Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by requerdanos on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:00AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the free-the-mouse dept.

Works from 1925 are now open to all! The Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School's blog covers the famous works which rise to the public domain on January 1st, 2021.

On January 1, 2021, copyrighted works from 1925 will enter the US public domain,1 where they will be free for all to use and build upon. These works include books such as F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway, Ernest Hemingway’s In Our Time, and Franz Kafka’s The Trial (in the original German), silent films featuring Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton, and music ranging from the jazz standard Sweet Georgia Brown to songs by Gertrude “Ma” Rainey, W.C. Handy, and Fats Waller.

"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessley into the past."
F. Scott Fitsgerald, The Great Gatsby

This is not just the famous last line from The Great Gatsby. It also encapsulates what the public domain is all about. A culture is a continuing conversation between present and past. On Public Domain Day, we all have a “green light,” in keeping with the Gatsby theme, to use one more year of that rich cultural past, without permission or fee.

1925 was a good year for music. Duke Ellington and Jelly Roll Morton were some of those active then. Though some consider it the best year so far for great books and many classics were published then, among them is the original German version of the all too relevant The Trial by Franz Kafka.

Previously:
(2020) Internet Archive Files Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Publisher Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
(2020) Internet Archive Ends “Emergency Library” Early to Appease Publishers
(2020) Project Gutenberg Public Domain Library Blocked in Italy for Copyright Infringement
(2020) ‘The Wonderful Wizard of Oz’ Turns 120
(2020) University Libraries Offer Online "Lending" of Scanned In-Copyright Books
(2019) The House Votes in Favor of Disastrous Copyright Bill


Original Submission

Related Stories

The House Votes in Favor of Disastrous Copyright Bill 42 comments

On October 22nd, H.R. 2426 passed the House, as the EFF explains:

The House of Representatives has just voted in favor of the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (CASE Act) by 410-6 (with 16 members not voting), moving forward a bill that Congress has had no hearings and no debates on so far this session. That means that there has been no public consideration of the serious harm the bill could do to regular Internet users and their expression online.

The CASE Act creates a new body in the Copyright Office which will receive copyright complaints, notify the person being sued, and then decide if money is owed and how much. This new Copyright Claims Board will be able to fine people up to $30,000 per proceeding. Worse, if you get one of these notices (maybe an email, maybe a letter—the law actually does not specify) and accidentally ignore it, you're on the hook for the money with a very limited ability to appeal. $30,000 could bankrupt or otherwise ruin the lives of many Americans.

The CASE Act also has bad changes to copyright rules, would let sophisticated bad actors get away with trolling and infringement, and might even be unconstitutional. It fails to help the artists it's supposed to serve and will put a lot of people at risk.

The EFF also criticized the bill in a previous article, pointing out its potential for abuse.

University Libraries Offer Online "Lending" of Scanned In-Copyright Books 13 comments

University libraries offer online "lending" of scanned in-copyright books:

The coronavirus crisis has forced the closure of libraries around the world, depriving the public of access to millions of printed books. Books old enough to be in the public domain may be available for free download online. Many recent books are available to borrow in e-book form. But there are many other books—especially those published in the mid-to-late 20th century—that are hard to access without going to a physical library.

A consortium of university libraries called HathiTrust recently announced a solution to this problem, called the Emergency Temporary Access Service. It allows participating HathiTrust member libraries to offer their patrons digital scans of books that they can "check out" and read online.

HathiTrust has a history of pushing the boundaries of copyright. It was the defendant in a landmark 2014 ruling that established the legality of library book scanning. At the time, HathiTrust was only allowing people with print disabilities to access the full text of scanned books. Now HathiTrust is expanding access to more people—though still with significant limits.

The program is only available to patrons of member libraries like the Cornell library. Libraries can only "lend" as many copies of the book as it has physical copies on its shelves. Loans last for an hour and are automatically renewed if a patron is still viewing a book at the hour's end. If you want to read a book that's currently in use by another patron, you have to wait until they're finished.

These limits distinguish HathiTrust's service from another recently announced "emergency library." Two weeks ago, the Internet Archive announced it was offering the general public the opportunity to check out 1.4 million scanned books. During the pandemic, the Internet Archive isn't limiting the number of people who can "borrow" a book simultaneously.

Previously: Internet Archive Suspends E-Book Lending "Waiting Lists" During U.S. National Emergency
Authors Fume as Online Library "Lends" Unlimited Free Books


Original Submission

‘The Wonderful Wizard of Oz’ Turns 120 19 comments

'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz' Turns 120:

Playwright, chicken farmer and children's book author L. Frank Baum published "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" 120 years ago Sunday. The book would sell out its first run of 10,000 copies in eight months and go on to sell a total of 3 million copies before it fell into the public domain in 1956.

Baum would try his hand at other children's books but returned to his Oz characters time and time again, adapting them for a stage production in 1902 that ran for a while on Broadway and toured the country. Baum would write a total of 14 Oz novels, but his biggest success – a 1939 movie version – would come long after his death.

Baum's intent was to create a fairy tale along the lines of the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Anderson. Baum also admired the character of Alice in Lewis Carroll's work and chose a similar young girl to be his fictional hero.

[...] A portion of the success of the book has been attributed to Baum's illustrator, W.W. Denslow, who he worked with closely on the project. Denslow, in fact, was given partial ownership of the copyright of the book. This caused problems later when Denslow and Baum had a falling out while working on the 1902 stage adaptation.

The most popular adaptation of Baum's first Oz book was the 1939 movie starring Judy Garland.

Wikipedia has many more details on the story and the film.

[Aside: I had heard only the land of Oz was filmed in Technicolor because it was so much more costly than black and white. I've been unable to corroborate. Are there any Soylentils here who can confirm or deny it? --Ed.]


Original Submission

Project Gutenberg Public Domain Library Blocked in Italy for Copyright Infringement 53 comments

Project Gutenberg Public Domain Library Blocked in Italy For Copyright Infringement:

Project Gutenberg, a volunteer effort to digitize and archive books, is sometimes described as the world’s oldest digital library.

Founded in 1971, Project Gutenberg‘s archives now stretch to a total of more than 62,000 books, with a focus on titles that entered the public domain after their copyrights expired. The library does carry some and in-copyright books but these are distributed with the express permission of their owners.

