37 votes

A massive amount of iconic works will enter the public domain on New Year’s Eve

23 comments

  1. [2]
    spctrvl
    Link
    As good as this news is, the age of the works finally being released into the public domain really serves to underscore one of the greatest IP thefts of all time: gross overextension of copyright...

    As good as this news is, the age of the works finally being released into the public domain really serves to underscore one of the greatest IP thefts of all time: gross overextension of copyright terms. Under the original United States' copyright law, the works entering the public domain next year would instead be things like Nevermind, Ten, Super Mario World, Link to the Past, Terminator 2, and Silence of the Lambs. The idea that the unthinkably faster communication and copying we've figured out since then means we need to increase the length of copyright terms is just baffling.

    32 votes
    1. NaraVara
      Link Parent
      The saddest part is that most of the physical media from back then can't even survive for the life of the copyright term. How knows how many film reels and recordings have decayed irreparably...

      The saddest part is that most of the physical media from back then can't even survive for the life of the copyright term. How knows how many film reels and recordings have decayed irreparably because the holder of the copyright never bothered to make copies?

      We're going to lose a ton of video game history to this too, since the equipment that can play them ages out and there is no financial incentive to port and update most of them. If not for the pirates, tons of stuff from the 80s would be gone today.

      8 votes
  2. [8]
    Deimos
    (edited )
    Link
    The article brushes past it really quickly, but I think it's worth emphasizing that this is the first time in 21 years that copyrighted works will enter the public domain. That's crazy, it's been...

    The article brushes past it really quickly, but I think it's worth emphasizing that this is the first time in 21 years that copyrighted works will enter the public domain. That's crazy, it's been such a long time to have everything frozen like that.

    23 votes
    1. [7]
      CrazyOtter
      Link Parent
      Personally I think copyright in it's current form is very damaging to our culture.

      Personally I think copyright in it's current form is very damaging to our culture.

      22 votes
      1. [6]
        bee
        Link Parent
        Can you elaborate upon why?

        Can you elaborate upon why?

        1 vote
        1. [4]
          Octofox
          Link Parent
          Not OP but I would like to see massive copyright reforms. In its current form content is protected for far far too long. Ancient books who's authors are dead and not for sale in any store are...
          • Exemplary

          Not OP but I would like to see massive copyright reforms. In its current form content is protected for far far too long. Ancient books who's authors are dead and not for sale in any store are still protected which means the knowledge inside them is never shared and goes to waste. When I was in school almost all of the books we were using in class were public domain books because of the extra freedoms they gave you. My teacher created an audiobook for the book we were reading and distributed it to the class. That wouldn't be legal with copyrighted books. The current laws mean we know more about the very distant past than the distant past and not a single person but disney CEOs are benefiting from it.

          I have a few ideas about what could be done but I'm not a legal expert. I think 30-40 years would be a good timeframe for copyright. Its plenty of time to make money from your work. Another scheme I see often is automatic copyright for x years and then after that you have to register it for a fee and that fee might go up for every year you re register the content. That way if you still profit from the content its well worth registering but all the old and forgotten content goes public domain. Imagine how much retro software/games would become public domain if they didn't have automatic copyright until well after all copies have been lost and all the tapes have failed.

          I would also like to see some kind of right to remix anything without asking for permission because so much amazing stuff comes from taking one bit of work and adding more to it. The only issue I see is people abusing it by making very minor changes just so they can distribute the content for free.

          7 votes
          1. [3]
            Gaywallet
            Link Parent
            This doesn't even touch on the problems with other kinds of copyrights. Benjamin Franklin, for example, was very much opposed to the idea of copyrights and publicly released all of the inventions...

            This doesn't even touch on the problems with other kinds of copyrights. Benjamin Franklin, for example, was very much opposed to the idea of copyrights and publicly released all of the inventions he created (such as one on a much better engineered home furnace) because he saw how copyrighting could be exploited in a capitalistic society.

            But perhaps more importantly, Benjamin Franklin himself admitted that his own inventions could not have been created without the prior work of others who invented the things he built upon. Freely being able to advance technology by being able to both use and understand prior technology is a huge catalyst with regards to pushing the needle of advancement forwards.

            4 votes
            1. [2]
              spctrvl
              Link Parent
              Personally, I'd be much more in favor of subsidies for artists that create popular works than copyrights. I do think that people deserve some compensation for intellectual work, so why not just...

              Personally, I'd be much more in favor of subsidies for artists that create popular works than copyrights. I do think that people deserve some compensation for intellectual work, so why not just pay them to expand our public domain?

              2 votes
              1. Gaywallet
                Link Parent
                There really needs to be separate rules based on domain. Art copyrights are a protection in a globalized world where anyone with the proper means can steal your idea and make it profitable. There...

