Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
from the legal-scrum-about-to-begin dept
For a long time now, the idea of an overhaul of copyright law in the US has mostly been seen as a pipedream. However, it appears that the Register of Copyright, Maria Pallante, may actually be angling for a major bit of copyright reform. Coming up next Wednesday, she's going to be testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on her supposed "Call for Updates to U.S. Copyright Law." Apparently, on March 4th, she gave a talk at Columbia University which has remained amazingly under the radar until now, in which she proposed a long list of possible copyright reforms, which are likely to headline the hearings next week. It's fairly impressive, given how much attention copyright law has been getting lately, that she could present a surprising call for massive changes to the law, and not have a single person report on it immediately after the event ended. However, that is the case.Having spoken to a few people who were either there or who spoke to people who were there, it appears that Pallante is proposing changes touching on nearly every part of copyright law, and as you might expect, it's a very mixed bag, though I'll withhold final judgment until we see the full details. However, the big one would be a change in copyright term length, to effectively "roll back" the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act with one caveat. That is, she's proposing switching us back to a life plus fifty year copyright, but with the ability to renew for that additional 20 years for the tiny percentage of works that makes sense for. While, in the grand scheme of things, life + 50 is still ridiculously too long for copyright, this would be the first major reduction in copyright terms in the history of the US. That's notable.
There are a number of other issues that she apparently is suggesting, including expanding collective licensing, "reforming" the DMCA exemptions process that has generated so much controversy lately over phone unlocking, a change to the DMCA's safe harbors, some sort of effort around dealing with the orphan works issue (something the Copyright Office has been trying for for a while), and a "review" of statutory damages. This could get very interesting -- though it's unclear if it will be interesting in a good way or bad way. Once you open up the law, you have to realize that things could go in either direction. At the very least, a lot of lobbyists on all sides of copyright are about to be very busy for quite some time.
As we get more details, we'll be writing more about this, I'm sure. And, of course, we'll do our best to cover the hearing on Wednesday.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, copyright reform, copyright term, dmca exemptions, judiciary committee, maria pallante, register of copyright, safe harbors
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But seriously, is there any way to get Derek Khanna to be a witness in that congressional hearing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a second...
*Checks the graph*
...
STEAMBOAT WILLY IN PUBLIC DOMAIN?!
...
You KNOW Disney's going to throw a tantrum about this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a second...
Not necessarily.
1. May not apply retroactively to the past.
2. There's still the ability to renew to existing lengths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait a second...
Still, would be nice if it worked that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait a second...
And if registration is required then the benefits will be limited. Sure, it'll free up forgotten works a little quicker, but the corporations and estates will just reregister the profitable works.
And in any case, life plus 50 is still an order of magnitude too long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait a second...
Then make it retroactive. Give everyone a year to register what's already out there, of course. (And even if it won't give any benefits for 50 years... may as well get started now.)
"And if registration is required then the benefits will be limited. Sure, it'll free up forgotten works a little quicker, but the corporations and estates will just reregister the profitable works."
But it does help with the orphaned works. And it has the benefit of being likelier to pass. Large corporations with high powered lobbyists won't mind it as much because it won't affect what they own - after all, they're going to register anything that they can make money from. It also precludes any ridiculous lawsuit about the government "taking their property" - all they have to do is register. And it doesn't violate any treaty obligations.
I'd prefer a limited benefit to the status quo.
"And in any case, life plus 50 is still an order of magnitude too long."
Well, yes. There's no reason that something you write as a young person should still be generating royalties for your grandchildren in their old age, and in no case should it depend on how long a person lives. I'd be perfectly happy with 50 years. Just long enough that the culture you enjoyed in your youth can be in the public domain when you retire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait a second...
Except in the case of older (1963 and back) books/films/etc, 1) many of the companies that owned the copyrights simply dissolved into the ether with no successor companies.
2) didn't renew during the original 28 year stretch.
