Lawrence Lessig Criticizes Proposed 140-Year Copyright Protections (techcrunch.com) 175
EqualCitizens.US reports on growing opposition to the CLASSICS Act proposed by the U.S. Congress, which grants blanket copyright protection to all audio works created before 1972, leaving some of them copyrighted until 2067.
Importantly, the Act doesn't require artists or the rights holder to register for the copyright. Rather, any and all pre-1972 sound recordings would be copyrighted, greatly limiting the public's access to these works. Various organizations and scholars have responded. Equal Citizens along with a coalition of internet freedom and democracy reform organizations, is sending this letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee to urge its members to reject this Act in its entirety, or at a minimum, at least require registration of pre-1972 works. Otherwise, if the Act passes as is, famous artists and wealthy corporations will benefit greatly while the public will get absolutely nothing in return, as Professor Lawrence Lessig notes in Wired....
This act will limit access to past works and stifle creativity for new works. It would effectively remove many existing works, including some popular documentaries, podcasts, etc., from the public arena. The Coalition recommends adding a registration requirement to secure the extended copyright term, such that works that nobody claimed could be allowed to enter the public domain. As this TechCrunch report on the coalition letter explains:
By having artists and rights owners register, it solves the problem for everyone. Anyone who wants to have their pre-1972 works brought into the new scheme can easily achieve that, but orphan works will enter the public domain as they ought to.
"Either way," Lessig writes, "it is finally clear that the Supreme Court's prediction that the copyright owners would be satisfied with the copyright protection provided by the Sonny Bono Act turns out not to be true."
This act will limit access to past works and stifle creativity for new works. It would effectively remove many existing works, including some popular documentaries, podcasts, etc., from the public arena. The Coalition recommends adding a registration requirement to secure the extended copyright term, such that works that nobody claimed could be allowed to enter the public domain. As this TechCrunch report on the coalition letter explains:
By having artists and rights owners register, it solves the problem for everyone. Anyone who wants to have their pre-1972 works brought into the new scheme can easily achieve that, but orphan works will enter the public domain as they ought to.
"Either way," Lessig writes, "it is finally clear that the Supreme Court's prediction that the copyright owners would be satisfied with the copyright protection provided by the Sonny Bono Act turns out not to be true."
Wait, wut? (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait, wut? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait, wut? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck copyright, restrict it to 14 years from authorship, no extensions. It needs to be reset, people have been brain-washed in to thinking all copying is bad (except when they're doing it of course).
(C)opyright MrL0G1C 2018 until at least 2158 ~
Re:Wait, wut? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a very bad idea. Some works take more than 14 years to author, and you'd have the copyright expiring on the first parts before the work is even finished.
Copyright should be 30 years from the date of publication; the date of creation is irrelevant. For unpublished works, the copyright countdown should toll until the end of a five year grace period after the author's death, to allow the heirs time to publish them. At the end of that grace period, the 30-year copyright period should start even if the work has not been published.
For works of corporate authorship, it should be 30 years from publication or 45 years from creation, whichever is shorter, i.e. there should be a maximum of fifteen years from the date of creation to the date of publication during which the copyright countdown is tolled, after which it starts to count down whether the work is published or not.
Here's the logic behind a thirty-year period: The purpose of copyright is to promote the creation of new works. For works of corporate authorship, the copyright duration is completely irrelevant; all the money gets made in the first two or three years anyway, after which it is generally a paperweight. But for works of individual authorship by people who aren't incredibly famous already, it can take many years to start bringing in any real income from your early works. And although the argument could be made that this forces authors to write more works because the old works become worthless, the reality is that knowing you won't ever make money from your first several works would likely mean that many fewer authors would bother to start writing in the first place.
Also, I would suggest that the copyright period be split in half, with a renewal requirement at the midpoint. The cost of renewal should be proportional to the income that the creator has received from the work—say 5% of gross revenue to date, or perhaps 10%. Continuing to keep a popular work under copyright clearly diminishes the public domain considerably, so it should cost considerably more to continue to protect such a work than a work that nobody has ever heard of. The revenue from the popular works copyright tax should fund federal and state grants for creative and arts education in our public schools — music, art, dance, theater, creative writing, etc.
