boing boing - Happy Public Domain Day: here are the works that copyright extension stole from you in 2015 and Center for the Study of the Public Domain
Current US law extends copyright for 70 years after the date of the author’s death, and corporate “works-for-hire” are copyrighted for 95 years after publication. But prior to the 1976 Copyright Act (which became effective in 1978), the maximum copyright term was 56 years—an initial term of 28 years, renewable for another 28 years. Under those laws, works published in 1958 would enter the public domain on January 1, 2015, where they would be “free as the air to common use.” Under current copyright law, we’ll have to wait until 2054.1 And no published works will enter our public domain until 2019. The laws in other countries are different—thousands of works are entering the public domain in Canada and the EU on January 1.
Related Stories
As the new year starts, Duke University's Center for the Study of the Public Domain reminds us that works from 1926 ascend to public domain, and become available for use by any and all in any manner they may wish. There is also a lot of recorded music starting to enter the public domain, as an estimated 400,000 sound recordings from before 1923 hit the scene. Most of them music recordings are salvaged from very fragile 78 RPM platters using multiple methods.
In 2022, the public domain will welcome a lot of “firsts”: the first Winnie-the-Pooh book from A. A. Milne, the first published novels from Ernest Hemingway and William Faulkner, the first books of poems from Langston Hughes and Dorothy Parker. What’s more, for the first time ever, thanks to a 2018 law called the Music Modernization Act, a special category of works—sound recordings—will finally begin to join other works in the public domain. On January 1 2022, the gates will open for all of the recordings that have been waiting in the wings. Decades of recordings made from the advent of sound recording technology through the end of 1922—estimated at some 400,000 works—will be open for legal reuse.
Why celebrate the public domain? When works go into the public domain, they can legally be shared, without permission or fee. That is something Winnie-the-Pooh would appreciate. Community theaters can screen the films. Youth orchestras can perform the music publicly, without paying licensing fees. Online repositories such as the Internet Archive, HathiTrust, and Google Books can make works fully available online. This helps enable access to cultural materials that might otherwise be lost to history. 1926 was a long time ago. The vast majority of works from 1926 are out of circulation. When they enter the public domain in 2022, anyone can rescue them from obscurity and make them available, where we can all discover, enjoy, and breathe new life into them.
The public domain is also a wellspring for creativity. The whole point of copyright is to promote creativity, and the public domain plays a central role in doing so. Copyright law gives authors important rights that encourage creativity and distribution—this is a very good thing. But it also ensures that those rights last for a “limited time,” so that when they expire, works go into the public domain, where future authors can legally build on the past—reimagining the books, making them into films, adapting the songs and movies. That’s a good thing too! As explained in a New York Times editorial:
- When a work enters the public domain it means the public can afford to use it freely, to give it new currency . . . [public domain works] are an essential part of every artist’s sustenance, of every person’s sustenance.
See also, What Will Enter the Public Domain in 2022? A festive countdown which, were it not blocked by javascript, would highlight a selection of what has become available.
Previously:
(2021) Public Domain Day in the USA: Works from 1925 are Open to All!
(2020) January 1, 2020 is Public Domain Day: Works From 1924 Are Open to All!
(2018) Public Domain Day is Coming
(2014) Happy Public Domain Day: Here are the Works that Copyright Extension Stole From You in 2015
and more ...
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday January 01 2015, @03:24AM
"The laws in other countries are different—thousands of works are entering the public domain in Canada and the EU on January 1." - solution found?
Another aspect is that if the works are published on a website or mesh network node and accessed from the land in the west.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @03:28AM
"Despite being a notoriously bad driver, he nonetheless enjoyed driving — frequently while reading a book"
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @03:32AM
Two bicyclists start twenty miles apart and head toward each other, each going at a steady rate of 10 mph. At the same time a fly that travels at a steady 15 mph starts from the front wheel of the southbound bicycle and flies to the front wheel of the northbound one, then turns around and flies to the front wheel of the southbound one again, and continues in this manner till he is crushed between the two front wheels. Question: what total distance did the fly cover? The slow way to find the answer is to calculate what distance the fly covers on the first, northbound, leg of the trip, then on the second, southbound, leg, then on the third, etc., etc., and, finally, to sum the infinite series so obtained. The quick way is to observe that the bicycles meet exactly one hour after their start, so that the fly had just an hour for his travels; the answer must therefore be 15 miles. When the question was put to von Neumann, he solved it in an instant, and thereby disappointed the questioner: "Oh, you must have heard the trick before!" "What trick?" asked von Neumann, "All I did was sum the geometric series."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @11:25AM
The story I heard was a bumble bee bouncing off trains, asked of Gauss. I think it was told to me be my university maths lecturer...