3) Didn't perform the transfer of copyright to either a successor company or whatever company they merged into!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone must have smoked the really good shit to come up with all�a this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Might be good to withhold judgment. Some of the changes suggested may be quite bad... I'm worried about revisiting the safe harbors, for example...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's depressing that this is more believable then the idea that a government office wants to make changes in the public interest. And let's face it, things like the proposed reduction are equivalent to throwing out a bone - a carefully scraped, well boiled bone with all the marrow removed - to the dogs. Still, like any addiction it's hard to completely give up hope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure there will be no retroactivity, and I doubt that any reforms could survive the deluge of lobbying that would occur if reform was actually introduced in Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a system not based on the life of the author is adopted, TRIPS would allow periods as low as 50 years from creation of the work. 50 years total seams like a very reasonable time to me but I doubt that we will be seeing suggestions to move to this kind of model from her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STILL TOO LONG: "life plus fifty year copyright"
[Note that though wicked courts have variously ruled against the clear language of the Constitution, as from Dred Scott on, that the principles laid out there are STILL just fine. Moneyed interests -- as slave owners were: RICH from slave labor while maintaining a two-tier society -- will always try to corrupt those principles.]
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/09225322338/surprise-register-copyrights-expected- to-call-reduction-copyright-term.shtml#comments
(NB: a variation to properly credit Mike with delivering news I ain't read elsewhere first.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: STILL TOO LONG: "life plus fifty year copyright"
Did�did we all just catch a whiff of whatever the RoC smoked? Have I fallen into Bizarro World?
MY WORLD IS CHANGING AND I DON�T LIKE IT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: STILL TOO LONG: "life plus fifty year copyright"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: STILL TOO LONG: "life plus fifty year copyright"
Well, it's never been 28 years in the US, and copyright terms aren't mentioned in the US Constitution save that they're obligated to be of limited duration. Are you perhaps from a different country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: STILL TOO LONG: "life plus fifty year copyright"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: STILL TOO LONG: "life plus fifty year copyright"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: STILL TOO LONG: "life plus fifty year copyright"
Then you were aware, boy, that 28 years was the initial period with the option of another 28 years if it was renewed.
You'd be amazed at how much material wasn't renewed, making the effective period of copyright for those works only 28 years, then they became PD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: STILL TOO LONG: "life plus fifty year copyright"
Yes, it was 28+28 under the 1909 Act. But the way to describe the term generally (as opposed to a specific work, with a specific history) was as 28+28 or some variation thereof that indicates that there were two separate terms of 28 years each, such that a copywriter work might only be copyrighted for 28 years, or might be copyrighted for the full 56. To merely say 28 is to oversimplify. And of course, terms for works initially copyrighted under the 1909 Act only got longer after the 1976 Act came along, shooting up to 28+47, then 28+67, not to mention the complication of automatic renewals in the early 90s, and the issue of in whom the rights vest.
You'd be amazed at how much material wasn't renewed, making the effective period of copyright for those works only 28 years, then they became PD.
I already knew that too. Indeed, the common failure of authors to renew is why I've long suggested that one useful reform for copyright would be to not only have short maximum durations of copyright, but to break it up into many very short terms, e.g. 1 year terms renewable nineteen times, so that the public can benefit more immediately from a renewal claimant's inattention. Why wait many years longer than necessary?
Oh, and go fuck yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: STILL TOO LONG: "life plus fifty year copyright"
Not quite, boy.
The term was 28 years.
There was an option to renew, but since many didn't bother, the actual term of most copyrights pre-1976 was only 28 years.
Try to get on a first name basis with facts, kid.
Oh, and I'd say "same to you", but it's obvious by your attitiude, it's the probably the only action you've had in quite a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: STILL TOO LONG: "life plus fifty year copyright"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tap Tap Tap...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmm... actually I wouldn't mind that so much since it would at least require active action on the part of the copyright holder; if they set the default back to 14 years I could even tolerate an infinitely renewable extension period. Especially since it would effectively eliminate orphaned works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unconstitutional
Copyright itself doesn't even need to exist anymore. What's more is that it's also powerless to restrict copying and distribution of applicable works without violating more constitutionally reserved rights. The intended purpose of copyright, as it has been said over and over, is to increase the supply of works and access to them so that we can promote the progress of culture and knowledge by using existing works to innovate new works.
The public domain is the brick and mortar we use to build new works. If you take away the building materials by locking them away in pseudo property rights, that leaves us with nothing to build with. In fact, the only people who can create new works are the owners of the works who constantly recycle their own "IP" over and over with very little innovation, which stagnates our culture. Look at the movies the studios put on a regular basis. There's a few gems floating in a cesspool of crap that is basically the same as the stuff they made the previous year. No, eliminating copyright won't rid us of crappy movies, but it will allow for innovation and remixing of many of them, resulting in a more innovative climate for art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unconstitutional
from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unconstitutional
The constitution had to permit congress this ability since it otherwise conflicts with the first amendment (your free-speech ability to say what someone else has said).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
You're absolutely correct on this point.