Re:Wait, wut? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why, why should relatives benefit from work they didn't do. Inheritance is another thing I don't like and I'm saying this as someone who stands to inherit a lot in property.
So lets call it 20 years from publication and if it's not published then tough. And what the hell is corporate authorship, and what's this 45 years crap, no, lets call that 20 years too. 14 years was good enough when copyright started, 20 years is plenty, 45 years is getting obscenely long already.
Copyright laws were created to encourage people to create when copying would lead to them getting next to nothing for their works. Long copyright laws do not encourage people to create, they encourage massive long lasting IPs, not constant new material.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, U.S. copyright was originally 14 years with the option to renew for an additional 14 years. We copied our copyright act from the Statute of Anne [wikipedia.org] in the UK, which also was 14 + 14. The duration of copyright was never just 14 years unless the author failed to renew the copyright or died before he or she could renew it. You're advocating reducing the duration of copyright to almost 30% less than the shortest it ever was in the entire history of copyri
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"Yeah but new works are generally created by people with a passion for their crap they get creative and find a way to do it regardless of financial status"
Exactly that. I really love the way the copyright clause is worded in USA Constitution: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Any regulation should *first* offer a clear reason on how it will "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" o else shouldn't pass. And even then, once passed, it should be checked every (add here a reason
Re: (Score:2)
"Michael Crichton began writing his novel Sphere in 1967 and did not publish until 1987"
Therefore, any copyright claim, under no matter what law, wouldn't start but by 1987. You point is, again?
Re: (Score:2)
Some additional rules should be put in place for copyright:
1. Photos of art can't be copyrighted, the art itself may be subject to copyright.
2. Copyright can only be held by a person, not a company - and it can't be signed over either.
3. In the case of debatable copyright - like the monkey taking a photo of himself - that should be Public Domain since it was a random chance action and nothing else.
4. Lets make a difference between copyright for economic reasons and usage limit reasons.
4a. Copyright for econ
Re: (Score:2)
As a rule, that is already the case. Photos of art generally can't be copyrighted, assuming the intent of the photo is to reproduce the art. It is possible to create a copyrightable work by incorporating a piece of art into a photo in some interesting way (e.g. putting it on an easel and standing a mime next to it in the same pose as the painting's subject), but such a copyright does not affect the copyright of the original
Re: (Score:2)
Physical individual creator +5 years is enough for economic reasons.
And any computer software no longer supported by the creator should go into PD - which means Windows XP and earlier versions by now.
Stop funding them.. (Score:5, Funny)
he answer is simple.
STOP consuming copyrighted works. STOP going to movies, STOP steaming music, STOP going to concerts, STOP the support of these 'artists'.
That is, I am afraid, the only solution at this point.
The social contract of copyright has been violated so completely that it should now be seen as void, however as the force of state will still uphold it,
the only other choice is to avoid it altogether. Violate as you want and at your own risk, but stop giving money to these companies.
Society does not need THESE 'arts', they are not contributing.
Re: (Score:2)
he answer is simple.
STOP consuming copyrighted works. STOP going to movies, STOP steaming music, STOP going to concerts, STOP the support of these 'artists'.
That is, I am afraid, the only solution at this point. The social contract of copyright has been violated so completely that it should now be seen as void, however as the force of state will still uphold it, the only other choice is to avoid it altogether. Violate as you want and at your own risk, but stop giving money to these companies.
Society does not need THESE 'arts', they are not contributing.
This.
There is a wealth of great literature that even these lawfare clowns can't claim is under copyright. And great music too.
Also, get a @$^& fiddle like Pa Ingalls and make your own music.
Re: (Score:2)
Not _currently_ under copyright.
If a large number of people followed your advice, they soon would be. They've done retrospective copyright before and they'll probably do it again.
Hell, they'd like to copyright the Bible, but it would be a huge catfight as to who owns it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And this is one of the best reasons for the 96% of the worlds population who do NOT live in the USA NOT to have a trade agreement with the USA.
It doesn't matter (Score:2, Funny)
Lawrence Lessig, like the rest of us, is merely a citizen and therefore has the same amount of influence as you or me.
Which is to say, none whatsoever.