The project has an excellent reputation and its work is considered a great contribution to education and culture. However, it now transpires that the site has been rendered inaccessible by ISPs in Italy under the instructions of the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Rome.

[...] The seizure/blocking notice states that all of the targeted domains “distributed, transmitted and disseminated in pdf format, magazines, newspapers and books (property protected by copyright) after having illegally acquired numerous computer files with their content, communicating them to the public, [and] entering them into a system of communication networks.”

[...] “The investigation, conducted by a special unit of the Guardia di Finanza, has been developed in the context of monitoring the targeted Internet networks to combat economic and financial offenses perpetrated online.

“In this context, the operators identified some web resources registered on foreign servers which make content and magazines available to the public early in the morning, allowing users to view or download digital copies,” the court document reads. (translated from Italian)


Original Submission

Internet Archive Ends “Emergency Library” Early to Appease Publishers 13 comments

Internet Archive ends "emergency library" early to appease publishers:

The Internet Archive has ended its National Emergency Library programs two weeks earlier than originally scheduled, the organization announced in a Wednesday blog post.

"We moved up our schedule because, last Monday, four commercial publishers chose to sue Internet Archive during a global pandemic," the group wrote. The online library called on publishers to "call off their costly assault."

[...] If the publishers dropped their lawsuit now, they would be tacitly conceding the legality of CDL[1] and potentially endangering the revenues they currently earn from licensing e-books to libraries for digital checkout. Also, the Internet Archive's decision to stop its emergency lending now is unlikely to protect it from liability for lending it has done over the last three months.

A win for the publishers could easily bankrupt the Internet Archive. Copyright law allows statutory damages for willful infringement to go as high as $150,000 per work, and the Internet Archive has scanned 1.4 million works and offered them for online download. So the Internet Archive could easily face damages in the billions of dollars if it loses the lawsuit. That's far beyond the group's ability to pay.

[1] CDL - controlled digital lending - One electronic loan per physical copy in the library.

Previously:
Publishers Sue the Internet Archive Over its Open Library, Declare it a Pirate Site
Authors Fume as Online Library "Lends" Unlimited Free Books
Internet Archive Suspends E-Book Lending "Waiting Lists" During U.S. National Emergency


Original Submission

Internet Archive Files Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Publisher Copyright Infringement Lawsuit 34 comments

Internet Archive Tells Court its Digital Library is Protected Under Fair Use

The Internet Archive has filed its answer and affirmative defenses in response to a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by a group of publishers. Among other things, IA believes that its work is protected under the doctrine of fair use and the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.

[...] The statement spends time explaining the process of CDL – Controlled Digital Lending – noting that the Internet Archive provides a digital alternative to traditional libraries carrying physical books. As such, it "poses no new harm to authors or the publishing industry."

[...] "The Internet Archive has made careful efforts to ensure its uses are lawful. The Internet Archive's CDL program is sheltered by the fair use doctrine, buttressed by traditional library protections. Specifically, the project serves the public interest in preservation, access and research—all classic fair use purposes," IA's answer reads.

"As for its effect on the market for the works in question, the books have already been bought and paid for by the libraries that own them. The public derives tremendous benefit from the program, and rights holders will gain nothing if the public is deprived of this resource."

Internet Archive's Answer and Affirmative Defenses (PDF).

Previously: Internet Archive Suspends E-Book Lending "Waiting Lists" During U.S. National Emergency
Authors Fume as Online Library "Lends" Unlimited Free Books
Publishers Sue the Internet Archive Over its Open Library, Declare it a Pirate Site
Internet Archive Ends "Emergency Library" Early to Appease Publishers
EFF and California Law Firm Durie Tangri Defending Internet Archive from Publisher Lawsuit


Original Submission

Public Domain Day 2022 32 comments

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 ...


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:25AM (79 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:25AM (#1093792) Homepage Journal

    Works from the 1990s should be entering the public domain, not the 1920s. Give Hollywood and Disney one more shot at a "freindly" congress, and they will ensure that nothing done on the day you were born can possibly enter the public domain in your lifetime, or your children's lifetime. 250 year copyrights should accomplish that nicely. And, of course, after 250 years, no one will even remember your favorite songs, stories, software, or whatever, and no one is going to want to hear it. All that stuff will be kept in museums. Except for Disney, who keeps all that stuff in their own vaults to avoid the risk of anything getting away.

    --
    Your private safe room in the back of your mind? Trump pooped in it.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by driverless on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:59AM (5 children)

      by driverless (4770) on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:59AM (#1093807)

      Enjoy Public Domain Day while you can, it'll only exist for two more years.

      (If you don't get the reference, Steamboat Willie was released in 1928).

      • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Saturday January 02 2021, @11:45AM (4 children)

        by Nuke (3162) on Saturday January 02 2021, @11:45AM (#1093859)

        I'd never heard of "Steamboat Willie". just looked it up, but who the fuck is interested in watching that crap any more anyway? Or has been for many years now?

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Saturday January 02 2021, @11:51AM (3 children)

          by Thexalon (636) on Saturday January 02 2021, @11:51AM (#1093861)

          So, the problem is that if Steamboat Willie ever enters public domain, then other people can use Mickey Mouse (at least in his early version) without paying Disney. The Mouse doesn't want that, and bribes US legislators as needed to prevent it. The last time it was close to being public domain, it was musical-has-been-turned-congressman Sonny Bono leading the effort to extend copyright terms.

          Lawrence Lessig sued in an attempt to stop it, arguing that the extension of copyright terms for already existing works wasn't the purpose of copyright, but lost.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:01PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:01PM (#1094032)

            That's not factually correct. Mickey Mouse is trademarked and copyrighted. They might be able to use that particular short for whatever purposes they want to, they would still be restricted by trademark. It's a bit like how Sherlock Holmes exists in a state where it's partially protected and partially not.

          • (Score: 3, Touché) by Nuke on Saturday January 02 2021, @10:23PM (1 child)

            by Nuke (3162) on Saturday January 02 2021, @10:23PM (#1094079)

            if Steamboat Willie ever enters public domain, then other people can use Mickey Mouse (at least in his early version) without paying Disney.