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday January 02 2015, @05:48PM
Trick question. Without knowing the circumference of the wheels, the fly's landing position, and how long it takes for it to land and then take off again, you can't determine its exact position at the moment of impact and therefore can't determine if it'll be crushed. Or, for that matter, you can't determine that it won't be crushed on its first landing by being unable to take off before the wheel rotates it into the pavement. Oh, and are these street bikes or mountain bikes? If they're mountain bikes the tread might be deep enough for the fly to crawl in a hole and survive the impact! ;)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by anubi on Thursday January 01 2015, @03:43AM
And they can be changed back.
If the politician currently in office won't do it, then we need to elect someone else who will.
Isn't that the standard management response?
Yet, we find ourselves taking whatever is offered because we do not do things like a manager would.
Instead, we keep voting for whoever the mailers tell us to vote for.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @03:49AM
I've never done it, but I suspect if one sent letters to candidates about such issues, or brought them up when candidates visited one's door, one might raise awareness of such issues among them. The arguments for looser copyright are sound, but many do not consider them in the first place - unless they are brought to their attention.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @08:41AM
If you send a communique to a politician stating your position on an issue, you can count on getting back a **form letter** which states the position of the politician.
Ralph Nader (a guy who really knows the ins and outs of gov't) recommends that you instead ASK QUESTIONS.
This makes the candidate and/or his staff do some actual work.
In the process, he/they may become better informed.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday January 02 2015, @05:51PM
I try asking questions. They mail me back a form letter anyway. So then I take a pen to the form letter, highlighting and commenting on sections where I would like more information and mailing it right the heck back along with printed references where necessary. Sometimes requires two stamps because the envelope is so heavy. For some reason I never hear back though....
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday January 01 2015, @03:53AM
The majority of people won't vote outside the Demopublican party.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 01 2015, @11:24AM
Only a couple of hundred million will vote for the Demopublican party. Seven billion won't. Parochial much?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday January 01 2015, @12:28PM
Don't matter as the USA has the power of the saber AND the bribe, see Berne for just one example of USA laws being foisted on other nations.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday January 02 2015, @01:51AM
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) comes to mind too. To the benefit of profit USA profits.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by gman003 on Thursday January 01 2015, @04:21AM
And under a twenty-year copyright (what I'm ultimately in favor of), this is what we'd be getting:
Action Comics #700 (The Fall of Metropolis)
Debt of Honor
Definitely Maybe (Oasis)
Dookie (Green Day)
Doom II
Final Fantasy VI
Forrest Gump
The Lion King
Pulp Fiction
Sonic the Hedgehog 3
Star Trek: Generations
Super Metroid
Symphony X (Symphony X)
System Shock
Timecop
Weezer (Weezer)
X-COM: UFO Defense
Youthanasia (Megadeth)
Gives you a bit of perspective to look at it this way.
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Thursday January 01 2015, @04:57AM
20 is far too much. In the days of the printing press, 14 with one extension was plenty. Today? Five, registration required, with one paid extension would be a generous upper bound.
Any more than this is insane. That would have kept Rawlings' first Potter book covered until the seventh was released. Longer terms work against the very premise, disincentivizing creation in favor of rent seeking off of old ones. This shit is not working as intended!
There is no place for generational ownership of ideas in an age of costless copying.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @08:48AM
1 year, renewable. No limits on the number of renewals.
First year: $10
2nd year: $100
3nd year: $1000
4th year: $10,000
Let's see just how valuable -you- think your "intellectual property" is.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Thursday January 01 2015, @02:15PM
Five, registration required, with one paid extension would be a generous upper bound.
Sorry, kid, you don't know what you're talking about, partly because you're so young. Five years seems like a long time to you; after all, it's 1/5 of your life. Your SHORT life.