                There really needs to be separate rules based on domain. Art copyrights are a protection in a globalized world where anyone with the proper means can steal your idea and make it profitable. There should be a reasonable time-frame on when this is enforced, and I think effort should be measured on whether this art is being used. If this was a sketch you created 10 years ago but never decided to take it anywhere, why should you have rights to it? Similarly if you're still creating Mickey Mouse merchandise 90 years later, why should someone be able to rip off your brand you spent time cultivating? Keep in mind that this requires an entire head to toe re-imagining of just exactly what gets copyrighted. Should someone be able to make a character similar to Mickey Mouse even if you are cultivating the brand 10 years down the line? 20 years? 30 years? etc. The "idea" of a mouse cartoon character should have a shorter patent life than the actual mouse cartoon character (how it's drawn, any branding, etc.).

                Contrast that to medical patents, however, and we have a very different picture. I'm very much opposed to the length of patents on drugs, and I think the argument of "they need to be able to make their money back" forgets that we used to actually fund medical inventions. Now that we don't fund the creation of new drugs to the same level anymore, drug designers are looking for niche markets that they can charge exorbitant amounts for, rather than looking for a cheaper/better solution to a larger market or to a market which often can't afford to pay huge margins needed to recoup drug discovery. We also need to revisit precisely how we test drugs as the guidelines were written ages ago before more advanced statistical techniques such as crossover trials existed and n values had to be huge (and therefore expensive) to both reach statistical significance and accommodate rare side effects.

                1 vote
        2. CrazyOtter
          Link Parent
          @Octofox made some good points but I'll try to explain why I think it's an issue. Mostly I think it comes down to the length of protection. It varies between countries but generally copyright is...

          @Octofox made some good points but I'll try to explain why I think it's an issue.

          Mostly I think it comes down to the length of protection. It varies between countries but generally copyright is granted for a long time. I don't object to the idea of copyright but the constant push for longer limits and retrospective extensions is a problem.

          Locking culture into little boxes causes it to go stale. No piece of work is created without input (active or passive) from the greater world. Remixing, reusing and regenerating existing ideas is an important part of human society that should not be denied for so long.

  3. [5]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [4]
      spctrvl
      Link Parent
      I feel like games don't get nearly enough attention in the whole copyright debate. While century long copyrights on books, movies and music are bad enough, at least they'll (usually) still be...

      I feel like games don't get nearly enough attention in the whole copyright debate. While century long copyrights on books, movies and music are bad enough, at least they'll (usually) still be easily enjoyable once they're out. But these copyright lengths for video games are downright insidious, since not only is the period of cultural relevance shorter than those other forms of media, but the inherently digital and platform tied nature of the medium makes it highly likely that they'll never enter the public domain, if no copies nor consoles remain, in the early twenty second century.

      12 votes
      1. [3]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. [2]
          spctrvl
          Link Parent
          Oh absolutely it's a problem for other media, but it's a big damn problem for games, because it's a complete and utter pain in the ass to copy them off proprietary media and then build a deeply...

          Oh absolutely it's a problem for other media, but it's a big damn problem for games, because it's a complete and utter pain in the ass to copy them off proprietary media and then build a deeply complicated program to emulate the functionality of the original hardware platform. At least you can rip CDs and Blu-rays and then use any of a plethora of preexisting programs for prefect playback.

          Modern copyright is creating a fucking modern dark age, where history, culture and knowledge will be irrevocably lost.

          I could not agree more.

          11 votes
          1. Vadsamoht
            Link Parent
            And if you don't, the games themselves are often stored on media so fragile that they're an archivist's nightmare.

            it's a big damn problem for games, because it's a complete and utter pain in the ass to copy them off proprietary media and then build a deeply complicated program to emulate the functionality of the original hardware platform.

            And if you don't, the games themselves are often stored on media so fragile that they're an archivist's nightmare.

            7 votes
      2. Octofox
        Link Parent
        Piracy is the only thing that will keep games around long after they come out. By the time copyright expires the physical media / hdds containing games will have failed and most modern games have...

        Piracy is the only thing that will keep games around long after they come out. By the time copyright expires the physical media / hdds containing games will have failed and most modern games have drm which is illegal to bypass so no personal backups

        3 votes
  4. rkcr
    Link
    I worried that we'd never have anything enter the public domain ever again because of congress continually extending copyright. I guess one good outcome of our gridlocked country is that they...

    I worried that we'd never have anything enter the public domain ever again because of congress continually extending copyright. I guess one good outcome of our gridlocked country is that they couldn't get organized enough to keep copyright going indefinitely.

    15 votes
  5. [7]
    tn5421
    Link
    Copyright protections should extend to 25 years, at the most, and even then that should be the result of petitioning for a copyright extension, not the default period. The default period should be...

    Copyright protections should extend to 25 years, at the most, and even then that should be the result of petitioning for a copyright extension, not the default period. The default period should be 15 years, in my opinion. If you haven't profited in 15-25 years of having a work copyrighted, you aren't going to profit at all.