The constitution had to permit congress this ability since it otherwise conflicts with the first amendment (your free-speech ability to say what someone else has said).
That, however, is incorrect. For one thing, the First Amendment (protecting free speech rights) was not around when the Constitution was written, so there would be nothing to conflict with.
The real reason is that certain publishers (mainly Joel Barlow) convinced some of the Founders that, without a post-publication monopoly, they would not be able to publish to the general public (or at all).
In fact, this was explicitly written into the copyright laws of most states: in order to get copyright protection, you had to furnish editions of the works to the public at "reasonable prices."
To the Founders, this must have seemed like a no-brainer. By granting copyright to authors, and not the State, they avoided any censorship issues inherent in a state-controlled publication monopoly. Also, the laws explicitly applied only to publishers or booksellers, so it had a negligible negative affect on the general public. But the result of more books, at cheaper prices, benefited the public immensely.
So, at the time, it was a terrific idea. Unfortunately, times have changed. Technology has eradicated the difference between public and publisher, but copyright law has changed in the opposite direction. The copyright laws we have now would absolutely horrify the creators of the Copyright Clause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unconstitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
That does two things:
1. It gives Congress the exclusive power to establish Copyright law.
2. It even says what form that law will take - that authors and inventors will have exclusive rights.
Congress has the power to do it. Nobody else does. I was responding to the original assertion that Copyright is Unconstitutional, and I believe I've made my point. It's not, since Copyright is essentially written in to the Constitution - and not even as an amendment, but the actual main body of the Constitution itself.
If I worded it wrong, then sorry... but let's not pick nits here. =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
The constitution says "for limited times", yet the term of copyright is being constantly extended. It's supposed to promote the progress, but it doesn't. It's used specifically to stop the creation of works which would fulfill the goal of promoting the progress. With perpetual terms and censorship of works based on previous works, copyright exceeds what is allowed by the supreme law of the land (i.e. the constitution). It actually makes it so a copyright holder can hold a copyright like it's property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unconstitutional
The real purpose of copyright was to regulate the printing Industry, and in particular to ensure that one printer had control over the printing of a title. When type had to be set by hand, setting a book was a time consuming operation, and required sufficient sales to make a profit. Therefore if several printers in a locality printed the same title none of them would make a profit.
Note, authors rights were a fiction to get the statute of Anne passed, they had been selling works to printers for several hundred years before copyright was invented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unconstitutional
Basically, we allow authors to have a temporary ability to exclusively exploit a new work so that they can make money from its distribution and after such term expires, it would be made available to everyone else as a cultural resource for the creation of new works. But the law doesn't work that way as it exists. It is held in perpetual exclusivity in direct contradiction of the phrase "for limited times" and prevented from ever joining the public domain so that others may access and utilize it freely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
First: The "moral rights" in other countries don't generate "additional income" for artists. They cover things like attribution, and control over the "integrity" of the work. They are distinct from "economic rights" in those countries - in fact, the term lengths are often different.
The U.S. only recognizes "economic rights." We have been able to form treaties with countries that have "moral rights," because in theory those rights are covered by libel and slander laws in the U.S.
Second: International treaties do not override the Constitution, nor U.S. laws in general. If an international treaty requires changes to U.S. law, then those changes must be explicitly approved by Congress. Also, Congress must approve the joining of the U.S. to any international treaties.
The U.S. can change its laws any time it likes. The issue is that it may then no longer be part of that international treaty. Generally speaking, Congress doesn't like doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
Actually, no.
To use the classic example of Terry Nation and the Daleks...
Nation created the Daleks as a part of his work-for-hire assignment on the BBC tv series Doctor Who.
Since the Daleks were his creations, the BBC has to pay him (and now his estate since Nation is deceased) every time the little pepperpots show up on the series or in merchandising.
In addition, Nation had the right to use the Daleks in his own licensed products (excluding any reference to Dr Who), and there were a lot of them in the late 1960s-early 1970s.
In fact, Nation tried to sell a Daleks tv series to American television after the two Dr Who feature films (which featured the Daleks) came out, but the films didn't do well in the US and the project fell through.
So those moral rights DO generate income for the creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
To use the classic example of Terry Nation and the Daleks...
Well, I'm afraid you're wrong. I know this, because Britain does not have "moral rights."