You've got a lot of influence (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:You've got a lot of influence (Score:5, Insightful)
ROTFL.
Did you fail to notice who the Dems ran last time? Really? Was that all just a bad dream to you? You didnt notice their huge corporate support?
Oh Dear.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
ROTFL.
Did you fail to notice who the Dems ran last time? Really? Was that all just a bad dream to you? You didnt notice their huge corporate support?
Oh Dear.
First off, Hillary is not nearly as bad as the right wing noise machine makes her out to be. She is just not. Second, the democratic party is made up of people. Join up, organize, change it, if you don't like it. Also vote. Always vote. If you can tell one candidate that can win is half a percent better than another then vote. If you have the time volunteer. If you have the money contribute, but be very careful to whom you contribute.
Also, there was more than enough people who _didn't_ vote to put B
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hillary is not nearly as bad as the right wing noise machine makes her out to be. She is just not.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries?ind=F27
Total funding by industry
Hedge Funds:
Hillary: $62 million
Trump: $19 million (barely higher than Rubio's and Jeb!'s totals)
Securities and Investement:
Hillary: $88 million
Jeb!: $33 million
Trump: $21 million
Commercial Banks:
Hillary: $2.8 million
Cruz: $1.7 million
Jeb!: $1.1 million
Rubio: $463,000
Trump: $403,000
Lobbyists:
Hillary: $2.2 million
Jeb!: $1.4 million
Rubio: $640,000
Christie: $184,000
O'Malley: $130,000
Trump: $129,000
Oil and Gas:
Jeb!: $10.4 mill
Re: (Score:1)
Faulty logic.
Doublethink.
there are an uncountable number of reasons to hate and loath Trump.
And if you had any *good* ones you wouldn't have decided to lead with "feces throwing monkey".
Hopefully someday you'll work through all your hatred and resentment and despondency [disclose.tv] and learn to be proud of your country's success again. Otherwise it's going to be a long, stressful 7 years for you.
Re: (Score:1)
In about the same way a dead beatdad is your father and he deserves your respect because even if he was a deadbeat and he abandoned you your whole life to go get strung out and even though he is still doing it all, you should still show him the utmost respect because he is your father.
It is a biblical commandment.
The Dems ran Hillary (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>Your logic is odd, to say the least. Nearly everybody that this 140 year protection would benefit are Democrats or Progressives. If anything, electing more Democrats might result in copyright protection for an even longer time.
Citation, or it didn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Hollywood, besides being a sign on a hill, is an intermediate sized component in the media industry. It generates about as much revenue as gaming. Compared to Comcast , Time
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
What is wrong in your head? You're a mess. SJWs? That term used by people who want to be racist/misogynist but who don't want to be called racist/misogynist? Wonderful.
Re: (Score:1)
"Are you REALLY gonna sit here and argue that Hollywood and the LA music industry isn't as hard left as one can humanly get....really? Because if you truly believe that I have a bridge you might be intersted in buying, dirt cheap!"
Harvey Weinstein and his ilk are the opposite of left, and still running Hollywood. You are batshit crazy.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you REALLY gonna sit here and argue that Hollywood and the LA music industry isn't as hard left as one can humanly get....really?
You must be stupid on a monumental scale if you think believe that they are "as hard left as one can humanly get".
Where would you place western european socialist countries? And then Venezuela for example?
You sure have a warped sense of left and right wing politics. With your extremist views I doubt that there are any "hard right" at all. They are merely moderate centers.
Don't talk about functioning brain cells if you spew this kind of garbage. Crawl back from under whatever rock you came out from.
Re: (Score:1)
Your logic is odd, to say the least. Nearly everybody that this 140 year protection would benefit are Democrats or Progressives. If anything, electing more Democrats might result in copyright protection for an even longer time.