    7 votes
    1. [2]
      Sahasrahla
      Link Parent
      I think there's something to be said for copyright extending to the lifetime of the creator if they're the holder of the copyright. Take Game of Thrones (the book) for example: it was published in...
      • Exemplary

      I think there's something to be said for copyright extending to the lifetime of the creator if they're the holder of the copyright. Take Game of Thrones (the book) for example: it was published in 1996 and the first episode of the phenomenally popular Game of Thrones series was aired almost 15 years later in early 2011. It's not only luck that it became popular; GRRM had a good series that had had many offers to make movies of it, but he was holding out until he found someone who could do his series justice. With a shorter copyright time the pressure would have been on him to sell early (and probably for less) since any media corporations would have known they only had to wait out the copyright, and they weren't so much paying him for the rights as they were paying him for an early exclusive before everyone else got their hands on the story.

      For smaller authors there's also the idea that many of them live off the modest royalties from their backlist, and it can take years or decades before they're making enough to 'quit their day job' and become full-time authors. With short copyright periods an author couldn't depend on being supported by their lifetime output. This would especially hurt when they're older and perhaps can't work because of health problems, and just when they need their royalties the most they'd see their copyrights slowly disappear. There's also the fact that many authors only have real success in one series which they have to keep putting out books in to support themselves while still trying to branch out artistically with other, less popular works. These series can run for decades (e.g. though hardly a small-time author, Pratchett's Discworld had 47 books and short stories over 32 years) and losing early copyrights would not only cost them royalties on those books, but they could lose control of their branding (and the ability to profit from new books) when others move in on their IP.

      I get the idea of wanting shorter copyright periods and I support that. The situation we have now is ridiculous and it hurts our culture only to benefit a few gate-keeping corporations. But, I also think we need to be careful to protect the ability of the people who make our art to make a living from it, both for practical reasons of our culture getting the full benefit of their output, and for moral reasons of wanting to lessen the financial hardship of those who give the rest of us so much.

      12 votes
      1. tn5421
        Link Parent
        This gave me a lot to think about.

        This gave me a lot to think about.

        3 votes
    2. Akir
      Link Parent
      I think the most ironic part of our crazy long copyright laws is that IP protections are only part of the reasons we have it. The other reason is to promote the creation of more media. But if an...

      I think the most ironic part of our crazy long copyright laws is that IP protections are only part of the reasons we have it. The other reason is to promote the creation of more media. But if an individual profits off a long copyright they have less market incentive to make new works. To add insult to injuries, major IP owners are making remakes left and right.

      6 votes
    3. spctrvl
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      It happens, works only becoming popular long after they're written, like Moby Dick. I just don't see that it's society's problem, certainly we shouldn't be gutting our public domain just in case...

      If you haven't profited in 15-25 years of having a work copyrighted, you aren't going to profit at all.

      It happens, works only becoming popular long after they're written, like Moby Dick. I just don't see that it's society's problem, certainly we shouldn't be gutting our public domain just in case someone could potentially turn a profit from their work decades down the line.

      Oh, as an aside, what you proposed is almost exactly the original copyright law of the United States, enacted in 1790. It allowed for a fourteen year copyright term, renewable once, for a maximum term of 28 years.

      6 votes
    4. [2]
      annadane
      Link Parent
      Can we also define the sorts of things copyright covers? For example, say we agree a copyright period of 20 years is a good idea. Does that mean if I post your song on Youtube it should be taken...

      Can we also define the sorts of things copyright covers? For example, say we agree a copyright period of 20 years is a good idea. Does that mean if I post your song on Youtube it should be taken down because it infringes copyright? No one makes any money off of that and it results in more exposure for your work. But then I know the DMCA and Content Id are two different things and Youtube has sort of been exposed for gaming the system

      1 vote
      1. safari
        Link Parent
        The problem with posting someone's music on YouTube is if it's a substitute for the original work. In other words, even though you may not be making money from it, I have less incentive to buy a...

        The problem with posting someone's music on YouTube is if it's a substitute for the original work. In other words, even though you may not be making money from it, I have less incentive to buy a song if it's readily available on YouTube. (Most of the artists who I listen to do post their music on YouTube, but that's their choice, and often they do make money from it.)

        Exposure is only valuable to the artist (monetarily) if it is converted to purchases (or the modern alternative, paid streaming) of their work. As an artist can put their work on YouTube and include purchase links etc. very easily, if they haven't, that might well indicate that they don't want to. They have the right to choose how to expose people to their work, that's pretty much the definition of copyright.

        Of course, I'm a hypocrite here because I've listened to music on YouTube uploaded by a third party many times. However, I do see why that could potentially harm a content creator.

        I would be very interested to hear a counterargument that addresses the above point.

        1 vote
  6. kavi
    Link
    The length of time copyright can be held up for is just ridiculous. From Wikipedia. Copyright is meant to "...to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for a limited Time to...

    The length of time copyright can be held up for is just ridiculous. From Wikipedia.

    The claim that "pre-1924 works are in the public domain" is correct only for published works; unpublished works are under federal copyright for at least the life of the author plus 70 years. For a work for hire, the copyright in a work created before 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or registered for copyright, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.[25] If the work was created before 1978 but first published 1978–2002, the federal copyright will not expire before 2047.[26]

    Copyright is meant to "...to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for a limited Time to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." 95 years is a bit much in order to promote progress, unless I'm missing something.

    4 votes