Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Larry Lessig Will Headline Friday's 'Grand Re-opening of the Public Domain' Event (archive.org)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the opening-source dept.

An anonymous reader quotes the Internet Archive's blog Please join us for a Grand Re-opening of the Public Domain, featuring a keynote address by Creative Commons' founder, Lawrence Lessig, on January 25, 2019. Co-hosted by the Internet Archive and Creative Commons, this celebration will feature legal thought leaders, lightning talks, demos, and the chance to play with these new public domain works. The event will take place at the Internet Archive in San Francisco....

Join the creative, legal, library, and advocacy communities plus an amazing lineup of people who will highlight the significance of this new class of public domain works. Presenters include Larry Lessig, political activist and Harvard Law professor; Corynne McSherry, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; Cory Doctorow, science fiction author and co-editor of Boing Boing; Pam Samuelson, copyright scholar; and Jamie Boyle, the man who literally wrote the book on the public domain, and many others.
Attendees will also receive a discount on the world premiere of DJ Spooky's Quantopia: The Evolution of the Internet, a live concert commissioned by the Internet Archive "synthesizing data and art, both original and public domain materials, in tribute to the depth and high stakes of free speech and creative expression involved in our daily use of media."

21 comments

  1. As a whiny Libertarian nutjob... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how this affects me? Is Lessig some kind of SJW I can whine about incessantly here? If not what's the point of this article, seriously that's all I know how to do.

    1. Re:As a whiny Libertarian nutjob... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AmiMoJo posting as AC, evidently.

    2. Re:As a whiny Libertarian nutjob... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Lessig some kind of SJW I can whine about incessantly here?

      Dunno about SJW one way or the other, but he's definitely a first-class lefty nutjob.

      https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-president-lawrence-lessig-post-686077

      >In light of the ongoing probe into Russia collusion, Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig posted on Medium a series of "if/then" scenarios that would lead to House Speaker Paul Ryan handing the White House keys to Clinton.

  2. Will Mickey Mouse be there? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh, right. Not until January 1, 2024 -- well, sort of -- 96 years after he was created..

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re: Will Mickey Mouse be there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mighty Mouse often wins but afterward he will never k is if he was righty mouse or just Mighty Mouse. Confetti swirls down

    2. Re: Will Mickey Mouse be there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there anyone here who can translate for Ivan please? Something something this is all SJW's fault that Mickey Mouse didn't love me as a Hitler Youth?

    3. Re: Will Mickey Mouse be there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Ivan you are wrong because I have a weapon and you are not a nazi and you collude with Americans - got it? Plus I hate you and your happiness makes my Brownshirt friends grumpy

  3. Re: It's time to take out the nazi trash again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The deep night was upon us.
    Whatâ(TM)s that noise?
    All I heard was your breath
    Whatâ(TM)s that noise? She mouthed
    I mouthed back
    I will check
    I went outside using my phone as a flashlight
    Come look
    I donâ(TM)t know what they were
    Lemurs? Something like that?
    They slowly backed away and ran from the light
    We went back in
    Almost asleep
    Whatâ(TM)s that noise
    Your breath

  4. Public domain New Year events at hackserpaces? by Pentomino · · Score: 3, Informative

    I had an idea that next year, on New Year's Day, we could turn our hackerspace into a public domain printing press for all the new freed works. We might even be able to do it on New Year's Eve, as we're well-situated in a downtown location that might have some slightly tipsy foot traffic after midnight.

    of course, we'll need to plan ahead. Will it be important to get them from a clean source, or will pirated works magically become legal? If not, do we just refresh the Gutenberg Project website until it all shows up? Will we be able to print and bind books cheaply enough to give them away? Are our printers fast enough to print on demand, or should we print a few copies of the most important works in advance? And of course we'll have to secure volunteers and fix up donated printers.

    1. Re: Public domain New Year events at hackserpaces? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh jezebel. Is this figure skating? Are you needing volunteers for the kids and cry booth?

  5. Remember, the mouse *is not* gone! by eclectro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't imagine that the holders of Mickey et al will not continue to exit into the public domain without some kind of fight. Where the public domain is once again put off and copyrights extended somehow for the sake of some fake moral good.

    The only good note, is that Senator Orinn Hatch, the biggest murderer of the public domain, read the tea leaves and was coaxed out of office and into retirement.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  6. It's the bad economic models, stupid by shanen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, the AC did con me into looking, but...

    The real problem is insane economic models overriding the legitimate objectives of copyright (and patent law). What we have now is a kind of lottery mentality, looking for YUGE riches. The ACTUAL (and proper) goals were to encourage creativity and innovation.

    Having said that, I think many of the solution approaches are obvious, but we can't get there from here. The winners of the crooked lotteries are bribing the cheapest politicians they can find to make the games more crooked. It's all about massive profits for the biggest corporate cancers. Gawdam anyone who tries to improve on Mickey Mouse if it might take a nickel out of Disney's coffers.