            No it does not mean that. All it means is that a cinema or TV company can screen Steamboat Willie without paying a royalty to and having permission from Disney. MM himself remains Disney's property - ie no-one else can make a new film featuring him, at least not without paying Disney.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2021, @10:13PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2021, @10:13PM (#1094276)

              No it absolutely does mean that. Public domain means that the fictional work can now be used freely by the public. Similar to how novels in public domain can be quoted, or characters, settings, plots, and more can be used or adapted etc., the same applies to other types of works including animation. People can now include their own "Steamboat Willie" characters on their own works. They aren't free to use new designs, characters, or characteristics from later uses of the character. But the character as it is in Steamboat Willie, is fair game for use by the public. And it is worth noting that Trademark won't protect them either under Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox.

              For a more nuanced look Ars has an article [arstechnica.com] as does the NYU Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law [nyu.edu]

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @05:31AM (34 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @05:31AM (#1093809)

      Here's a bit of history:

      1) 1790: Copyright Act of 1790: Copyrights are 14 years plus the ability to renew the copyright for 14 more years
      2) 1831: Copyright Act of 1831: Copyrights are extended to a 28 year term, with the same ability to get a 14 year renewal
      3) 1909: Copyright Act of 1909: Copyrights still have the initial 28 year term, but the renewal is extended to 28 years
      4) 1976-present: Copyright Act of 1976 and later: Copyrights become excessively long because rights holders have bought off Congress with donations
      5) 1998: Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Copyright law can now be abused with virtually no proof of infringement, recourse, or accountability to take down online works; anti-circumvention provisions now make it generally illegal to bypass digital restrictions management

      Let's go back to the 1790 version, which best reflects what the Founding Fathers intended. I'm fine with extending this copyright protection to other types of works than just printed works and allowing copyrights to be transferred, but otherwise limit the terms to the 1790 law. Go back to restricting renewals to copyrights owned by living people and require action to renew copyrights instead of making it automatic.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Saturday January 02 2021, @05:57AM (31 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Saturday January 02 2021, @05:57AM (#1093814) Journal
        "Let's go back to the 1790 version, which best reflects what the Founding Fathers intended."

        Great idea, but unfortunately about as politically viable as a snowball in hell. The copyright mafia has too much political influence and they would never allow it. They would drag the entire system down on top of them before willingly letting go of the power they have today.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:18PM (30 children)

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:18PM (#1093924) Journal

          And of course that would mean that any software more than 28 years old can be repackaged, incorporated into new software, and sold without having to respect the original license. That includes the GPL.

          Modify it, sell it, don't have to make the source available, and your modified work is protected by copyright for 28 years.

          Be careful what you wish for. The law of unintended consequences is a real thing.

          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:31PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:31PM (#1093932)

            > incorporated into new software, and sold without having to respect the original license. That includes the GPL.
            Grsecurity allready does this.

            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:55PM

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:55PM (#1093959) Journal
              Here's the thing, though. Why copy GPL code? Can't you write your own that's better suited for the task at hand?

              Copying GPL code is for lazy stupid shits. Because TMTOWTDI. And in cases where there's not (interoperability , mid end scene code) copyright already allows you to copy it as fair use. Anyone who followed the "Linux headers" SCo crap on groklaw already knows this.

              Same as you can't copyright facts, such as numbers in. A phone book (re Feiss)

              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:47PM (27 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:47PM (#1093942) Journal
            Actually, you're wrong here.

            I mean, yes, you're right on the first step - once copyright expires then people are free to repackage etc. without satisfying the license.

            However;

            "Modify it, sell it, don't have to make the source available, and your modified work is protected by copyright for 28 years."

            Completely incorrect. Under traditional copyright law, you *do* have to make the source available if you want copyright protection. Under the 1790 law, you would have to provide multiple copies of it to the Library of Congress, to be made publicly available, if you want a copyright on it.

            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:41PM (26 children)

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:41PM (#1093951) Journal
              Nope. All license restrictions that depend on copy expire when copyright expires. Even RMS admits the GPL is only enforceable because of copyright law.

              Copyright allows the temporary restriction on the right to make copies. Once copyright expires, you are free to do whatever you want that was restricted by copyright. You can incorporate out-of-copyright source into your own works, distribute it and ignore the license restrictions that expired when copyright expired. It is treated the same as any other work that is not / no longer copyrighted.

              So if copyright is rolled back to, say, 10 years, all those GPL code source that would no longer be protected by copyright can be used without respecting any requirements of the expired license. Not the need to distribute source, nor the need to provide attribution. And you can copyright the modified works.

              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
              • (Score: 1, Troll) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:43PM (16 children)

                by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:43PM (#1093952) Journal
                Also, under the 1790 law you would only have to provide the complete compiled program to the copyright office. Source comes under trade secrets, and you're not selling the source except under NDA.
                --
                SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Saturday January 02 2021, @05:36PM (15 children)

                  by Arik (4543) on Saturday January 02 2021, @05:36PM (#1093970) Journal
                  Strange, you posted the short bit that is actually responsive to what I wrote as a reply to your own, longer 'reply' which did not, rather than as a reply to my post.

                  Anyhow.

                  "Also, under the 1790 law you would only have to provide the complete compiled program to the copyright office."

                  Nope. There's no provision to copyright any 'compiled program' in the 1790 law whatsoever. Copyrightable material consisted of "maps, charts, and books."

                  And you don't have to go all the way back to 1790 for that; even as late as the 1970s it was obvious to both lawyers and computer scientists that copyright could only apply to computer programs as source code - this is why so much of the important early code (BSD is one major place you see this) wasn't copyrighted.

                  There was a choice - to copyright you would need to disclose the code in full, or you could rely on keeping it a trade secret instead. Choose one. If you rely on trade secret law and you do your due diligence you can probably keep the code secret for a good while, but once it leaks, it's out, and you can't go back and change your choice.

                  --
                  If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 02 2021, @07:39PM (14 children)

                    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @07:39PM (#1094007) Journal
                    Again, copyright registration, even today, is optional. Any work is copyright upon creation, even a modified work based on previous works in the public domain. You do not need to register it with the copyright office. Copyright of such a modified work is still valid without registration.