It's not a republican or democrat thing, it's the fact you americans are ignorant that both parties only serve big business and have for the last 200 years. They have never served the public only the oligarchs and that's how america was founded. If american's weren't so fucking purposely uneducated and so gullible you'd stand up to the business community instead of sucking their fucking cocks like its anti american if you stand up to ceo's robbing you bloody blind or something. When ceo's are buying up y
Re: (Score:2)
That's a common mistake (Score:5, Interesting)
The Democratic party is being run by economically right wing and socially moderate (the Hillary wing didn't support Gay Marriage until forced to by the base) conservatives. Being Progressive means being _economically_ progressive too. That means these things:
1. Medicare for all.
2. Living Wage.
3. College for all.
4. New New Deal (google it).
5. End the Wars.
Disney, the most Hollywood of Hollywood definitely opposes #1-#4 and I'm guessing if forced to answer would oppose #5 (their board of directors owns stock in the defense industry along with everybody else at the top).
Re:You've got a lot of influence (Score:4, Insightful)
How many Democrat front-runners are running on copyright reform?
Were Democrats standing up against SOPA and PIPA? Or the TPP?
I'm not suggesting Republicans are doing any better unless by accident, but this is not divided like you say it is. Heck, there was this: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/16481921080/house-republicans-copyright-law-destroys-markets-its-time-real-reform.shtml
Nobody runs on copright reform (Score:3)
And nobody's saying today's Dems are much good. Whether it's Joe Manchin, Nancy Pelosi or that bastard Chuck Schumer they're all selling us out. But my point is there's something to salvage in the Democratic party. I don't feel that way about th
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
join the Democratic party
Hmm, I've thought about it but I need a little more convincing. Could you call me a racist bigot nazi a few hundred times?
Re: (Score:1)
...join the Democratic party.
And here I am unable to give you the "Funny" mod you so richly deserve. Please accept this in lieu thereof.
Re: You've got a lot of influence (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It matters where the money and competition are (Score:4, Insightful)
Lawrence Lessig, like the rest of us, is merely a citizen and therefore has the same amount of influence as you or me.
Which is to say, none whatsoever.
Your trite little comment seems to have opened up the can of worms. I disagree. Even if I saw a mod point to give, no mod point for you [GlennC].
Let me start with the logical fallacy. The Koch brothers are citizens, too, just like "you or me" and Lawrence Lessig, too, but they have LOTS of influence. The difference is the money, at least until they die with the most toys, at which point the TRULY influential entities, the giant corporate cancers they ostensibly "own", will have to get new human placeholders. The underlying FAKE problem of insufficient profits will never be solved because there is always a bigger number for the next profit report.
The abuse of copyright and patent law are merely symptoms of the underlying problems. The original goal was to ENCOURAGE creativity and innovation for society, but the current goal is to MAXIMIZE profits for YUGE corporate cancers. Actually, the corporate cancers at the top always fear new ideas and innovation. Change from the top tends to be downward, which threatens the growth of profit.
Solution approaches to the problems of corporate cancerism exist, but for now ADSAuPR, atAJG.
New works are already de-facto illegal (Score:1, Interesting)
With the precedent set by the Gaye vs. Thicke [oup.com] court case (ruling upheld [tennessean.com] by 9th circuit court of appeals this year), you are committing copyright infringement when you write a song that "feels" like some other song. Because it would be very difficult for a songwriter to listen to every song ever written and ensure that his new song does not sound anything like them, this effectively criminializes songwriting in general. If you are a songwriter in the 9th circuit, the case is already settled precedent, and an
Re:New works are already de-facto illegal (Score:5, Informative)
No. Robin Thicke didn't lose because his song "felt" like Got To Give It Up. He lost because his song WAS Got To Give It Up. He copied the Marvin Gaye song.
Now, we should discuss whether the copyright on Got To Give It Up should have expired a decade ago. I would say that yes, it should have expired. But as long as the copyright was in effect, what Robin Thicke did was a straight-up violation.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, not having been exposed to the copyrighted work is an effective defense against copyright infringement. Unlike patents, parallel construction is a defense.
I've already got a copyright... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe try a patent for a concept or method. Copyright doesn't work that way, although stupid does.
Civil Disobedience (Score:1)
Read the Constitution on the subject, and you will conclude that this is the appropriate response.
All for the copyright holder's profits (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, this smells like the crap music publishers would write themselves to try and keep a tight hold onto their meager profits from old songs that very few people even still buy today, other than certain movies, media and what not.
My modest proposal to fix this (Score:4, Interesting)
Politics is the art of the possible. I have a modest proposal that I think is possible: Allow unlimited copyright extensions that are not automatic or free.