Isaac Asimov didn't receive a dime for his Foundation trilogy for ten years. You know, the Hugo winner for all time best. Your incredibly tiny copyright would have kept him from earning a dime for one of the best sci fi works there is. A five year copyright would benefit no one.
That said, current copyright lengths only benefit corporations. They hinder the creation of art. I have an upcoming book that would be better if I could use the lyrics to two songs that were released forty one years ago, but there's no way for me to contact the copyright holder for two songs that should have been public domain long ago.
Art and literature are like science and tech, in that what is comes from what was; "the shoulders of giants". The future is built on the past, but our insane laws restrict use to the long past. Here's a trivial, "pop" example: Seether will surely get sued for Same Damn Life; [youtube.com] its guitar riff is identical to this fifty one year old song [youtube.com].
I could put up with the 1976 lengths (still too long, the earlier lengths made more sense). But your five years is laughably, insanely juvenile. Hell it takes a year for the copyright office to get your registration to you.
Imagine how technology would stagnate if patents lasted as long as copyrights? Twenty years seems reasonable; if you can't make money in two decades, you're not going to, and money you make motivates you to create more pop dreck.
BTW, feel free to share my books noncommercially.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @09:40PM
Many works don't generate revenue until significantly after the time of the creators deaths - but most of those were published before the internet's distribution system allowed for works to be discovered as quickly. Copyright periods should decrease not increase as a result of this.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday January 02 2015, @12:22AM
Especially since in those cases copyright provides no incentive or enabling income for the author anyway.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday January 02 2015, @06:12PM
Somebody mod parent up...
Communication is always getting faster. Travel and transport is always getting faster. Lord of the Rings took five years just to go from completed manuscript to a published book. Harry Potter was completed in 1997, published later that same year, movie rights were sold by 1998, and the film was released in 2001. All the way from completed manuscript to completed movie in under five years.
Personally, I think copyright should vary a bit based on the size or class of work. Books and movies take longer to produce and consume and therefore should get longer copyright terms than songs or games. 'Games' is probably too broad though -- people still play Monopoly, but not too many care about Madden 2008. Maybe digital goods get less time than physical goods. Whatever. But there's *certainly* no reason to be *extending* copyright terms over time. If 28-56 years was enough a century ago, then certainly no more than 15-30 is required today.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday January 02 2015, @12:57AM
10 years for movies and video games should cover things just fine. Books might call for longer. Either way, at the half way mark there should be a required registration to get the other half.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday January 02 2015, @12:41PM
I agree that registration should be required. I register all my works just so there's no doubt about who really did it.
I also think that no noncommercial use should be illegal. Email a copy of my book to someone? No problem; that's what libraries are for; reading should be free. Post my books on a web page with ads? Expect a letter from a lawyer.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:21AM
Agreed. That seems to fit well with the public's prevailing sense of right and wrong.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday January 02 2015, @02:10AM
To claim copyright. Works should be required to register contact information with some government entity. To avoid copyrighted but author less works.
But copyright itself should last at least as long as the author is alive.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday January 02 2015, @12:45PM
I agree that registration should be required, but why should my work be covered until I'm dead? What is the purpose of copyright? In my country, it's to encourage new works, and lifetime copyrights seem to me to discourage new works, particularly from someone successful. Why so long? Those long copyrights hinder creativity.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:32AM
Some works takes longer to produce and some people will be super creative for a decade and then essentially "flame out". Otoh perhaps you have a point.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @06:11AM
20 year copyright might have removed any incentive for my father and I to write our engineering reference/text book. It took a total of eight years to complete the project, which was first printed and for sale in December 1994 (now just over 20 years). Since then it's been through 15 printings (~2000 copies each printing). I continue to make updates and correct typos (over a hundred now), so the reprints are slightly improved.
Note that we have not done the normal textbook "trick" of releasing new editions, which then obsolete earlier editions. All the fixes stay on one page so the pagination and index stays the same. We also insisted that our publisher use a high quality binding that lasts, unlike typical "textbook" binding that is designed to fall apart quickly--thus there is a good used market in colleges that teach from the book.
