take weeks, and to cross continents could take years. With modern distribution copyright durations should be decreasing not increasing. Copyright was never intended to be a life time income source, and it definitely was not intended to cover heirs.

Re:What did you expect?

[cboslin]

It's pretty obvious really. The whole point of copyright was to enable the creator to benefit commercially from their artwork for a limited period so that they would have an income and be able to continue producing works that enrich/entertain society. As distribution has become quicker and quicker, the time needed for an artist to commercially exploit their work has decreased and therefore the time period for which copyright applies ought to be shorter, not longer, than in the past.

What has happened instead is that time periods have been extended, more and more money has been made, which has concentrated the means of distribution into fewer hands, with the net effect of decreasing the amount of art (music, literature etc.) that is widely available. This is now starting to change with digital distribution, although it's quite clear that DRM is not about preventing the pirating of works (because it doesn't stop commercial pirates) but is about maintaining a barrier to entry into the market.

Great post, simple to the point.

Another reason to DENY companies person-hood

What in the constitution allows a company to buy the rights from a person and continue them in force as if they are a person?

Everything we need to fix problems with corporations are in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. If we really are a nation of laws, its time to start enforcing them.

Even Presidents must NOT be above the law!

To not enforce laws ensures their continued abuse. I do not think that this is what our founding fathers had in mind!

Re:What did you expect?

[QuoteMstr]

Another reason to DENY companies person-hood

You're focusing on the wrong problem. The issue isn't corporate personhood, but rather with certain legal persons (natural or corporate) having too much power. It really isn't any better for the person "J.P. Morgan" to be able to buy a congressman than it is for company "J.P. Morgan Chase" to be able to do the same thing.

Changing some arcane corporate classification don't help a damned thing.

What will help is limiting how influential a single person can be. Limit the maximum size of corporations. Institute a super-progressive income tax that asymptotically approaches 100% as you reach, say, the 99th percentile of the population.

No man on earth is worth FOUR BILLION times that of another human being, no matter who is he or what he's done.

Re:What did you expect?

[Kjella]

SCOTUS responded "On paper, it is limited - we don't care if Congress keeps changing the limit."

While I disagree with the decision, it's not QUITE the same thing as "[we] couldn't give a shit what the constitution says."

If limited can mean "until the sun burns out", you have effectively stricken "for limited times" from the constitution. If you can play with words like that, it's worth less than toilet paper.

Re:What did you expect?

[Genda]

Copyright was never intended to be a life time income source, and it definitely was not intended to cover heirs.

No, it's intended to be an indefinite source of income for the RIAA, MPAA, and a growing list of IP holders who effectively want to own all meaningful human endeavor.

Re:What did you expect?

[QuoteMstr]

That's democracy in action, people directly making their own decisions.

Sometimes, everyone making the decision that's best for himself leads to an outcome that's terrible for everyone.

Re:What did you expect?

[timmarhy]

it's crazy when in the same sentence they talk about "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" and then extend copyright out to 75 years, completely eliminating a persons need to continue progress, and just let them milk one piece of content for ever...

Re:What did you expect?

[langarto]

Yay for living in Europe, where the spirit of the law still counts for something.

I am European, but I am sick of reading claims like this one in Slashdot and elsewere. It makes no sense to pretend that we are better than the Americans, or that our laws are more fair or that our politicians are better. In most areas we are almost as bad as the states (and copyright is one of them), while in other areas we are even worse.

And we both (Americans and Europeans) are seeing our laws changing continuously for the worse, and we will end up with a very similar set of laws in the end: those that are good for the people in power (i.e.: the corporations).

You think "the spirit of the law" counts for something in Europe? Do you trust those currently in power in your country to uphold it? Do you think the European Comission cares about "the spirit" of anything?

Re:What did you expect?

[darthflo]

You think "the spirit of the law" counts for something in Europe? Do you trust those currently in power in your country to uphold it? Do you think the European Comission cares about "the spirit" of anything?

To be honest, no.
The only way to make the current situation in Europe look any good is to contrast it with the one in the U.S. (and, well, forgetting about the UK helps too). Also, the uptake of several pirate parties throughout Europe (and the occasional sensible court decision) inspire some hope. It'll be interesting to see if they manage to shed the one-issue party image, but if they do, a large percentage of the 18-29 crowd's votes are up for grabs.
Let's hope for the best.

Re:What did you expect?

[lorenlal]

Do you trust those currently in power in your country to uphold it? Do you think the European Comission cares about "the spirit" of anything?

I trust those in power to do whatever they are told to by their biggest donors. I think the EC and the US government will do whatever they can, and enact any law they can to further the "spirit" of those donations.

Re:What did you expect?

[Opportunist]

It doesn't even matter anymore, does it?

DRM will take care of copyright not playing a role anymore quite soon. And more movies will be added to the lost movies list. Not because we can't find a copy anywhere. Simply because duplicating it to new media is made impossible and any medium deteriorates over time. It's in the hand of the rights holder whether a movie, a computer game, a song gets "lost". At least until accidents happen and the single existing DRM-free master gets destroyed.

If you look at the "lost films" list, you will notice that many movies are "almost" lost, because only a fractioned copy of the movie exists, with missing scenes, torn and worn by years of showing. In other cases, films are rediscovered in a cache somewhere, even if the master has been lost in something like the fire in the Paramount storage.

Take a look at the rediscovered list. It includes such historic material as the first Frankenstein film, W.C. Fields first movie, the first Titanic movie (made 1912), and also important documents of early FX mastery as Metropolis (which was only existing in fragments until an almost complete copy was discovered last year). Now imagine these movies gone.

This means losing history. Art history. And we will see a lot of it happen in the future. And while I tend to agree that with many movies made today it would probably not be a loss to art, for many more it would certainly be. What I personally find especially scary is that it will become trivial for rights holders and even governments to make movies disappear should they become politically or otherwise "unfavorable".