In fact, Nation simply retained the copyright in the character. This link from the Daily Mail explains it (scroll down to the middle):
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1382252/Daleks-Doctor-Whos-notorious-enemies-r eturn-screens.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
The last time I checked, a Copyright has a finite time span. The time is variable, but there is still a finite end to the term of any Copyright.
Is that somehow unlimited (the opposite of limited)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unconstitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't help to see the talks start off with "rolling back" terms which are still much too excessive for the current age of digital distribution.
Moreso, the last time someone from the copyright regime proposed a change, everyone else got screwed.
The copyright office gets a vote of "No Confidence" from me, though by doing so, I may have unleashed a fate worse than what we have now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
those there were probably threatened with being prosecuted for copyright infringement if they let anything out. either that or the only ones at the meeting were the entertainment industries execs and they have been running around like headless chickens since, trying to convince, yet again, the thick fuckers in government who keep falling on their side that Pallante has had a nervous breakdown and needs to be institutionalized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets hope it sticks
I hope the same doesn't happen here...
Only time will tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orphan Works
I strongly believe that works should not be able to go "out of print" in our modern digital age. If a work can't be reasonably and reliably purchased, then some sort of mandatory licensing should be invoked to allow people to buy out of print movies, books, music, and software. The specific fees can be based on industry standards for the type of media and its age.
My solution is actually very simple: when a work is registered with the LOC, the LOC creates a contact entry in their database. That person is required to update his contact information once a year - by Internet or mail.
If the Copyright holder fails to register his address after a period of time, and if a work is no longer reasonably and reliably found for sale, then the work should be classified as abandoned. While a work is abandoned, the owner cannot make any claim under Copyright.
If the person re-connects to the LOC and updates their address, then the owner's rights are restored, and he can assert his rights. Anything distributed during the abandoned phase may continue to be used but not re-distributed.
* Reasonable and reliable: by this, I mean that a work is currently offered for retail sale and is easily available at market value for that type of work.
Examples: You can buy this CD on Amazon for $9. That's reasonable.
There's one copy of a 20 year old CD on EBay from a band that broke up 18 years ago, and it's going for $300. That's neither reasonable nor reliable.
A comic store in Iowa has the only remaining copy of a 40 year old comic book. Not reasonable or reliable.
I'm all in favor of setting up a fund for orphaned works and using these funds to pay owners who re-claim their Copyright. Use the current iTunes/Amazon pricing model as a guideline: $1 for a song, $5 for a book, and $10 for a movie. Let the seller keep 30% and put the rest in the recovery fund. If no one claims it after 5 years, the money can go to a fund that helps legitimate Copyright holders protect their works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Orphan Works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Orphan Works
And I understand where your coming from tomxp, but that whole one copy of an old comic is being sold in a store for an obscene amount of money concept is kinda central to economics. That whole supply/demand thing with physical objects still applies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Orphan Works
To be honest, I don't really care where it goes, but I think the best purpose for unclaimed funds would be to set up a legal foundation to defray the costs of prosecuting and defending Copyright suits - specifically for small-time holders and managers of free content.
Or just forget the whole statutory license thing and just give it away... I don't really care. My point is that I don't want to see orphaned works in a state where it's illegal to copy them simply because you can't find who owns them. I also hate the practice of "vaulting" an item simply to make it more valuable. Once something is out there in the public, you can't take it back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not April Fools day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Safe Harbors
I think we are seeing another SOPA in the making here, folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safe Harbors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safe Harbors
Google provides links to sites with no discrimination between "legal" and "not legal." That should qualify for safe harbor, since Google has significant non-infringing uses, and identifying pirate sites vs legitimate sites is not all that simple.
YouTube makes an honest attempt to identify pirated content, even to the point of overreaching and marking stuff as infringing when it's not. This should qualify as safe harbor.
For example: MegaUpload allegedly solicited pirated works. That would not be safe harbor.
Web hosting sites have no interest in what their consumers host. This is safe harbor.
IMO, linking should never be Copyright infringement. Period. No safe harbor applies here, because links are not infringing. If site owners don't like hotlinks, they should implement http-referer checks or use sessions like the rest of us do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Safe Harbors
Really?
Got a link to verify that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Safe Harbors
But if you haven't actually read any of the 5.3 million articles written about the allegations against Mega, here's the Ars summary on it: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload/
Anyways, it doesn't matter whether Mega specificaly was or was not soliciting it. My point is that if you ARE soliciting Copyrighted content, you are in violation of Safe Harbor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That one is good.