We both took a large cut in income during the years we were writing. I'm looking forward to my hard earned royalties for a good long time into the future.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday January 01 2015, @07:07AM
Interesting...
Personally, I have no problem with the original 56 year copyright and would support copyright for the life of the author in the event of individual ( non-corporate ) ownership. Twenty years since publication sounds about right to me for corporate owned stuff. If corporate wants longer copyright, they would have to work with the author so the author would continue to own the work, riding on his/her rights, and can't be signed away like I see happen to so many of my musician friends.
I feel like the person who created the thing should benefit from his work, not someone with a quick business handshake followed by a pen.
God knows how many creative people I have seen cheated out of their creative works by those whose expertise is in how to play a quick game of legal three-card monte.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @08:33AM
The Constitution specifically mentions LIMITED times.
The original bargain of copyright was that in exchange for artificial scarcity for a LIMITED time, your stuff goes into the public domain QUICKLY.
The subsequent perversions of the original idea have effectively eradicated the public domain.
That's NOT what the Founding fathers had in mind.
A pox on the Bern Convention and everyone who has ever been in its service.
gewg_
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday January 01 2015, @02:35PM
Twenty years seems good for the author as well. I don't own the books I wrote; nobody does, and everybody does. You should not have to be dead for me to take your work and reshape it into my own.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday January 01 2015, @08:03PM
FTFY, based on current copyright times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @09:09AM
>...our engineering reference/text book. It took a total of eight years to complete the project...
So either it was either already obsolete when first printed - or repackaging some century-old stuff already presented by a hundred other authors. Or both. ;)
This planet has no shortage of engineering textbooks. Far from it. And the less authors there are parasiting on the captive market of college students, the better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @08:15PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2015, @03:09AM
One day you are going to forget to click "Post anonymously"...
It was scanned and posted on file sharing sites about ten years ago. Has not had a huge effect on sales, which continue to hold fairly constant (except for the worst year of the "great recession"). From what I can tell, people that download it either: can't afford it (textbooks in China are printed on cheap paper and sell for about 10% of the price in US/Europe) or they are curious, but wouldn't buy it anyway.
It's not an ordinary engineering textbook, only used for an upper level elective, or by practicing engineers in our little niche. Every year there are a few new reader reviews on Amazon--nearly all are five star.
We used many sources when writing the book and we did our best to recognize them all, including a bibliography with about 200 citations. Nearly 10% of the cites are back to our original work (which started in the early 1950's for my father). So, if you want to track down and read 200 papers & books from the last 60 years, feel free. Or for USD100 (list price) you can get it all pulled together into 900 pages, in a good sewn binding. The equations are all derived in consistent symbols and there are about 400 line drawings (about 800 hours by a professional artist).
Here's the likely bottom line (for me) -- if my copyright period ended now (after 20 years) then our publisher would keep selling the book, but would stop paying me royalties.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2015, @09:01AM
So what? Just as everyone should have the right to share a digital version of the book, the publisher should have the same right to sell its printout. The system of copyright as originally intended would not give you the right to bind anyone's hands, the publisher included, in perpetuity.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday January 02 2015, @06:49PM
Why would 20 year copyright have removed the incentive for that?
First of all, the length of time it takes to complete the project is mostly irrelevant. Your copyright starts once the work is *completed*, so you would have 20 years from 1994. Meaning copyright *on the first edition* would just be expiring now. Copyright on any corrections would still be in force, so someone else could take that first edition, make their own corrections and changes and re-release it, but they couldn't make the same corrections you already made or they'd violate your new copyright. It's a bit like the trick pharmaceutical companies use with patenting new versions -- as long as you're still working on it, it essentially retains copyright.