Re:What did you expect?

[calzones]

While I'm in favor of the same reform you are, your argument can easily be twisted to support the status quo. Congress can argue that they were convinced that extending copyright duration incentivized the sort of production that has established hollywood, the record labels, and book publishers; they can say the sheer riches these companies and individuals have amassed is proof that progress in these areas has been promoted and has succeeded. Some could argue that much of the arts we have today would not exist were there not such a huge monetary draw.

As for Mozart, I think a some might argue that he SHOULD have benefitted more than he did.

Our position is better defended by clarifying the benefit to society that well-adjusted copyright terms would offer, by illustrating the perverse cancerous growth of these publishing industries that has taken place under copyright's inflated terms, by demonstrating the productive stagnation in OTHER areas that has occurred as a result of descendants leeching off some author's famous work, or as a result of some poor artists who think they have made it when they release a hit record having grown up with no other goals or vision, and ultimately collapse into a life of mediocrity or poverty accelerated by artists' natural tendency for debauchery.

The question one must address is not simply whether we need to "promote the progress..." but WHY those words were written to begin with. Why did they want to promote progress? Surely it was not to create a whole new class of copyright barons and sharecropper artists who yearn to join the ranks of the barons and occasionally get there like court jesters. Surely it was not to promote it to the point that there is a stranglehold on creative works that prevents society from benefitting from them to their fullest. Because the point of promoting the progress is of course to bring a benefit to our society. To make things better across the board and allow us all the opportunity to benefit both as consumers and reusers of content AND creators.

Re:What did you expect?

[Kiaser Zohsay]

Another reason to DENY companies person-hood

I don't see what that has to do with copyright at all.

The reason copyright terms have been extended so many times for so long is that large corporate media has exerted its large influence in Congress to get these laws passed. The interests of the general public are not represented by lobbyists, giving the corporations a monopoly on the attention of Congress. Limiting the size (and thereby the power) of these corporations would break part of that monopoly power.

Re:What did you expect?

[cpt kangarooski]

It's pretty obvious really. The whole point of copyright was to enable the creator to benefit commercially from their artwork for a limited period so that they would have an income and be able to continue producing works that enrich/entertain society.

No, the whole point of copyright is to benefit society by encouraging the creation and publication of works which otherwise would not be created or published, while restricting the public's use of those works to the least extent possible, in both duration and scope.

It isn't meant to support an author no matter what (a flop is a flop, regardless of copyright), and frankly, who cares? It isn't the authors we care about; it is their output. And even then, we still want to be frugal, and provide authors with the bare minimum incentive that gets them to actually keep creating and publishing more of the works that we want.

Sickening

[mirix]

I vomit a little bit when I think about the state of copyright. Surely this is advancing the collective cultural repository?

Re:Sickening

[uglyduckling]

No. We're now in a situation where copyright extends well beyond the likely lifetime of the creator(s) of the work in questions. Endlessly extending copyright causes a net decrease in the amount of books/music/etc. available, here's why:

Long copyright terms have made music and literature into big business and concentrated the means of production and distribution into the hands of mega-corporations who get to decide what is published and what isn't. Long terms encourage companies to exploit their back catalogue ad nauseam rather than constantly seeking out new talent because they know that within [less than a decade | whatever short time period] all of their current catalogue would be valueless. Musicians only have to produce a couple of hit singles to be made for life, and then they can churn out mindless 'concept' albums that no-one really wants to hear. Conversely, manufactured bands can record covers of hits from 10 years ago, and because the big corps control the market, you end up with shops saturated with music that's already been sold ten times over (unless, apparently, you buy Rage Against the Machine).

If copyright terms were short, amateur musicians like me could record covers of hits from 10 years ago and enjoy the pleasure of recording and giving away music or distributing for free / cheap online. Why should I not be able to record a cover version of a song that's been sitting in a record label's back catalogue and hasn't seen the light of day for 40 years? Compare this to the software market, where software from as recently as the 1980s is being perceived as 'abandonware' and available for download online on the premise that the copyright is owned by companies that no longer exist and therefore no-one will challenge it.

The point is, copyright per se is a good thing, but the never-ending extension of its terms is definitely bad. It's now well over the the line from stimulating creativity to just lining the pockets of the already very-rich, and the way that the market is set up makes it very difficult for small-time artists to make a dent.

Ridiculous

[tylerni7]

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?

Not 2017, but by 2023...

[Afforess]

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.

Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...

[mirix]

I too, would enjoy a license to print money. Can I get the exemption?

Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...

[mpe]

A simple way around this is to allow Disney to keep Mickey, you do this by creating a new class of limited rights for National Icons.

Or Disney (TM) could trademark everything to do with Mickey Mouse(TM) in the same way that Paramount (TM) treats everything to do with Star Trek (TM).

Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...

[dryo]

It's a well-known fact that the limit of US copyright is always at least the age of Mickey Mouse plus one year. It's kind like Moore's Law for copyright attorneys.

Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...

[JumperCable]

Then the answer is simple. We must culturally kill Mikey.

Meh

[kjart]

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.

Re:For fuck's sake!

[DNS-and-BIND]

Well, what do you expect? That is the state of creatives in the year 2010. They honestly can not think of anything new, and only plunder the past for its riches. Can you imagine a cultural and artistic flowering like the 60s in our current age? Hell, even establishment stooges like Perry Como or Frank Sinatra seem like cutting-edge innovators compared to Lady Gaga or Alicia Keys.

Re:For fuck's sake!

[sznupi]

Ahh yes, in the good old days people weren't influenced by others in their activities. While you're at it, also point out that in the past youth wasn't on the road of moral and intellectual demise that will doom our civilization.