Slashdot Mirror
Public Domain Day 2014
An anonymous reader writes "What could have been entering the public domain in the US on January 1, 2014? Under the law that existed until 1978.... Works from 1957. The books On The Road, Atlas Shrugged, Empire of the Atom, and The Cat in the Hat, the films The Incredible Shrinking Man, The Bridge on the River Kwai, and 12 Angry Men, the article "Theory of Superconductivity," the songs "All Shook Up" and "Great Balls of Fire," and more.... What is entering the public domain this January 1? Not a single published work."
See, if those works had entered the public domain, the private owners would never profit off of them.
And that's very important you know. Look how much money that Atlas Shrugged movie made for Ayn Rand!
IIRC, U.S. courts recently decided that public-domain works could have their copyrights reinstated post facto.
If anything from Disney did ever accidentally enter the public domain, Congress would fix that in short order.
Actually, Sherlock Holmes is finally in the public domain. It took a court order to shake it loose, though.
http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-new-sherlock-holmes-copyright-20131230,0,5610784.story
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
At least we are safe from a bunch of pseudo-libertarian amateur filmmakers creating their own personal "Atlas Shrugged" movies.
"Hurry!" Dagny Taggart moaned. "Before he gets any smaller!"
The strange cat in the hat grabbed the incredible shrinking man, who struggled mightily, but, being the size of a Barbie doll, could put up little resistance. "I'm gay, don't do this to me!"
"Tough shit, little man! I know it is wet and the sun is not sunny, but we can have lots of good fun that is funny.” He took him and and slowly eased him feet first up ins
GOD DAMN IT, this stuff is not public domain. Nevermind.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It may still be illegal to download these things, but it's now much more difficult to argue that it's unethical to do so. Distributing these works should be considered an act of civil disobedience.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I think the universe would implode.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Thanks to Disney and others, the very idea of works EVER entering the public domain will eventually become a relic.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
The entire purpose of copyright was to serve as an incentive for creators to add to the public wealth of knowledge and art. It was mutually beneficial: they get public protection for their work, and the public receives high quality art.
The corruption of copyright by the likes of Disney and other mega-conglomerates has polluted that purpose. Now, copyright is a legal bludgeon used to deprive the public of its culture while perpetually forcing them to pay to get it back.
If they want perpetual ownership of their work, they should lose any public or legal protections of it: it's quid pro quo, and if they are unwilling to hold up their end, they should be required to hold up both.
He's buried here..
You can go and hire Ms. Cleo and do a seance and complain to him since he sponsored the legislation.
See, even the trees opposed copyright extension.
I am not a crackpot.
sibling is right... if it's so crappy, then why the need to rent-seek on them? Consider that the majority of the works' creators are dead by now (it's been 56 some-odd years), so it's not like they're directly benefiting from copyright. So who is benefiting? The kids, the corporations, and a whole lot of other people who did approximately bupkis to create these works.
Copyright is about a temporary monopoly on a creative work. It is emphatically not meant to be a perpetual money machine.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
That (1) misses the point, which is that U.S. copyright law has become wholly uncoupled from the point of granting copyrights in the first place, and (2) isn't even true for a lot of works. Google "orphan works."
If I weren't sooo lazy, I'd work a bit harder and BOOM! I'd be RICH! Why, if I weren't so lazy, I could get another job on top of my other two, and work some more! After all, I'm only working 80 hours a week and who needs sleep and recreation!
And we all know that the billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Buffet and all them got where they are by working hard and being honest and forthright people! Anyone can do it!
We all know that all it takes here in the states is to work hard and wealth is guaranteed! Well, if it weren't for the government regulations.
I had a chemical disposal business and the fucking EEE, PEEE, AYE stopped me from disposing in the local trout stream! How the hell is one going to make a living with these communist basterds?! And this bullshit nonsense about children getting cancer and whatnot - why there's St. Judes to help them! Business and profits first and health and well being is just a socialist value! Anyway, cancer was created by socialists to punish the hard working creators and rewards the takers!
And this bullshit of "you didn't build that!" why, the private sector could do just fine building roads and highways and edukating us!
If you're poor, it's all because of your character! Yes sir! If you worked hard have decent values, you wouldn't be poor!
Poor people have poor character and they are stupid! It's all their fault! If they would just pull themselves up by their bootstraps like I did, all would be well!
I tell you, the values in this society have deteriorated. Way back when, those people would be left to starve - as they should - and it allowed for us makers to achieve and better society.
Actually there are plenty of works being lost every day that no one has access to as a result of over extension of copyright. Relatively obscure works from prior to the 1920s are plentiful because they are in the public domain and are freely available. Works that are still covered by copyright are difficult to find even if you're willing to pay for them.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-missing-20th-century-how-copyright-protection-makes-books-vanish/255282/
The question is, what can we do about it?