Given how much money Disney and other big content-owning companies are going to spend on this, our elected representatives are going to roll over again... so it is not possible to roll back copyright protection to anything like the original short terms. It's pretty much certain that the terms are getting extended again. So my question is whether we can get the deal changed in some way that makes it better for us.
Disney is very motivated to keep the copyrights going forever on old cartoons like "Steamboat Willy". To them, it's just collateral damage that nothing else ever falls into the public domain... I don't think they care that old black-and-white movies not owned by Disney also aren't falling into the public domain.
So my modest proposal is that a corporation can extend the copyright on any property by filing a form and paying a nominal fee. For the sake of argument I propose $5 to be the fee and for the form to get a 5-year extension. A dollar per year! Cheap!
But if you fail to list some piece of content and file the form, it lapses into the public domain.
This fixes the murky issues around a lot of content, such as obscure video games from three decades ago. In many cases it would take lawsuits to figure out who is the current owner, so it's not possible to get a license for the content... so nobody is going to file the paperwork to extend the copyright, and the old forgotten content will lapse into the public domain.
This is still a screaming good deal for the content owners. The US government still acts as an enforcer to go after people infringing on the copyrights, and it would cost way more than $1 to hire private detectives or whatever to do the same thing without government.
But I don't see why the content owners should get endlessly-extended copyright terms where nothing ever falls into the public domain automatically for free and without even lifting a finger.
Copyright is supposed to be a three-cornered deal between the content owners, the government, and the people. The people are supposed to benefit by things falling into the public domain; that's why the phrase "for limited times" appears in the Constitution. The people would get nothing from a 140-year extension, but would get something from my proposal.
Re:My modest proposal to fix this (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the deal made between Disney and the People are the terms as established in 1928 or whatever.
The Government and Disney can't keep renegotiating the deal while the People are a party to it.
If they don't want the monopoly grant terms they don't have to participate.
Re: (Score:1)
The Government and Disney can't keep renegotiating the deal while the People are a party to it.
Government and powerful interests can and will do anything they like as long as you're not demonstrably willing to kill and/or die to stop them when they abandon all pretense of limited powers derived from the consent of the governed such that it is not possible to change the status quo peacefully through due process because the mechanisms have been suborned and corrupted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a modest proposal that I think is possible: Allow unlimited copyright extensions that are not automatic or free.
So my modest proposal is that a corporation can extend the copyright on any property by filing a form and paying a nominal fee. For the sake of argument I propose $5 to be the fee and for the form to get a 5-year extension. A dollar per year! Cheap!
Copyright is supposed to be a three-cornered deal between the content owners, the government, and the people. The people are supposed to benefit by things falling into the public domain; that's why the phrase "for limited times" appears in the Constitution. The people would get nothing from a 140-year extension, but would get something from my proposal.
I think you have the right idea, and I could get onboard for this. The deal keeps changing, and the people are getting screwed on the deal. They are supposed to get something out of it. Here's how that should happen. I say 10-15 years for free. Then if a rights holder wishes to extend that, they may, but the people need to get their compensation in exchange for any given work not falling into the public domain. I think that the $1/year fee you suggest is reasonable. Paid out to each and every person who is
Re: (Score:2)
I have been proposing this for a while, and I'm glad to see others pick up on it. My proposal had one additional component: the fee would be progressive over the years, ultimately forcing _any_ work into public domain.
As I see it:
- Copyright protection costs money. This money should be paid by those who benefit, i.e. the copyright holder.
- The first ten years of protection are free.
- Afterwards, a work may have its copyright extended for ten years for a fee. This fee increases for each extension.
- There is
But (Score:3)
I don't get it, who gets the royalties of a copyrighted work that no one's claiming or register?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get it, who gets the royalties of a copyrighted work that no one's claiming or register?
That's not the point, the point is they want to control what culture is available because attention is limited. It's the same reason why online drm is a thing so they can shut down the servers and throw away the software and move the stupid herd onto their next product. They don't want the population to be able to own anything. They want captive serfs with no rights to own the products or cultural works they are paying for.
The Result (Score:2, Insightful)
When everything is copyrighted until Oblivion, you might as well just violate the law and copy the shit out of it. Fuck em. If they shut you down, you move and start up again.