                    Registration only gives you the right to statutory dameges🐜.

                    Also, for computer software, you do not have to deposit the entire source. A sample is sufficient, or a hex dump of the binary, or a copy of the binary code, without the source.

                    --
                    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:09PM (2 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:09PM (#1094037)

                      Copyright being automatic and not requiring registration is from the Bern convention, which the US joined in 1989. The 1790 law only protects registered works and requires complete publication. Samples are not sufficient.

                      • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:40PM

                        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:40PM (#1094049) Journal
                        So go invent a time machine. There was zero protection for computer programs in 1790 anyway. And going to the same limited term as 1790 doesn't imply you have to accept everything else from 1790. The original term limits of 14 years plus an extension of 14 years are sufficient to encourage creativity without locking up ideas until they have no meaning whatsoever.

                        If you produced a printout of source code in 1790 you'd be accused of witchcraft and the source would be burned as "magik from that era's equivalent of Beetlejuice.

                        --
                        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                      • (Score: 2, Informative) by barbara hudson on Sunday January 03 2021, @12:36AM

                        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Sunday January 03 2021, @12:36AM (#1094116) Journal
                        The Berne Convention states that copyright deists from the time the work is first put in fixed form. No requiring publication, and requiring registration is illegal.
                        --
                        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday January 02 2021, @11:55PM (10 children)

                      by Arik (4543) on Saturday January 02 2021, @11:55PM (#1094108) Journal
                      "Again, copyright registration, even today, is optional."

                      The phrase "even today" which you repeat here makes it clear you don't understand what we're talking about.

                      It's not "even today" it's an extremely new thing. This was all invented late last century and did not exist in the time period we're discussing.

                      We were talking about the effect of going back to the 1790 regime, and one of them would be that all this stuff goes away. Copyright only applied to registered works, period.
                      --
                      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                      • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday January 03 2021, @12:14AM (9 children)

                        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Sunday January 03 2021, @12:14AM (#1094111) Journal
                        And you would not be able to register copyright on a computer program in 1790, so what is your point?
                        --
                        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                        • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday January 03 2021, @12:23AM (8 children)

                          by Arik (4543) on Sunday January 03 2021, @12:23AM (#1094114) Journal
                          Actually, you would have been, if you had one. But only by disclosing the source code publicly, so it would be available to study for compatibility issues etc. immediately, and also preserved intact to enter the public domain at the end of the term. That's the point. That's how copyright was supposed to work.
                          --
                          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                          • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday January 03 2021, @12:47AM (7 children)

                            by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Sunday January 03 2021, @12:47AM (#1094118) Journal
                            Again, under the Berne Convention of 1866, which predates computers, you are not required to register copyright. It is against the treaty to require copyright registration. Copyright comes into existence when the work is rendered in fixed form.

                            Doesn't even require a statement saying "this work is copyrighted by whoever."

                            So every single original computer program is copyrighted upon saving. No need to register. No need to provide the source. And if you want to register it, you can provide a binary of the program in machine-readable form. What good will it do trying to sell copies of the program is compiling it results in a copyright violation? Still can't use or sell the resulting program, as the binary is copyrighted, same as the source code.

                            In effect, it's a "look but don't touch" situation. If you go this route, you can let people look at but not copy or compile the source.

                            --
                            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                            • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday January 03 2021, @01:05AM (6 children)

                              by Arik (4543) on Sunday January 03 2021, @01:05AM (#1094123) Journal
                              Again, when did the US ratify Berne?

                              --
                              If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                              • (Score: 1) by barbara hudson on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:07AM (5 children)

                                by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:07AM (#1094141) Journal

                                News flash, American laws only apply to Americans. Which only amounts to less than 5% of the world.

                                And increasingly America is like an unhappy incel - going it's own way.

                                And given that America is going to lose its status as the largest economy later this decade, maybe by the middle of the decade there will be even more incentive to ignore US policies.

                                Surprise, surprise, when you have as long a history of not playing nice as the USA, it should be no surprise people don't want to deal with you except on their terms.

                                And other countries may decide to retaliate for past injustice by invalidating US patents and copyrights. Let them develop their own products in competition.

                                --
                                SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                                • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:10AM (1 child)

                                  by Arik (4543) on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:10AM (#1094142) Journal
                                  We were talking about going back to earlier US law. Prior to adopting the Berne convention, that law worked as I have described. Obviously, new information for you. You're welcome.
                                  --
                                  If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                                  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:53AM

                                    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:53AM (#1094156) Journal
                                    Sure us copyright terms of 14 years+ an extension of 14 years. Which would be a good thing.

                                    However, those terms never applied to software. That also never applied anywhere else in the world.

                                    So if we can't go back to the 14 year term yet, we have to look at the current reality. You insist on using American law. I ignore American law because I'm not American. Like 95%+ of the world, and most Americans.

                                    So what's your point whining that your law doesn't apply to anywhere else in the world?

                                    --
                                    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                                • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday January 04 2021, @12:56AM (2 children)

                                  by Pino P (4721) on Monday January 04 2021, @12:56AM (#1094301) Journal

                                  Even with less than 5 percent of the world's population, I haven't find a larger single-language media market allowing political satire than the USA.

                                  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday January 04 2021, @02:14AM (1 child)

                                    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Monday January 04 2021, @02:14AM (#1094319) Journal
                                    India speaks English - 4x the population of the US.
                                    --
                                    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                                    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday January 05 2021, @04:20AM

                                      by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday January 05 2021, @04:20AM (#1094836) Journal

                                      English is indeed an official language of India, spoken by 129 million Indians as of the 2011 census. That's maybe two Britains and smaller than the anglophone population in the USA. Thus India's population alone doesn't necessarily make it wise for a business to pursue a strategy of forgoing revenue from the United States in favor of revenue from India.

              • (Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday January 02 2021, @05:21PM (4 children)

                by Arik (4543) on Saturday January 02 2021, @05:21PM (#1093967) Journal
                This post makes it clear you simply didn't bother to read what I said.