So the book took 8 years to write and was published 20 years ago. What have you done since then? Surely just publishing updates doesn't take 8 hours a day, 40 days a week, 50 weeks a year, right? If it does, that's a hell of a lot of new material covered by new copyrights. Otherwise, where's your next book? Could have written at least two in that time, right? Copyright exists to encourage the creation of new works, so if the current term is long enough for you to write one book and sit on your ass collecting royalties from that one book, then obviously we *do* need to shorten it to encourage the creation of new works! Not that I actually think you *are* sitting on your ass just collecting royalty checks, because with only around 2000 sales a year, you can't possibly be making a living off that book alone. Which does kinda suck for you, sorry to hear that. But recall that copyright is specifically created to benefit *society*, not to benefit authors. I hate to say this, but surely if only 2000 people a year buy your book, it probably wouldn't be missed much if it had never been published. Unless it's some super advanced rocket science reference used only at NASA, but in that case I'm sure you ARE getting rich by charging a few hundred bucks for each copy ;)
Having said all that...I'm personally not entirely opposed to more than 20 years for complex works like books. A thousand page textbook does surely deserve more protection than a three minute, four chord rock song. Videogames have "abandonware" where people act as though the copyright expires in only ten years, and game publishers rarely seem to care. Different media ought to have different rules, and lengthy books ought to have the strongest protections.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2015, @10:40PM
Otherwise, where's your next book? Could have written at least two in that time, right?
We've done three more books since then. But my income comes primarily from contract engineering work, not from royalties.
as long as you're still working on it, it essentially retains copyright.
Interesting theory about changes extending the copyright term. I don't know if this ever applied for simple typo corrections? Under the current law (life of the author + 50? years) it's kind of a moot point.
From time to time we discuss a proper 2nd edition of the first book with our publisher and they always say the same thing, about 30% (or more) of the material must be revised to count as a 2nd edition. But I don't have a reference for this.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Thursday January 01 2015, @09:25AM
And under a twenty-year copyright (what I'm ultimately in favor of)
20 is far too much. In the days of the printing press, 14 with one extension was plenty. Today? Five, registration required, with one paid extension would be a generous upper bound.
1 year, renewable. No limits on the number of renewals.
Personally, I have no problem with the original 56 year copyright and would support copyright for the life of the author
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary [merriam-webster.com]:
Arbitrary: not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence
You people will never reduce copy law terms like this. There are only 2 reasoned positions on duration: forever and never. Advocates rally behind forever. You all rally behind nothing. They can justify their position; you can't. So until you all are ready to try to create arguments rather than pleas, expect copy law to get far far worse.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday January 01 2015, @10:48AM
From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Ebooks and newspapers will never be readable for anypne. There are only two reasoned significant colors, black and white. We cannot have this rubble of dark gray, "paperwight" light gray and whatnot
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday January 01 2015, @02:39PM
There are only 2 reasoned positions on duration: forever and never.
I think you'll find that the US Constitution gives a very short, logical, and reasonable explanation a limited time monopoly on a work's use. Look it up.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Thursday January 01 2015, @04:44PM
No. It doesn't. Do your own research. If the constitution gives a time limit and a reason for it, then say the time in SI units.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 01 2015, @11:30AM
If, when the best minds of the day came to the conclusion that 20 years was an adequate term way back when (1700s?), what changed since then that made 20 years the wrong number - that's what I don't understand? (And don't say corporate greed, that was way out of control even in the 1600s - tulips, anyone?)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @11:47PM
I would like a torrent site that only lists stuff that is 20 years and older. Would be a nice thing actually. What is the best way to make one?
Or do anyone knows a website like that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @04:48AM
...copyright terms will have been rectroactively prolonged to the year 3054.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @07:25AM
Post Facto legislation is invalid under an rational legal regime. So if you extend a copyright, it is an illegal extension, and me and my million plus friends downloading it is perfectly legal. Bitches.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Thursday January 01 2015, @09:33AM
Copy law is an anachronism that should disappear with the embarrassments of history.
It is fundamentally incompatible with Freedom of Speech.
"Fair Use" is nothing but giving judges subjective power to decide for themselves whether you broke the law. You can find out whether what you did was illegal after you learn who the judge is.
It is unenforceable. If it were actually universally magically enforced, there would be worldwide outrage.
If you want to be paid for writing/music/software/etc, then get a client or a sponsor. Be paid for creating, not for having created. Work like the rest of the world instead of trying to live on oppression of others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @11:04AM
In the age of Kickstarter, gov't sanctioned artificial scarcity is obsolete.
Fund creative stuff the way Mozart did it but spread the cost over many patrons instead of just 1.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday January 01 2015, @09:40AM
So, it's okay for us to rebrand a copyright issue as stealing, but it's not okay for corporations to do it?