Hollywood does not run this country. Fight back or become their slave.
Re: (Score:2)
2nd that, I think everyone should just pirate anything created over 14 years ago, fuck the stooges.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
2nd that, I think everyone should just pirate anything created over 14 years ago, fuck the stooges.
When I was a kid, I bought something in a store, and they did not give me my change. I tried to sort it out, but they would not listen to me. The clerk who rang me in was conveniently gone. I got the feeling that they were in the habit of cheating kids like this. So I "shoplifted" the equivalent amount of goods. Was it wrong? The law may say yes, but I say I only took what I was due.
How is this any different? They are taking away what is ours by changing the agreement without our consent. It may be against
Comment removed (Score:3)
Copyright is supposed to be for a LIMITED time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a joke, but also reality. A large limited time frame is still a limited time frame. Now, the fact that they are able to keep extending the limit leaves it open to potentially be limitless. The end of the nation/species/world/solar system/etc being the only hard limits.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is supposed to be for a LIMITED time. As understood by the Framers of the Constitution, over 100 years is not limited.
Not to defend the scumbags who keep wanting more and more, but "eternity minus a day" is still a limited time.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, the current definition of author's life + X years actually does not fit the definition of a "limited time", since there's no telling how long someone can live. We might figure out the key to eternal life, or failing that, keeping people in stasis indefinite
famous artists (Score:3)
What utter bollocks, the artists will have been dead half a century, explain how they'll benefit when worms are eating them.
The sad thing is... (Score:2)
....that LL saying anything is pretty much the DEFINITION of "preaching to the choir". The only people who know who he is likely already agree.
For the other 7 billion people in the world, it's "Larry who?"
Time to drag out the Heinlein again... (Score:5, Insightful)
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit."
- The Judge, "Life-Line"
Robert A. Heinlein, 1939 Astounding Magazine
Re: (Score:1)
Explain me, Lucy ... (Score:2)
... as to precisely why I care?
I have no intention of making money off someone else's work, ever.
I'm the public domain. Why do I need copyright to expire?
Seriously: Why?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The original motivation is that ideas and discoveries are good, and the inherent reproducibility of ideas is good because it leads to further ideas. However, some ideas take significant work to create, and if everyone else can instantly get all the benefit of my creation without any effort while I had to skip work to come up with it, then I have very little incentive to put in the time other than just for the love of it. The "copyright bargain" tries to establish an incentive for the creation of ideas by
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't answer my question.
I don't give a flying fuck about copyright.
Me, personally: copyright is not an issue with me.
I don't care if copyright goes to infinity.
Explain why I should, in my context.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact you consume media which is copyrighted, and rely on people who likewise are informed by copyrighted material, it seems you are simply unaware of the importance of copyright in your life, and have assumed that if you don't know something that something doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this so hard?
I'm a photographer. I have a shit load of copyright.
My question is simple:
As a content provider or consumer, why in simple hell do I care if my or other's works are copyrighted in perpetuity?
Let's keep our eye on the ball:
It's the small round thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not fooling anyone with that remark.
You don't have an answer.
People are Stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Suppose some of my buddies and I pooled our money together and bought the U.S. Congress for one billion dollars. We then pay congress to enact a law which transfers a 100 billion dollars from the U.S. Treasury to us. We would earn 100 times what we invested, which is an excellent return, so this would be a fantastic business plan.
Would it work? Probably not. It is too overt and brazen, just intolerably offensive. Judges would find some law which disallowed it or, if none actually existed, would detect some applicable penumbras and emanations. Also, the public would be outraged, and nothing terrifies incumbent politicians more than the prospect of not being re-elected. Futhermore, the fact that this is not known to have ever actually occurred suggests that it is not feasible.
But suppose we tweak the plan just slightly. Under the previous plan, Congress would confiscate currency from the public and transfer it to me. Under the new plan, Congress instead confiscates property from the public, in the form of extended intellectual property rights, and transfers it to me.
Would that work? Certainly. Why? Because people are idiots; They are easily befuddled by a direct transfer of wealth from the public to a small group who has paid to influence Congress, if the form of the wealth transferred is any more abstract than cash.