                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 02 2021, @07:33PM (3 children)

                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @07:33PM (#1094004) Journal
                  Even today you don't have to deposit anything with the copyright office to have a copyright. The Only advantage you get with a copyright registration (as opposed to a copy, which you have upon creation even if you don't register it) is the right to claim statutory damages as opposed to actual damages.

                  Clearly you don't understand copyright. Registration is entirely optional.

                  --
                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday January 02 2021, @11:51PM (2 children)

                    by Arik (4543) on Saturday January 02 2021, @11:51PM (#1094107) Journal
                    These things may be true now, but they were not true even in the 70s or 80s, let alone under the 1790 law. Keep missing the point.
                    --
                    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                    • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday January 03 2021, @12:30AM (1 child)

                      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Sunday January 03 2021, @12:30AM (#1094115) Journal

                      The Berne Convention of 1886 says you're full of crap. Copyright under the convention is automatic as soon as the work is rendered in a fixed form. Printout, saved to disk, whatever. Under the convention it is illegal to require copyright registration to establish copyright rights.

                      Every single computer program ever saved to disk or paper or magnetic tape or punch cards or optical media or floppy disk was copyrighted. No registration required. Not even (under Berne rules) a statement saying it is copyrighted, or even the authors name.

                      --
                      SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday January 03 2021, @12:39AM

                        by Arik (4543) on Sunday January 03 2021, @12:39AM (#1094117) Journal
                        "The Berne Convention of 1886 says you're full of crap. Copyright under the convention is automatic as soon as the work is rendered in a fixed form. Printout, saved to disk, whatever. Under the convention it is illegal to require copyright registration to establish copyright rights."

                        And do you happen to recall /when/ the US ratified the Berne convention? Which year? Which century?

                        I'll give you a hint, it wasn't 1886, and it wasn't in the 19th century.
                        --
                        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
              • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday January 02 2021, @07:38PM (3 children)

                by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 02 2021, @07:38PM (#1094005) Homepage Journal

                So if copyright is rolled back to, say, 10 years, all those GPL code source that would no longer be protected by copyright can be used without respecting any requirements of the expired license.

                You would have the rights to do this only for the ten-year-old versions of the GPL source code, not the current versions, unless there have been no changes or bugfixes in the intervening ten years.

                Now there may well be some software so stably reliable that it has neede no fixes in ten years. Know of any?

                Well, maybe the Kruzeman Aretz Algol 60 compiler, but it's hard to come by the Electrologica machines it runs on these days.

                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 02 2021, @08:06PM (2 children)

                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @08:06PM (#1094016) Journal

                  Or you can make your own bug fixes. And it's not like open source software hasn't had bugs sitting in plain sight for 10 years. We know "open source makes all bugs shallow" was a myth.

                  Same as, after copyright is over, you're free to decompile and patch the binary that is no longer copyrighted. Though common sense says that it benefits everyone to be able to do this even during the term of copyright if the copyright holder doesn't want to fix it. Like software that "goes out of support." You don't want to support it with bug fixes, others should be allowed to.

                  --
                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                  • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:13AM (1 child)

                    by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:13AM (#1094146) Homepage Journal

                    Or you can make your own bug fixes. And it's not like open source software hasn't had bugs sitting in plain sight for 10 years. We know "open source makes all bugs shallow" was a myth.

                    I believe the original quote was "Many eyes make all bugs shallow." Only works if many eyes actually study the code.

                    Same as, after copyright is over, you're free to decompile and patch the binary that is no longer copyrighted. Though common sense says that it benefits everyone to be able to do this even during the term of copyright if the copyright holder doesn't want to fix it. Like software that "goes out of support." You don't want to support it with bug fixes, others should be allowed to.

                    I quite agree.

                    -- hendrik

                    • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:55AM

                      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:55AM (#1094158) Journal
                      So does most of the world. Americans have a more corporatist attitude.

                      But even the Berne Convention terms for duration of copyright are way to long, and insane.

                      --
                      SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:09PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:09PM (#1093888)

        Let's go back to the 1790 version, which best reflects what the Founding Fathers intended

        The USA would have to leave the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works [wikipedia.org] to do that. At which point, I think, USA copyrights would no longer be honored anywhere else.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @11:51PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @11:51PM (#1094106)
        Yeah it's kinda funny that in 2021 where marketing, publishing, distribution etc is so much faster and cheaper than it was in 1790 but copyright gets longer and longer.

        I'd say in 2021 if you haven't made profit from a movie, book, software, etc by 2035 it's probably crap.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by canopic jug on Saturday January 02 2021, @06:49AM

      by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 02 2021, @06:49AM (#1093820) Journal

      Works from the 1990s should be entering the public domain, not the 1920s.

      That is a point that the Center for the Study of the Public Domain brings up each year. The layout of their page interferes with reading and gives it the appearance of being much shorter than it actually is. This year, way down on the page, they write,

      What Could Have Been

      Works from 1925 are finally entering the public domain, after a 95-year copyright term. However, under the laws that were in effect until 1978, thousands of works from 1964 [duke.edu] would be entering the public domain this year. They range from the films Goldfinger and Mary Poppins, to the children’s classics The Giving Tree, Harriett the Spy, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, to The Rolling Stones’ debut album and The Beatles’ A Hard Day’s Night, and much more. Have a look at some of the others. [duke.edu] In fact, since copyright used to come in renewable terms of 28 years, and 85% of authors did not renew, 85% of the works from 1992 might be entering the public domain! Imagine what the great libraries of the world—or just internet hobbyists—could do: digitizing those holdings, making them available for education and research, for pleasure and for creative reuse.

      As others have mentioned, 1928 is just around the corner. Free The Mouse!

      --
      Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @01:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @01:03PM (#1093870)

      1984 is out of copyright in the UK, "what happens now"? [theguardian.com] We live it.

    • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:25PM (35 children)

      by fakefuck39 (6620) on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:25PM (#1093893)

      This is a difficult one. Let's say you write some software in 1990. While you've updated some parts of it like UI, the core logic is the same, people are buying it, it still works.