    Can you imagine cost-recovery plus incentives? Compensation based on actual value received, including such values as pleasure and support for future creativity and innovation? Me neither, even though I think we have the technologies to implement many of those approaches now.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  7. Shorter copyright terms are a red herring by Kethinov · · Score: 2

    The way people celebrated public domain day was quite telling. People were like, "Yay now I can consume this content for free," not "Yay now I can create commercial derivatives."

    That implies what we need is not shorter copyright terms, but to legalize noncommercial infringement.

    People often say "why not both?" I'll tell you: we already have an originality crisis in popular culture. Are you tired of the constant reboot culture in Hollywood? I sure am. It would only get worse if more stuff entered the public domain.

    Legalize noncommercial infringement. That's what we should be focused on. Not shorter terms.

    --
    You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    1. Re:Shorter copyright terms are a red herring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares about legality? We're all getting away with our noncommercial infringement. What do you think the Internet Archive is?
      A lot of YouTube's illegal, and no one cares.
      Abandonware is a fact, despite the law.
      I don't know how long it's been since Slashdot even had a story about a file-sharing lawsuit.
      I can freely download 97% of the books on my wishlist, and 100% of the music.
      The law is for businesses to worry about.

    2. Re:Shorter copyright terms are a red herring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People often say "why not both?" I'll tell you: we already have an originality crisis in popular culture. Are you tired of the constant reboot culture in Hollywood? I sure am. It would only get worse if more stuff entered the public domain.

      Except copyright infringement is not quid-pro-quo. There are many issues of dissimilarity that can still result in a conviction. See also the RIAA's claim of "owning" every chord possible to make, or more recently the originality of dance moves, and who can "own" a video game genre. There's also the issue of "stealing" from the public domain, i.e. most everything "made" by Disney. By having stuff enter the public domain, these kinds of restrictions are made harder to enforce as we get more material that the "infringing" work can be based off of without "infringing" a newer work. Granted, these restrictions should be abolished / repealed long term. But that doesn't excuse the violation of the deal society made with copyright holders. You get the right for a limited time, afterwards it's the public's. Repeatedly extending the definition of "limited time" is still a violation of that deal regardless as to what you or anyone else considers to qualify as an "original work."

      Never mind that every "new" thing is a reuse of previous ideas in a "new" whole, and that with copyright we're arguing over who made what slight amount of "originality" that was actually put into the work.

      Legalize noncommercial infringement. That's what we should be focused on. Not shorter terms.

      I'll agree with you on legalizing noncommercial infringement, but I will disagree with you on not fixing the duration of copyright. Currently, in the US, the duration or term of copyright is "life of the author + 70 years." Assuming the author is around 20 years old when they make the copyrighted work and that life expectancy in the US is around 70 years, that's 120 years before the work even remotely has a chance to enter the public domain. During which time at least 70 years will pass that the author, who would be the best person to improve or expand upon the work in question, is dead, and the heirs to the work's copyright get to profit from it for nothing. This can easily span a couple of generations. If an author creates enough works or creates a sufficiently popular work, then after they die the heirs to the work may never have to work a day in their lives. In essence, the heirs to the work's copyright get a freeride off of the backs of society for something the original author did.

      Keep in mind, the above assumes that the original author keeps the copyright for the work and it's not transferred to a corporate entity. In that case the "plus 70 years" portion of the duration kicks in immediately, but the "person" that owns the copyright is an immortal object that can lobby government for extending the duration for the sole reason of private profits while giving nothing back to society in exchange.

      This is not a sustainable economic model. If enough people or corporate entities get control of enough copyrights, it can bankrupt entire countries though the royalties alone. Never mind the costs of enforcement, legal proceedings, or legislative efforts that society will also be footing the bill for. It's a guarantee of income for a small subset of individuals that quite frankly is unearned at best. Worse, it's also an uncapped income. Which means that as long as you can acquire ownership of more copyrights you can make as much money as you want regardless as to the benefit to society, which was the entire point of copyright in the first place, or society's ability to pay. It should be no surprise why people celebrate "getting content for free" over "making derivatives." It's because they, and their ancestors, as a whole have been paying the costs of this bad economic model for generations, and finally there's a few less works in the pile for freeloaders to mooch off of them with. Break out the champagne indeed.

    3. Re:Shorter copyright terms are a red herring by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      Even if I conceded every point you made about shortening terms, none of those benefits outweigh the benefits of legalizing noncommercial infringement, which is why I find mainstream copyright reformers so insufferable. The Lessigs of the world get really excited about shortening terms and have nothing to say about the far more important issue of legalizing noncommercial infringement.

      That's why we should legalize noncommercial infringement first. We can debate terms afterward.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
  8. DJ spooky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrific. Another "DJ" calls himself a musician, a concert. Heh. The dude plays records. I play records too, so technically I "play" music. I'm a dang good guitarist, a relic of a couple of bands, the only thing that makes me a musician.

  9. Who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and why should I care