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.'"

Comments

Re:PROPERTY

[mi]

Or, you know, maybe they can produce something new once every few decades to support themselves.

Point is, they should not have to.

Re:PROPERTY

[mi]

The Constitution explicitly has that copyrights exist for a limited time.

Well, yeah, 95 years is quite limiting. My grandma is older than that, whatever her father could have willed to her, would have expired already.

But my having a copy of a book doesn't reduce the amount of gain someone else gets from the book.

Of course, it does. Even the Slashdot's collectivists agree, as long as the victim is an identifiable human being rather than a "KKKorporation".

But almost no one says "I was going to patent this or was going to write this book, but because my grandkids might not have 100% rights to it, I won't."

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.

But I do not wish to argue, which way is more effective. Even if my way was less conducive to development of art, it is still the only right way. Creators ought to be able to control their creations — they must be able to sell, rent, give away, or even destroy them however they see fit. It is not yours, it is not mine, it is theirs.

My way does not prevent anyone from giving away his work — immediately or after whatever time period. Your way prevents "hoarders" from doing what they please with their property — and that's why your way is wrong.