Happy Public Domain Day: Works That Copyright Extension Stole From Us In 2015

Jennifer Jenkins, Director of Duke's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, points out what could have entered public domain in 2015 but won't and why we need to use the upcoming Public Domain Day to focus on the importance of copyright reform. She writes: "What could have been entering the public domain in the US on January 1, 2015? Under the law that existed until 1978 -- Works from 1958. The films Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, and Gigi, the books Our Man in Havana, The Once and Future King, and Things Fall Apart, the songs All I Have to Do Is Dream and Yakety Yak, and more -- What is entering the public domain this January 1? Not a single published work."

Comments

i vote with my wallet

[FudRucker]

i refuse to buy books, movies and music anymore

Re:i vote with my wallet

[spire3661]

If copyright were sane, i would not infringe. If I could buy a DVD and be sure it would play on any device i want, i wouldnt infringe. If copyright holders didnt do silly shit like force licenses to remove the analog hole,(my TV has no analog sound out, only SPDIF, that can be turned off. Netflix would turn off the optical port completely if the show had 5.1 sound). i wouldnt infringe. The plain fact is copyright holders hold back technology. Until such a time as copyright returns to 14+14, im going to infringe, if nothing more than to remove some of their influence.

revolutionary idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Minimum size for copyright gets set at 1KB. Doubles every year. Anything that can be fully described in 1KB (and subsequent sizes as it doubles) can no longer be copyrighted. Anything that can be compressed below the threshold can no longer be copyrighted. Encourages development of more complex ideas. Longer Movies. Less trolling caused by patents on simple ideas etc.

If doubling results in large sizes too soon then simply change the multiplier. Something like 1.2 etc.

Re:revolutionary idea?

[swillden]

No corporation should own a copyright which outlives the creator(s) of the work plus a decade.

How does this work when there are hundreds of people working on a project, like a film? Does the copyright expire ten years after the first death, or the last? If the former, then pretty much any movie more than ten years old will be in the public domain. If the latter, I guess we're going to start seeing a few dozen babies somehow contributing to every new project, all of them selected from families who seem to live unusually long.

Also, what constitutes "death"? What happens if a member of the crew is cryogenically preserved and later brought back to life? Does copyright get reinstated? And what happens if people stop dying? It doesn't seem at all unlikely that within the next few decades we acquire the ability to keep a human body alive indefinitely (though I'm not sure if the brain is up to remaining useful for much longer)?

I think tying copyright to human lifespans is a bad idea. I prefer ever-increasing copyright maintenance fees. If Disney is willing to pay a billion dollars a year to keep Mickey, fine. But for most works, the copyright owners will eventually decide that it's better to release it into the public domain.

Re:revolutionary idea?

[deek]

Want to encourage the creation of creative works?

It's well known that creativity flourishes with experienced adversity. The irony of the copyright system is that it's actually discouraging this creative seed. Artists are way too comfortable, living off royalties, to knuckle down and start producing stuff.

I say we cut copyright to a bare minimum. A year at max. That'll get those lazy artists off their collective arses, and provide plenty of encouragement to create something at least once per year.

Remember kids, nothing speeds productivity like poverty.

And the creators still get screwed

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Which given the excuses for this stuff is really telling.(Since the whole "You're stealing from the creators" is one of the arguments you hear about this shit.) So these days you have shit like Hollywood accounting and things like the author of Forrest Gump literally not getting paid royalties for the movie.(Because it supposedly didn't make a profit.) Of course there's the whole thing screwing of musicians by record labels. Basically if you record an album don't expect to get any profits at all. If you make any money it will be off touring. Here's one, just to show how much of a bunch of scum bags they really are. https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

Pickled brains

[pigsycyberbully]

The feature films who would want to watch them anyway? books I can understand that but feature films ZzZzZzZ. can they still earn money from these old films? who watches these! Fantasy cartoons where it is all silliness and happiness that I could understand it relieves stress. I don't understand feature films it's grown-up men playing children's games why is it entertaining why? It's nonsense it's what every child grows out of goody's baddies, doctors and nurses, Cowboys and Indians, and so on. Films a waste of two hours sitting on your arse watching nonsense. I really find this difficult to understand I think it is mainly a Indian and U.S. thing? Or maybe not I just literally don't understand it it is silliness.

Re:protecting intellectual property is... theft?!

[DiamondGeezer]

Of course, but remember at the bottom of Slashdot is a bunch of whiney parasites who think they are entitled other people's property without paying for it.

I think the copyright laws in the US need reform, but frankly if I were to write a book, I'd like my descendants to benefit for some while.

Re:protecting intellectual property is... theft?!

[S.O.B.]

Copyright infringement isn't stealing - the legitimate holder of the copyright still has it and is still free to use it however they want, including using it to prosecute infringement. Extended copyright terms do in fact steal from society, using the proper definition of "steal" - members of society are deprived of the means to use those works to build upon them, or to preserve them.

Yes, copyright infringement is stealing. If you get the use or enjoyment of something that normally costs money then you have deprived the copyright holder of that money. So if depriving society of free access to movies due to copyright extensions is, by your own admission, stealing then depriving the current copyright holder of the fee required to view or use those very same works is also stealing.

I know logic probably escapes you but in both cases A deprives B of C. So if in one case it's stealing then it's stealing in both cases.

Re:and no one gives a damn.

[Maxo-Texas]

My consumption is mostly limited to "all you can watch" buffet type services and waiting until the movies are on sale for $5.

There is a lot of free content being created as well. (Like the harry potter and the methods of rationality, all the youtube videos).

I am now retired and I literally cannot keep up with all the content being created. So with rare exceptions, I just stay back on the less expensive end of the curve.

I would estimate that last year I saw a dozen movies for $4.25 on matinee and maybe 3? at full fare (including the hobbit as part of a special marathon showing of all three hobbit movies back to back).

And I'm slowly reading the original three musketeers in french.

I think a lot of young people are going to buy things until they come to the same realization I did. I was spending about $60 a week on DVD's back in 2001 and I realized I *wasn't* rewatching them. Since then I've bought 1 DVD and 2 Bluray's. And .. I didn't rewatch them either (one was inception). It's just rare to find something like Moulin Rouge or Silverado that I can watch over and over.

Another thing that has faded away is actually doing things at the same time as my friends. Until I was 30, we used to do things together and share them. Now it's all asynchronous. No shared social group scene.