I think this would be a step in the right direction. Personally, I am a great fan of copyright and depend on it, but it currently lasts too long and I also think Fair Use should be stengthened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That one is good.
IOn almost all cases those are the works that have made the publishers and creators very rich, and therefore do not need extended term to reward the publisher or creators.
Further this could be used to extend the protection on a work that is not available because the current copyright holders does not want it made available. The nightmare scenario is a religious bigot gains control of an academic journal, and then prevents copies of any paper to do with evolution being made available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, what is the proper term of copyright? You are intimating that you know. Please share the details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Songs are largely the same. Most money is made in the first 10 years, with a few big names going on much longer (see Beatles, Elvis) but those are rare exception.
Literature is also not too far off. You still make all your money early on in the process, with only a very small % making any money after a decade.
Video games is something like 5 years of commercial relevancy (or less).
So it would seem that a 10-20 year term is quite viable. There can even be some extensions possible for another 10-20 years, with a fee, for those works that are still commercially viable.
Everything else should go public domain after that timeframe. There is little reason for it to stay locked up for so long, especially after the composer/author/artist's death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For example, Disney still produces Mickey Mouse cartoons, books, and video games. They should retain the rights to the character for as long as they're actively using him and for as long as any of their works with his likeness are still in Copyright.
That would fit the original intent a lot better, I think, than turning Copyright in to a century-long term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which is the way trademark works.
If you don't use it, you lose it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
back to 14+14 model, the first 14 being cheap or free to register, the 2nd 14 requiring a fee based on how much the work has made for the company/person.
the fee is to discourage extensions of works that the creator/ower of copyright know arent going to be profitable but just dont want to let go of.
this would let movies/books/games/exct stay under copyright for their profitable periods(first 14 years covers that) and if the owner of said copyright wants to extend it thinking that will be profitable, they can choose to pay a fee based on how much the work made in sales/licencing already.
but it would need a system to ensure that no hollywood accounting goes on.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=hollywood+accounting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In other words, compete or die, like the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It could be 50 years from publication or 100+ years from publication, with no easy way to find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Domain project
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Domain project
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Domain project
If you want true Public Domain though then remember that anyone can use your media, chop it into bits to mix and match into their own creation, or just to take the whole thing and sell their own "special edition" hardcopy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Domain project
I'm assuming that you are the one that currently holds the copyright on the work. (If not, you can't do anything about the work's copyright status.)
Technically, it's impossible to put anything into the public domain. This is due to the "droit d'auteur" ("moral rights") in copyright laws of other countries (mainly Europe). The closest that you can do is issue it under a CC0 license:
http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/
But no matter what you do, you are legally still the copyright holder. So you could, for example, change or revoke the license at any time. (Once rights are granted, however, they would be very hard to take back - anyone who used the work while it was still under one license, retains the rights granted under that license.)
If you issue the work under a CC0 license, then I'm sure Archive.org will host it. Probably Project Gutenberg as well (if it's a book), though you should check with them to make sure.
There's nothing stopping you from using both if you want. In fact, I'd recommend using as many outlets as humanly possible, including the "pirate sites."
And can we use Kickstarter to help fund it to make hard copies to sell, or am I missing what public domain is all about?
Absolutely you can do this. You do not need copyright in order to fund or sell copies of your works. Without copyright, the only thing you would lose is the ability to prevent everyone else from doing the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Domain project
So you could and should register it with the LOC, just like any work you want to preserve.
You could also place a notice in the work that states explicit terms of use, such as: "I donate this work to the public domain. You may freely copy, sell, modify, or use this work."
But really, when many people say "Public Domain" they really mean "Share Alike", so you should probably explore the Creative Commons license and consider publishing your work under the CC-SA license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A positive step
Yes rolling back the term of copyright by 20 years would be truly historic and not even an event that I expected to see in my lifetime.
There would be some bad along with the good in any large change to copyright law but it is clear to see that currently both sides are deeply unhappy with how the law works where any large change may well turn a broken system into a working one.
I also hope they see that relaxing copyright laws can lead to a bloom of new creation like can be seen on Imgur daily with their community mixing, matching, improvement and reuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Statutory damages
Whether that's the direction we go is another matter.
If any good changes are made to U.S. copyright law, I wonder what the response will be from the other countries who are being forced into copyright maximalism by the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Statutory damages
Distributing a 99c song should not invoke a $100,000 fine. That should more like a parking ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Statutory damages
The theoretical reason that statutory damages are available, is that calculating actual damages is difficult.