      What you're saying is anyone can now take your source code, change the name and logo, and sell it as their product. Now what would be your reasoning for making that ok? I'm not saying it's not ok for someone to make a product with the exact functionality. I'm saying if the copyright expires, they literally can take the thing your wrote and are selling, call it theirs, and sell it to your customers for a dollar less.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:45PM (11 children)

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:45PM (#1093902) Homepage Journal

        I registered the copyright to HRG, a program that software-hacked the Radio Shack MC-10 to actually display graphics, back in 1983. That copyright is still valid despite the fact that the computer it was written for hasn't been produced since 1985. That copyright is now entirely worthless.

        I have a shelf full of 16 bit video games that are less than 30 years old. Pray tell me where I might find a computer that still works that will run Screamer and Road Rash?

        This is the United States, although I realize you may be British or Canadian, but here, our constitution states that congress can protect works "for limited times" to produce those works in the first place. A corporate work like Steamboat Willie loses copyright after 95 years while my copyrights last for 95 years after I die. How in the flamingly stupid hell can Jimi Hendrix or Jim Morrison be convinced to create more works?

        Every copyright law after 1909 should be repealed.

        --
        Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
        • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:53PM (8 children)

          by fakefuck39 (6620) on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:53PM (#1093910)

          And what I am saying is you should be free to write your own program to duplicate that functionality, but you should not be free to take that program, call it something else, and sell it. I'm not sure where the confusion is. I'm not defending current copyright law - I am suggesting what it should look like.

          Let's apply what I'm suggesting to your example. I'm suggesting you should have been able to record your own version of Purple Haze, and sell it, the day it's released, without paying JH anything. At the same time, you cannot take a recording he made, burn a CD of it, and sell it, probably till after his kids die.

          • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:22PM (2 children)

            by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:22PM (#1093925) Journal
            Without any copyright law anyone would be free to reuse and sell any works . The idea of copyright was to give the writer an incentive to produce stuff by giving them protection for a very limited time. Anything after 28 years was INTENDED to be fair game by entering the public domain.
            --
            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:24PM (1 child)

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:24PM (#1093928) Journal
              So using your example of Hendrix's Purple Haze, anyone would be free to copy and sell the original. And that's what is happening in practice.
              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @10:01PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @10:01PM (#1094064)

                Copy, sell, and this is the big one: create and sell derivative works. That was the intent behind copyright being limited term, to encourage creation of new works. The current system smothers that by preventing old works from entering the public domain while they are still culturally relevant.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:30AM (1 child)

            by bzipitidoo (4388) on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:30AM (#1094149) Journal

            Sounds like you're confusing copyright protection with plagiarism protection. Quite understandable -- publishers have done much to foster all kinds of confusion on these matters.

            We don't have explicit protections against plagiarism, that I know of. IANAL but I suppose plagiarism is a form of fraud and misrepresentation, and can be prosecuted as such. Still, as unethical acts go, it's a little weird how it is handled. The injured party has to sue. Or, it has to be handled by the organization, usually a school, who may fail or even expel a student for plagiarism. Otherwise, nobody much cares, nor will do anything about it. The police sure won't do anything about an act of plagiarism. Nor should they! Bad enough that they are sometimes used to arrest people for digital piracy.

            As to selling copies of someone else's design yourself, it could be argued that comes under the heading of counterfeiting. Depends on the details. No one is going to be fooled into mistaking a cover of a song for the original, nor is anyone trying to do that. Paintings have been successfully counterfeited, so well that it took a great deal of examination to tell that the fakes were fake, but not performances of songs.

            Would be good to have clarity on all these nuances. Good terminology is very helpful. Instead, the interested industries have made a policy of trying to confuse the public and conflate things.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2021, @09:30AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2021, @09:30AM (#1094210)
              Check out trademark infringement.
          • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday January 04 2021, @10:06PM (2 children)

            by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Monday January 04 2021, @10:06PM (#1094695) Homepage Journal

            My point seemed to whizz right over your head, did you duck? twenty year old code is worthless. Thirty two bit programs run poorly on my newest computer, and my twenty year old games won't run at all. And again, all you can copyright is the code, which will be worthless on any other chip family. Your copyright is only as useful as your code, which is useless when the hardware is obsolete.

            And the elephant: why should my works retain copyright a decade short of a century after I'm dead? You really think that copyright will induce me to write another novel after I die?

            Why should the Bono Act not be repealed?

            --
            Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
            • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday January 04 2021, @10:29PM (1 child)

              by fakefuck39 (6620) on Monday January 04 2021, @10:29PM (#1094706)

              you know what you should do instead of worrying about putting things in bold? look into the code running at banks and air traffic control. in fact, there's code literally written for a mainframe 50 years ago that runs on a mainframe today, in production.

              you seem like a guy who hasn't had a real job at a real company. 20+ year code is... most of the code out there running the world where you're a user.

              >why should my works retain copyright a decade short of a century after I'm dead
              I don't know, why don't you tell me, since you're the only one here who said that.

              what's funny is when people who aren't in the industry say dumb things, and put those things in bold.

              • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday January 14 2021, @08:01PM

                by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday January 14 2021, @08:01PM (#1100192) Homepage Journal

                You still haven't explained why copyright should last longer than patents. That 20 year old code running on a 20 year old mainframe is no longer available, yet is still under copyright. Where I worked, they used SAS, a mainframe program for statistics. You can only rent it, at $750 per user per year, and like all software is frequently updated. You want to reward thieves!

                Copyright was allowed in order to induce creators to create further works. You're going to talk John Lennon into making another album?

                Since the Bono Act was passed in the late '90s, Copyright lasts 95 years past the author's death, you can look it up. If it's a work for hire, the duration is 95 years. Works copyrighted 1925 are just now entering the public domain. The original US copyright was 14 years, and the Constitution says "for limited times" and SCOTUS said "limited" means whatever congress says it means. That was just wrong.

                --
                Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
        • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday January 04 2021, @01:01AM (1 child)

          by Pino P (4721) on Monday January 04 2021, @01:01AM (#1094302) Journal

          Pray tell me where I might find a computer that still works that will run Screamer and Road Rash?

          EA's Road Rash was originally made for the Sega Genesis console (called Mega Drive outside North America). My cousin just got a Genesis for Christmas, December 25, 2020.

          How in the flamingly stupid hell can [dead rock recording artists] be convinced to create more works?