Long copyrights are great for corporations but shitty for authors. There was a fellow a couple years ago who was sued for writing a sequel to "Catcher in the Rye", that book should be in the public domain.
Insane copyright law is keeping The Paxil Diaries in electronic form and out of gutenberg.org because of twenty four words in the 80k word book. One chapter concerned the re-dedication of the Illinois State Library which was renamed to Illinois last late poet laureate's name. There was a 24 word poem displayed, which I copied with a pencil and used as the chapter's intro.
That poem, written in 1961 by a woman now long dead should NOT be covered by copyright. I may publish the book with the poem replaced by a rant about our insane copyright laws if I can't get permission to use it (I think the state holds copyright but I don't know).
Meanwhile, you can read Nobots for free online, I'm only charging for real books, which actually have a cost to print and distribute.
I've written my congressmen and Senators, have you written yours?
Free Martian Whores!
The question is, what can we do about it?
Civil disobedience en masse, to the point where you cannot possibly enforce it. This is happening now with marijuana usage, and will likely end up happening with movies and music, if BitTorrent traffic is an indicator.
You could write the congresscritters (one of my senators --Sen. Wyden-- gets it, but the other 534 congresscritters in DC don't, and some (Hatch in Utah) actively try and make things worse. Too bad the rest either don't care or have been bought off enough to ignore it.)
I'm afraid there aren't many other viable options, outside of a very lucky Supreme Court case.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Or that's what the cartel which controls it's distribution now wants.
Copyright has long ceased to be about what the creator of a work wants, and is far too often about what the corporations who control them want.
Just because a corporation sits on something and doesn't publish, doesn't mean that the copyright owner has any say any longer -- because sometimes distribution rights also factor in.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The best argument I've heard for changing the laws dealing with public domain in the USA is that in these days of federal budget cutting and decreasing spending, if these copyrights are so valuable then why are they being renewed for free automatically? It would seem logical to make a change where those who want their copyrights to be extended could pay a fee, perhaps fairly large, and fill out some paperwork to get the copyright renewed. If they forget to fill out the forms in time and pay the fee in time, too bad. That's how it was some years ago. If you forgot to renew your copyright in time, you lost it. Congress could enact a sliding scale where the renewal fee increases exponentially. For example, say that all works get an original copy right period of 50 years. Then if renewal is desired, the copyright holder could pay $500,000 for a renewal period of 10 years. If they want the works renewed at the end of that period for another 10 years, the fee goes up to $5 million. The next 10 year period is $50 million. The one after that is $500 million, then $5 billion and so on. Eventually the cost will get prohibitive that nobody will pay it any more and works will enter the public domain. I really do not get how if these works are so valuable that they must be renewed that Congress has to let it be done for free and virtually forever. Unfortunately to date the US Supreme Court has basically ruled "We're not saying that we think that extending copyright is a great idea, but the Constitution does permit it. As long as the termination date is less than 'never', any extension is probably legal." Why is Congress giving away money in renewal fees if these works are truly so valuable that they must remain in copyright longer?
You can pay for public domain works as well.
Difference is that if the copyright holder doesn't think it's worth the bother of publishing something, then you can't buy it at all. If it were in the public domain, someone else might decide to publish it....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Especially annoying when Hatch has repeatedly been caught infringing copyright on his web site and in many of his speeches.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
nothing wrong with the e.e. cummings style, we're communicating online rather than writing a formal letter.
J.D. Salinger's original agreement with the US government was satisfied in 2007. He only won the lawsuit because of unconstitutional extensions to copyright. Also, a living author is often one of the worst parties to give control to, especially decades down the line.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
And the real irony is that Disney built its animated empire on stories in the public domain
- Bambi? Nope, they stole that one too, from a 1923 work of Felix Salten
It is never wise to take anything a geek says about Disney at face value.
In 1933, Sidney Franklin, a producer and director at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, purchased the film rights to Felix Salten's novel Bambi, A Life in the Woods, intending to adapt it as a live-action film. After years of experimentation, he eventually decided that it would be too difficult to make such a film and he sold the film rights to Walt Disney in April 1937. Disney began work on crafting an animated adaptation immediately, intending it to be the company's second feature-length animated film and their first to be based on a specific, recent work.
Bambi
Philip Pullman's Fairy Tales from the Brothers Grimm: A New English Version retells fifty of these classic tales in a four hundred page book. Call it eight pages on average per story.
That is barely enough material to sustain a one-act stage play.
The truth is that the adaptation becomes memorable through its embellishments, its richness in detail. ''Hansel & Gretel'' at Columbia Marionette Theatre: A Sweet Artistic Triumph
It isn't a generic Sleeping Beauty the geek wants to appropriate from Disney, it is Maleficent.