Slashdot Mirror
2018 Is the Last Year of America's Public Domain Drought (vice.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Happy Public Domain Day, every-some of you! In New Zealand and Canada, published works by artists who died in 1967 -- Rene Magritte, Dorothy Parker, John Coltrane, and many others -- have entered the public domain; Kiwis and Canadians can now freely distribute, perform, and remix a wealth of painting, writing, and music. In Europe, work published by artists who died in 1947 are now public domain. In the United States, well, we get nothing for the 20th year in a row, with one more to go. Our public domain drought is nearly old enough to drink. American copyrights now stretch for 95 years. Since 1998, we've been frozen with a public domain that only applies to works from before 1923 (and government works). Jennifer Jenkins is a clinical professor of law at Duke Law School, which hosts the Center for the Study of the Public Domain. In an email she explained what changed and why nothing has entered American public domain for two decades. "Until 1978, the maximum copyright term was 56 years from the date of publication -- an initial term of 28 years, renewable for another 28 years," she wrote. "In 1998, Congress added 20 years to the copyright term, extending it to the author's lifetime plus 70 years, or 95 years after publication for corporate 'works made for hire.'"
And suddenly, legislation will appear that will extend the Public Domain timeout period by another 20 or 50 years.
Watch and see if this doesn't happen before the end of the year.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
If I build a house, I can will it to my ancestors [sic], it will remain ours in perpetuity unless sold at some point.
And you will pay for the upkeep of the house, and pay taxes on the house (and the property below it). But more importantly, nobody is paying you or your descendants for your right to keep that house. Nor is anyone prevented from making their own house that looks like yours.
If, on the other hand, I write a tune or a book, or develop a drug, or create a painting — well, then I will only be rewarded for a brief period.
Just a note: drugs are patented, not copyrighted, and patents run out after (a maximum) of 21 years.
All the things you mention are built upon knowledge and skills of previous creators ("we stand on the shoulders of giants"). The purpose of copyright was to create a protected period during which creators could make money--so they would be encouraged to create more. It's a contract between society and creators.
Point is, they should not have to.
Why not ? What's so special about artists that they can make one thing, and then collect money for the rest of their life (and their children's) while other people have to repeat their work day after day ?
If I build a house, I can will it to my ancestors, it will remain ours in perpetuity unless sold at some point.
Not if someone else builds a similar house elsewhere. Then your house will vanish in a puff of logic.
This is why there ought to be a law to stop thieves from duplicating houses.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
Because my children (not even grandkids) will not derive any income from my writing, I'll have to shelve my idea of this book and go do "real work". That's the line of thinking I was alluding to. The creator — or his wife — would certainly think/say such a thing.
And this right here is why no art, no music, no movies and no books were created before the 95 year copyright rule.
Right?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Existing works should've continued to be subject to their original copyright term. The new copyright duration should've only applied to new works - things created after the copyright extension act was passed. Kinda the inverse of grandfathering and ex post facto laws. This prevents an immediate beneficiary of the change to the law from unduly influencing the process of changing the law. Everyone takes a step back and considers the entire ramifications of the change to the law, instead of considering only the tiny immediate effect of the change.
The rationale for this is that the whole point of copyright is to encourage the creation of artistic works. Since the pre-existing work has already been made, copyright has already has served its function and encouraged its creation. So there is nothing to be gained by extending the duration of pre-existing copyrighted works. You can't encourage a pre-existing work to be created over again.