          In theory, the estates of those musicians can be convinced to finish and publish those musicians' unpublished works.

          • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday January 04 2021, @10:14PM

            by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Monday January 04 2021, @10:14PM (#1094701) Homepage Journal

            In theory, the estates of those musicians can be convinced to finish and publish those musicians' unpublished works.

            I'm not getting paid for any of the electrical towers my late dad, a lineman, built. Why should Sony Bono's grandkids get checks for his shit? As someone pointed out previously, copyrights were originally fourteen years TO INDUCE THEM TO CREATE MORE WORKS. Not to induce their grandchildren to do anything, let the damned grandkids do their own thing if they're talented.

            Sorry to raise my voice but people aren't listening.

            --
            Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
      • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:49PM (3 children)

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:49PM (#1093906) Homepage Journal

        Oh, and I forgot to mention, you can only copyright the code, not the algorithms. I say after fourteen years your week's work on that program, or that year's work on that novel, is plenty of payment.

        Also, creative types don't need to be bribed to create, we're compelled to. All we need is the time to do it in.

        --
        Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fakefuck39 on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:58PM

          by fakefuck39 (6620) on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:58PM (#1093912)

          Yep, completely agree on the algorithm part. In fact, I'd say an algorithm you come up with is a trade secret, and anyone should be able to duplicate it day1 after its creation. It's up to you to keep it secret. Of course, with decompiling your binary that's an issue, but a separate issue, and the decompiling is covered by a very different law we don't like.

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:01PM (1 child)

          by Thexalon (636) on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:01PM (#1094033)

          Also, creative types don't need to be bribed to create, we're compelled to. All we need is the time to do it in.

          My grandfather was an early member of ASCAP, so my perspective is a bit skewed on this, but while yes, we will create, it sure would give us a lot more time to create if we were getting paid to do it. All too often, I've seen this idea used to justify the idea that musicians, artists, coders, and lots of other people create for free so that venue owners or event organizers or some other non-creative work can make money.

          In short, if Youtube is getting paid, the person who created the video should get paid.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @10:06PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @10:06PM (#1094066)

            As GP said, "the time to do it in." Time is money, and getting paid is how artists get the time they need, but the only reason for copyright to extend as long as it currently does is so that non-creative people, mainly publishers and music labels, can extract maximum value from creative people's work with minimal effort.

      • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:01PM (3 children)

        by theluggage (1797) on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:01PM (#1093914)

        It's quite straightforward: if the copy resembles your 1990 source code, it doesn't violate copyright. If it includes code and changes you made in 2004, it violates. You can't copyright the core logic - then we'd be talking about software patents, which is a whole different blazing dumpster-full of canned worms. The US legal system knows exactly how to deal with open-and-shut cases like that: Just wave a briefcase full of examples of copied code, refuse to show it to the court, declare bankruptcy and let your creditors pay your lawyers until it has dragged on for over a decade and turns out that you didn't own the copyright in the first case...

         

        Far easier to deal with than this sort of entirely subjective thing [wikipedia.org] with literature. (TL:DNR - Sherlock the emotionless smackhead is public domain but if he cracks a smile it is still copyrighted) although after looking up the link I see it's recently been thrown out (presumably after the lawyers compared the serial numbers on their banknotes).

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:08PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:08PM (#1093918)

          There should be no copyright on software at all, only NDAs and trade secrets.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @10:10PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @10:10PM (#1094069)

            Such an idiotic policy would eliminate open source software, so kindly die in the same fire as the software patent proponents. Source code is speech and should receive the same protections (no more and no less) than any other kind of creative expression.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:02AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:02AM (#1094139)

            Remember when software was authored and published?

            It still is!

      • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:03PM (5 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:03PM (#1093916) Homepage Journal

        I think you are mistaken. You cannot take any of the works that entered public domain today, copy it and "rebrand" it with your name in place of the real author, and sell it. That would be pretty obvious plagiarism. No publisher is going to give you a contract, and few people are going to be ignorant enough to pay for your published work. You will quickly be exposed as a fraud, and will find yourself fighting a myriad of court cases because of that fraud.

        As you have pointed out, you CAN make "derivative works" based on the source code.

        I'm unsure of the rules regarding attribution for public domain works. That is, if you copied a lot of code from a creative commons work, you would have to attribute those portions of code to the original author(s). I strongly suspect that the same applies to public domain.

        The author can no longer sue you for copyright infringement, but you're still wide open to other legal remedies if you try to sell stuff that isn't yours.

        --
        Your private safe room in the back of your mind? Trump pooped in it.
        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:31PM

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:31PM (#1093933) Journal

          I think you are mistaken. You cannot take any of the works that entered public domain today, copy it and "rebrand" it with your name in place of the real author, and sell it. That would be pretty obvious plagiarism.

          Of course you can. Just that nobody is gonna pay you for it because it's in the public domain, so anyone can copy it and sell their copies. Look at how many different Webster's Dictionaries there are.

          You can copy it and sell it under your name, but why not use Webster's name when you can do it for free?

          Now if you add some original content, that can be copyrighted, but only that. Not all the content.

          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
        • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:31PM (3 children)

          by fakefuck39 (6620) on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:31PM (#1093934)

          please google
          "can you sell works in public domain"
          and get back to me. I may be wrong, but literally everything I know on the subject, and every result of the google search says you absolutely can do this. plagiarism is not something that is illegal - it's something a university rule doesn't allow for its students.

          As far as your part about code in public domain - yes, you can take it, use it, repackage it as your own, and sell it. All those nasty things are perfectly legal.

          • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday January 02 2021, @07:45PM (2 children)

            by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 02 2021, @07:45PM (#1094009) Homepage Journal

            There's such a thing as "moral rights" in copyright law -- which is, roughtly speaking, the right of the author to be considered the author.

            These rights are taken seriously almost everywhere in the world except the USA.

            -- hendrik

            • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:50PM (1 child)

              by fakefuck39 (6620) on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:50PM (#1094056)

              when you say almost everywhere, you probably mean places like France. because if you mean "everywhere in the world except the USA" - I've got some news for you. 100% of the companies stealing IP, repackaging it as their own, and selling it, are not operating in the USA.

              we got enough problems with the current system to bitch about. let's not trivialize those problems by calling some kids fighting at walmart an act of terror, or a consensual drunken fuck rape, or the thing you said.

              • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:11AM

                by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 03 2021, @03:11AM (#1094143) Homepage Journal

                I mean the countries following the international copyright treaties.
                They recognize the inalienable right of the author to be considered the author.
                Whether they actually enforce human rights at all is another matter.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:28PM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:28PM (#1093931)

        "What you're saying is anyone can now take your source code, change the name and logo, and sell it as their product."

        You seem to be confusing infringement with plagiarism. No one is saying that plagiarism is OK.

        Also the ability to resell it could depend on being granted new protections on derivative works. Are you saying that derivative works shouldn't get new protections? What about all of the stuff that corporations have used from the public domain to create their works from? Are you saying all of their derivative works should be in the public domain? I may not be against that ;) (but I suspect you might be).

        • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:36PM

          by fakefuck39 (6620) on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:36PM (#1093937)

          I am not saying a single thing of that. I am saying what I said. The legal system is what is currently saying plagiarism on a work in public domain is ok. Not a derivative work - someone taking your shit, putting their name on it, and selling it as theirs. So putting your work in public domain like the comment I replied to suggested, is a bad idea. Other people should be free to duplicate the result on their own, not have the author lose copyright over their work.

        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:37PM (4 children)

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:37PM (#1093938) Journal
          It's in the public domain you can do anything you want with it, including plagiarism. The only law against that is public ridicule.

          For example, you can claim you wrote the Bible. It's in the public domain. Just bob will believe you, and you can't copyright it. But you can copyright your own version of it, as your own work, and you don't need the permission of the original authors. Just look at how many different versions of the bible are out there.

          Public domain means exactly that - no protection from anyone doing what they want with it. No requiring attention, permission, or authorization to make modifications.

          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:46PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:46PM (#1093941)

            Good points.

            Perhaps the law should specify that, under certain conditions (...?) within a given time attribution should be required for public domain works? This can be tricky though as, technically, the English I am writing this with is a product of public domain letters and words so everything is technically a derivative work of something.

            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:50PM

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:50PM (#1093956) Journal
              Why bother? It's public domain. Same as Happy Birthday. Or House ofcthe Rising Sun. The Animals didn't create the song. They only can claim copyright on their rendering of it, which has been around for centuries. Even the chord sequence is a straight transposition from one key to the other,, and as that falls under "sweat ofcthe brow work " instead of creativity, isn't copyrightable. So cover it all you want. Just don't copy their recording of it.
              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @08:48PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @08:48PM (#1094030)

            "Just look at how many different versions of the bible are out there."

            Well there are many different translations. Some of the English translations are/were under copyright even though the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic texts are not. Those that make English translations are not claiming that they are the sources of the original text.

            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 02 2021, @08:57PM

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @08:57PM (#1094031) Journal
              So what? It proves that works derived from a non-copyright work can be copyrighted. And there are newer religions like Scientology that guard their "Bible" jealously. Publish it and you will get a takedown notice and a lawyer letter threatening lawsuits.
              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:26PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:26PM (#1094042)

        Your updated UI would be under a newer copyright while only the old unmodified version would be in the public domain. If you've been selling it since 1990, can you honestly say that you haven't been paid for the work? As for your competitor, good luck to them selling it either, because your customers can share the old version among themselves for free. Because it's been paid for. If you want to be paid again then you either need to update the software with features people are willing to pay for or write something new.

        • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:40PM

          by fakefuck39 (6620) on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:40PM (#1094050)

          >Because it's been paid for

          by whom and to who? by someone who took your software, called it theirs, and sold it.

          but I understand your point completely, and completely disagree with it. my software, has not been paid for, to me. and because I wrote the source code, it is mine till I die, and another person or company has no right to take it and make it their own. I don't need to do anything to it if I don't want to. You are free to duplicate it on your own and make a 100% identical clone.

          This also means someone can take that core logic, which in a huge amount of software hasn't changed in 50 years, and write a new UI to in in a weekend, and sell it as a product.

          I know you disagree. Thankfully, for me and all the developers out there, you didn't write the laws, and someone like me did.

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @07:27AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @07:27AM (#1093826)

    T e r r y * D a v i s:

        His body was recovered following a brutal attack by a clandestine intelligence agency involving a train. Refitted with cyborg like electronics, his new organs grant him a new life and a new friendship. No longer pounding the streets in homelessness, Terry Davis now works with the underground vigilante group AGT (Anti Glow Team). Through it all Terry erects an electronic temple, but can he control the power he has programmed into existence?

    Rated MA for mature (brief nudity, alcohol, drugs, extreme violence and language)

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by looorg on Saturday January 02 2021, @10:36AM (1 child)

    by looorg (578) on Saturday January 02 2021, @10:36AM (#1093852)

    So at least there is a chance there is some good music released this year ...

    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:57PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:57PM (#1093911) Homepage Journal

      My grandma's favorite song was "Freckles", I wonder if that was after 1925? I found a copy on YouTube and recorded it. Amusing little song, "She's got freckles on her but..."

      Grandma was born in 1903, six months before Kitty Hawk and a year before the vacuum tube (valve for you Brits), she died in 2003 and some of her favorite songs are still under copyright. How in any way is this not pure evil?

      --
      Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:34PM (#1093935)

    > incorporated into new software, and sold without having to respect the original license. That includes the GPL.
    Grsecurity already does this. The GPL is trash and no one gives a damn. Violate at will.

    https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ [perens.com]

  • (Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:53PM (1 child)

    by Tokolosh (585) on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:53PM (#1093958)

    For the sake of humanity, please put Star Wars in the public domain. Then Disney will actually have to create something new and valuable, and the franchise will not be beaten to death.

    • (Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday January 02 2021, @05:24PM

      by looorg (578) on Saturday January 02 2021, @05:24PM (#1093968)

      There is possibly one upside to it tho, if Star Wars or Mickey was in the public domain that would at some time have them be everywhere until people got fed up and tired with it. At least we wont have that now, its enough with all the Mandalorian/Baby Yoda memes being like all over the place.

(1)