Have I got that right?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday January 01 2015, @11:01AM
When copyright owners do it, they call it stealing even though they pertain their work. It was *not* taken away from them. The author calls it stealing because something which should be in our possession by original law is not after the changes.
Note that I do not try to judge copyright here. Just pointing out why the wording might be appropriate for one side but not the other.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2, Informative) by multisync on Thursday January 01 2015, @08:34PM
They are not the same issue.
In this case, theft is an appropriate term, as works that should have entered the Public Domain under the agreement in place when they first received free, publicly-funded enforcement of their exclusive limited copyright will not be. The copyright holders received all of the benefits of the agreement they entered in to, then successfully lobbied to have the rules changed after the fact so they would not have to hold up their end of the bargain.
The fact that the public has been deprived of what is rightfully theirs - namely works create prior in 1958 - amounts to theft.
Infringing copyright amounts to distribution without a license to do so, and should be treated and described as such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @08:40PM
Stealing = some global corporation does something bad
Infringement = a whole bunch of us little folks do something that might be against the law, but isn't all that bad. At least, there will be no shortage of posters defending it
All clear?
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday January 02 2015, @10:09AM
If you paid me $10k for a car to be delivered at the end of the week and I said "Suck it sucker, I'l give it to ya in 5 years" would you consider that theft? After all I'm gonna give it to you some day and that day shall be whenever I feel like it...is that okay to you?
Because that IS what we are talking about here, copyrights and patents are CONTRACTS between We,The People and you, the holder. We agree to give you a limited term and back that up with the full weight of the court and in return it becomes ours at a set date...only what we have here is just what I illustrated above, they keep changing the date so that it has become "forever minus a single day". I think you would agree that nobody would respect or uphold a contract with such terms, so why should We, The People uphold a contract so obviously broken?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday January 01 2015, @12:13PM
I think we need some fundamental changes in the way creative work is compensated for. I try to argue why I think the current system is fundamentally broken:
However, I do agree that artists, actors, pop-musicians, and especially scientific writers/authors are important for society and have to be compensated somehow. For this, two resources are required:
I consider my post up to this point as a statement of facts rather than points of view. Now I will start to speculate.
Obviously the first point (collecting money) will raise most opposition, because no-one actually wants to pay when others will get the same for free. I think, the only option would be kind of a tax. I know that some people would like to see crowd-funding, but I'm not convinced this would be the right answer for all (or even the majority) of cases. If someone has a great idea for a new product, I don't think he should be forced to publish to just get funding to work on it. It should remain possible to produce movies/songs and start them as a big bang surprise.
For the decision how to distribute the collected money, I think that Flattr [wikipedia.org] could be a good starting point. Part of the idea is to separate the consumption from the funding criteria. So, basically, if a billion people listen to an easy-listening pop song just while doing their work, it doesn't mean this song is 10^4 times better (or 10^4 times more valuable to society) than e.g. an opera just enjoyed by 100.000 people, but intensively. And if a movie got advertised enough to draw billions of customers into the cinema, but is basically just propaganda crap, they can still vote afterwards for other movies they consider more valuable. Basically it allows consumers to follow their curiosity without automatically funding it, but it also forces consumers to decide to fund *something*. So, no freeloading, but no incentive for false advertisement to draw people into crappy movies or make them fund awful books.
The system could be adjusted by distributing part of the funds via consumer behaviour and another part by a flattr-like system. It could be fine-tuned by granting universities and schools an amount of votes to improve funding of less popular scientific publications. It could also be combined with crowd-funding, e.g. by an author selling percentages of his work in advance for a fixed price (e.g. I pay 50.000$ to get 20%, once the book is out I will get 20% of his income from that articular work.)
There are some obvious flaws, e.g. people abusing [digiday.com] the system to collect funds for other purposes, or maybe software trying to tie its usage to a vote from consumers, thus trying users to vote for usage instead of their honest opinion. But I think these problems are easier to fix than the fundamental flaws in our current system.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday January 02 2015, @02:20AM
Bureaucrats will eat the money and make sure no one gets any use of the system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01 2015, @09:01PM
I infringed. But only because I am sick and tired of (rant; snipped)
You infringed. But only because (rant)
They stole. Those corrupt, greedy assholes stole from us!