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?

[praksys]

The case was ELDRED V. ASHCROFT. Lawrence Lessig (and others) pointed out that the constitution only allows copyrights to be granted "for a limited time". SCOTUS responded that they couldn't give a shit what the constitution says. The decision was 7-2 so it's highly unlikely that the court will change it's mind anytime soon.

Re:What did you expect?

[DoofusOfDeath]

Lawrence Lessig argued that before the SCOTUS, and they wouldn't buy even that basic point, IIRC.

Re:What did you expect?

[uglyduckling]

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.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:What did you expect?

[darthflo]

So what they meant was "we couldn't give a shit what the constitution intends[, we're happy to have it's purpose undermined to the point it's hollower than a slice of swiss cheese]".

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

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?

[silentcoder]

Jack Valenti during his MPAA reign actually proposed working around the "limited" line by making it "forever minus one day".

Re:What did you expect?

[Opportunist]

Do you think the European Comission cares about "the spirit" of anything?

Only if it's of high enough proof.

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?

[wvmarle]

In the United States, laws, as well as the accused, are on trial in a courtroom. If the people find a law to be unjust, the jury can strike it down with nullification.

Can be done, I know, however I heard in other /. comments that this is really rare. I'd like to see some examples where this was done. The consequences can be "interesting" I'd say.

If a judge deems a law contrary to higher law, such as state/federal constitutions, the judge is able to throw the law out.

That is not specific to common law - and that is indeed how this discussion started: the testing of a law (copyright term) against the constitution. All countries with constitution or something like can subject laws to such tests. In case of the EU, national laws can be tested against EU laws (though I have no idea what would happen if an EU law goes against a member country's constitution). This is similar to the US with states and central government, albeit that there is a central constitution, while in the EU most if not all member states have their own constitution, and there is also that document called EU constitution nowadays. How much that is really a constitution in the traditional sense I don't know. It's a complex mess at best. At that point the US is way ahead of the EU but then the EU is younger and came into existence differently.

Re:What did you expect?

[QuoteMstr]

Typically, seizing the assets of the wealthy in order to redistribute them to the masses leads to majority unemployment and hyperinflation. Just like twentieth-century South America.

Or present-day Zimbabwe. You're right: uncontrolled, ad-hoc, and chaotic confiscation produces economic mayhem. Granted, in all these cases, the economic populism was also coupled with a thoroughly rotten political system (take, say, Peronism) which confuses the analysis somewhat.

But that's not to say that all wealth redistribution will cause catastrophe. In the 1950s and 60s, we had high top-end income taxes here that worked very well; Europe still does, and they're better off for them, having some of the lowest gini coefficients and the highest standards of living in the world.

In order to make wealth redistribution work:

• don't take property directly: instead, put a tax on wealth
• spend the additional revenue on infrastructure and social development with Keynesian properties (like healthcare and education)
• make the process fair and transparent: use simple rules that convince everyone the process is happening according to established principles
• make the maximum wealth level high enough to provide plenty of incentive to work

(By the way: instead of causing hyperinflation, raising our top-end tax rates would substantially reduce our budget deficit, strengthening the dollar.)

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?

[Kiaser Zohsay]

Limit the maximum size of corporations.

Hear that, AIG? Too big to fail is too big to exist.

Re:What did you expect?

[Opportunist]

Can someone hand this person an insightful mod? It's precisely what's wrong with copyright today.

Copyright should give you an incentive to create. That's its sole purpose. It is supposed to make you want to create instead of sit and wait 'til someone else does. It's the art equivalent of what patents are supposed to be in science: A reason to produce instead of consume.

It's no incentive to create again if I can milk what I created once.

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

[iamapizza]

It depends on the contents of your vomit, but yes, I'd imagine it'd be an advancing collection of cultures, from your 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.

Re:Sickening

[Froboz23]

Seriously - there is no justification for extension of copyright being retroactive. People aren't going to be motivated to retroactively create new old works...

Time Lords need creative incentives too, you insensitive clod!

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?

Re:Ridiculous

[mpe]

I think this graph in the wiki links sums the problem up nicely.
These copyright extensions are simply ridiculous.

The problem actually appears to have started in 1831. Why was nothing done then, since the US Congress dosn't (in theory) have the power to create ipso post facto laws?

Re:Ridiculous

[Lloyd_Bryant]

The problem actually appears to have started in 1831. Why was nothing done then, since the US Congress dosn't (in theory) have the power to create ipso post facto laws?

I believe the term you're looking for is "ex post facto" ("after the fact") laws, not "ipso facto" ("by the fact itself").

I believe the courts *have* limited Congress, in that they aren't allowed to pass a law that would put works that have fallen into the public domain back under copyright.

Fair Copyright

[bl968]

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.

Re:Fair Copyright

[SharpFang]

Instead of $50-$100, make the copyright holder choose and pay a fee of 1000x the cost of license.
If you paid $1000, I can have a copy of your work for $1. If you paid $10k, I can have it for $10. If you paid $10, I can get a copy for $0.01. And you're not permitted not to license the work to me for that amount.

Re:Fair Copyright

[mirix]

How would this work with legal persons though? They have more resources to renew and such than a single natural person. I suppose only allowing natural persons to have copyright would be a nice start.

Re:Fair Copyright

[Ost99]

Interesting idea, but it will only work for mass market works.
Software if often produced with less than 1000 customers in the target market.
How will you ever make money if you have to pay 1000 times your license fee, and only sell a handful licenses?
I've been involved in software production in one form or other for 12 years, and I've yet not seen one project were we could sell more than 1000 licenses.

Instead of having a system that scales with the license cost, the system should scale with time.
First 7 years: $0
Next 7 years: $100
Next 7 years: $2000
Next 7 years: $40000
Next 7 years: $800000
etc.

But it's important to remember: The people pushing for extended copyrights are not very concerned with the income from works about to expire; they are more concerned about the effect competition from works with expired copyrights would have on new stuff.

Mandatory reply

[mdenham]

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).

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...

[bl968]

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. This would be similar to copyright but would not expire. These would require a specific act of Congress for a copyrightable work to be awarded this status but would not expire as long as the company in question is still actively using and marketing the iconic item in question.

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.

Sonny Bono - I own you babe!

[syousef]

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.

Unconstitutional and illegal

[neghvar1]

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

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.

God Emperor of Dune?

[gzipped_tar]

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.

Copyright extension act

[ommerson]

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.

The most shameful...

[Yvanhoe]

... 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.

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.

what about retirement for RIAA?

[OrangeTide]

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.

"...copyright protection to last forever..."

[knarf]

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

I almost forgot!

[QuoteMstr]

Dammit. I'd just hit "Submit" when I remembered this sublime article: Nation's Rappers Down to Last Two Samples.

It is not 28 years

[lordmetroid]

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

Re:For fuck's sake!

[meringuoid]

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.

This is why Disney are doing the world a favour by repeatedly buying copyright extensions. It forces people to come up with their own creative original stories - you know, like Disney did - rather than ripping off other people's stories that just happen to be old enough to no longer be protected. Thanks to Disney, creative artists now have the kind of long-term protection that Hans Christian Andersen, Rudyard Kipling and Lewis Carroll never enjoyed, whereas cheap rip-off merchants who only plunder other people's ideas can no longer ply their grimy trade.