Nonetheless, there's a kind of "unwritten rule" in case law that says statutory damages should be in the general ballpark of what actual damages would be. Unfortunately, since it's an unwritten rule, juries are usually not informed of it. The juries are just given a big range, and told to come up with something. That's why the damages in e.g. the Jammie Thomas suit were so astronomical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a Reduction Just a pay US More
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-hardball hits face while standing in left field- �whap�
I have been jumping up and down for terms closer to 15-30 years (absolute) so any retraction of current permanent copyright has got to be good. Think of the gain to public domain?
IMHO the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act should be replace with (and only with) our warm and fuzzy feelings for them. To our economic benefit a few local bars will actually be able to display their Sonny and Cher memorabilia (pictures, records and figurines) and play their music without fear of copyright abuse. (or whatever fave artist will be liberated from such a cultural black hole)
Since the copyright industry apparently controls the White House and D.C. Based DoJ Maria Pallante has been raised to hero status in my light. (Just for even raising the topic it is that rare.) Phone unlocking? Expansion of safe harbors to cover orphaned works? Review of the outright ridiculously outrageous statutory damages? Coooooolllllll. (Exciting even.) Even if fired b4 Wednesday (reality is sooo ugly) and left off as rumor it still counts and greatness. (don't get me wrong am still cynical)
Yes any time legislation is introduced it might be corrupted by the usual special interest groups. I hope they are able to fend off the normal commercial buy outs. (If they would whine and scream, and ignored as such, like little kids do when mom tells them she cant afford that bag of candy... Yes!)
It would be nice it we could convince our wonderful legislators to never talk with them (monopolistic special interest groups) ever or be guaranteed a vote out next term. (Impeachment at an earlier date? Don't laugh it is the way the public enforces their will.)
Life+50 is still waaayyy to long. My best cultural arguments are for a term much less than the life of the intended audience. (absolute 15-30 years) In this way the children you teach your lesson to will be able to use it before they die. (what is common sense?)
It is possible that several unfortunate treaties and trade agreements have been engaged but they can hopefully be tossed off as stupid mistakes. The economic and cultural Renaissance (implied not guaranteed) leadership more than pays for the special interest medaling.
Because of all the culturally restrictive (am being polite) legislation attached to the current copyright amendment I think it should be discarded and replaced with something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Term
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk about cherry-picking your examples. I'm sure the 15th Century also had its share of ridiculous thespians who couldn't write, sing, or act and still tried to make a living in the arts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Composing while decomposing
And, since monetary compensation is what is meant by "encouraging" further compositions, which banks would facilitate the transfer of money from the realm of the living to the world of the dead? Or are the publishing houses actually pocketing that money instead?
These are questions that should've been asked at the time of the Sonny-Bono Act. It's called the "Giggle Test". Does a proposed course of action contradict established physical reality in such a way as to be life-threatening, in this case by causing an uncontrollable fit of laughter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever heard of corporations?
For example: a comic book company buys the works to the Power Guy character, giving the creator $100,000 in advancce, along with royalties. The only catch is that Mega Comics now owns the Copyrights.
Would that guy have been able to earn a living by publishing a little webcomic and maybe some e-books? Current trends say that he's still be working a day job and also writing and drawing Power Guy at night; he would never end up getting out all the other stuff in his head, since he has to work at Innitech by day to feed his family.
On the other hand, now that he has enough money to live comfortably for a while, he can script out a huge story arc that has Power Guy building a team of super heroes and saving the world from the evil mind-controlling drones of The Congolmerate. After that, he can go on to write the world's finest Superhero opera, and Mega Comics follows THAT up with a television series and a line of successful video games.
Part of Mega Comics' motivation for taking a risk on the artist who created all this is the knowledge that they can leverage his material even after he's gone.
Personally, I don't want to deny creators exclusive control over the works for their lifetime. When it comes to corporate exploitation after the creators' death... we only have to look at the continued success of real-life examples like Superman and Batman to see that this system DOES encourage new works. It's not like Superman stopped being productive after his creators died. It's not like Batman hasn't had 8 movies, 3 TV series, and more popularity than nearly any other fictional character in existence.
I have fewer issues with the term of Copyright than I do with over the top enforcement and complete lack of ability to legally use orphaned works. (I also think we need better systems for fighting piracy; the current system of notify and takedown is expensive and only really protects the big guys who can afford to continuously search for their pirated content.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]