Generally, with any scheme where corporations make monetary contributions to politicians in exchange for those politicians using the coercive powers of government to transfer wealth from the public to the corporations, the form of that wealth must be abstract and represent a sacred political cause. For example, allegedly to protect the environment, Congress enacted law governing ethanol mandates and agriculture price supports instead directly handing taxpayer cash over to agribusiness. Targeted tax breaks are the stand-by when executives and lobbyists are too uncreative to finesse a compelling custom rationale.
Politicians of both major political parties are in the same business, accepting money from special interests in exchange for giving them larger sums of taxpayer money. The only difference between the parties are their justifications. Whereas right-wing taxpayers like to hear things like "We gave these millionaires and billionaires your money to help the economy", left-wing taxpayer prefer rationales such as, "We gave these millionaires and billionaires your money to save the environment."
The difference between 140 years and forever? (Score:2, Insightful)
140 years is roughly 6 generations.
If a work was copyrighted the day you were born, you would die halfway through the copyright period, having never been able to use that IP.
You children would die, having never been able to use that IP.
Your the majority of your grandchildren would die, having never been able to use that IP.
Your great grandchildren - born 80-90 years after the copyright was granted - would be able to the use IP during the end of their working lives.
Only your great-great grandchildren would b
There extensions shouldn't be retroactive (Score:5, Insightful)
If Congress wants to make copyright last 140 years, fine. But the lengthened term should only apply to works created after the term is changed. Those are the only works whose creation could have been encouraged by a lengthened copyright term, and thus fall under the justification outlined in the Constitution.
Tie copyright duration to the benefit (Score:3)
If copyright provides a net positive, then society and content creators gain opportunities for mutual benefits.
If there's no effect, or a detrimental effect... why the hell is copyright legally protected using tax dollars in the first place? Tax dollars shouldn't be spent on something worse than a placebo.
Music, literature, movies, etc. should be rewarded copyright protection according to the quality of life, and consequently duration of life, improvements to society.
It should always have worked this way (Score:3)
"By having artists and rights owners register, it solves the problem for everyone. Anyone who wants to have their pre-1972 works brought into the new scheme can easily achieve that, but orphan works will enter the public domain as they ought to."
This.
Give automatic, free protection for a limited period. Make it the same as a patent, for simplicity's sake. After that, you have to register.
I'd add on top that you have to pay to register. If you think your holiday snapshot is worth protecting, but all means, pay $250 for that privilege.
The Mickey Mouse Protection Act Expires in 2024... (Score:3, Informative)
...THIS is the reason for this new round of Copyright Extension BS.
Starting in 2024, Mickey Mouse will no longer be treated with the "Kid Glove Care" he has enjoyed for a FREAKING CENTURY, and as time progresses and Dis-SkyNet's copyrights expire, more and more of his puerile antics will become public domain.
The underlying cause is the fact that the copyright owners know they haven't produced anything of value in the LAST 50 years. Particularly corporate entities, which already get an EXTRA 50 years above private entities with this BS, so you KNOW it was NEVER about protecting the original artist's IP rights.
This was the real reason for Senator Sonny Bono's original bill, and it worked so well for Coprolite America they couldn't NOT try for ANOTHER round, DUH.
mnem
Follow. The. Money.
If similar rights extended to other fields (Score:1)
I am so lucky that BuCoLIc chose to only employ the very best craftsmen within their field.
I had 20 people around for a
Time To Opt Out: Rediscover Samizdat (Score:2)
This act, or one very much like it, will sooner or later pass. Frankly, given existing law, it hardly matters. If you want to consume or publish existing material whether original or modified, merged, reexamined, or what have you without giving a cut to rent-seekers, you're just going to have to go old skool, like Soviet-bloc "reactionaries [wikipedia.org]" used to.
Naturally, it's a bit harder if you're putting a MAC, IP, or URL out there... so I guess there's a future in physical media after all, and non-pr0n uses for the
Re: (Score:1)
sonny bono actually wanted perpetual (as in forever) copyright. he was advised that would be unconstitutional, and the joke (we hope it was just a joke) was then that it should be 'forever less a day'
They won't stop until it is forever less the smallest quantum unit of time.