Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Public Domain Enhancement Act reintroduced
The Public
Domain Enhancement Act has been reintroduced into the U.S. House of
Representatives by Zoe Lofgren. This law would require that owners of
copyrighted works file a registration form and pay a $1 fee to keep the
copyright in force after the first 50 years. Works which, after 50 years,
have been abandoned will enter the public domain.
(Log in to post comments)
Public Domain Enhancement Act reintroduced Posted May 24, 2005 15:27 UTC (Tue) by louie (subscriber, #3285) [Link] You can contact your representatives directly about this issue, and you can also support Congresswoman Lofgren here.
Public Domain Enhancement Act reintroduced Posted May 24, 2005 16:31 UTC (Tue) by hans (subscriber, #148) [Link] From what I can tell, this bill died in subcommittee last time, so it may also be prudent to contact the members of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property and let them know that you think this is a good idea. Of course, if your Congressperson happens to be a member of the subcommittee, that's a bonus. I'm not sure how much influence out-of-district responses have, but I expect that it couldn't hurt. Any opinions?
Oh, and why this matters... Posted May 24, 2005 15:33 UTC (Tue) by louie (subscriber, #3285) [Link] Forgot to add :) This bill is important for a lot of reasons; the most important, IMHO, is that it formally re-introduces in the findings the nearly dead idea that there is a valuable public commons that new material should be allowed to enter. This notion of a public commons is pretty central to what we as free software hackers do, and is a notion that directly contradicts Disney and co.'s notion that copyright should be perpetual, which is why they are lobbying against it- they've gone so far as to say that this is a bad idea, because forcing people to pay a dollar to renew their 50-year old copyright discriminates against poor people. So this is a bill worthy of your support, even if the notion of your software falling out of copyright in fifty years sounds so completely abstract as to be meaningless to you personally.
Oh, and why this matters... Posted May 24, 2005 16:11 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Nope. Disney is perfectly happy with "public commons" idea. Definition of "public commons" being "something made by people who do not bother with infringiment lawsuits". Like this. Now the big question is: if someone can not pay $1 for protection how can he/she afford expensive lawsuit ? And without lawsuits copyright obviously does not work (see link above).
Oh, and why this matters... Posted May 24, 2005 23:33 UTC (Tue) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link] Exactly, otherwise, where would they get material for their new works? They'd have to steal other peoples ideas then! (Lion king not withstanding)
Public Domain Enhancement Act reintroduced Posted May 24, 2005 15:46 UTC (Tue) by QuisUtDeus (guest, #14854) [Link] How would the expiring of copyright affect GPL software? The same, it would seem. And so, any open source software whose distribution was regulated by GPL, BSD, etc. and whose copyright was not renewed would then be part of the public commons and free for any use or distribution whatsoever.
I guess this would be a good reason for authors to transfer copyright to some organization like EFF, who could then decide (and manage) if a given project's copyrights should be extended.
Am I missing something?
What are you missing? Posted May 24, 2005 15:52 UTC (Tue) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] I think what you are missing is that 50 year-old software has no value except as a curiosity. I don't think anyone will be using GCC 3.4.4, or Windows XP-SP2 in 50 years.
What are you missing? Posted May 24, 2005 16:00 UTC (Tue) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] That depends on how bad SP3 is...
What are you missing? Posted May 24, 2005 16:09 UTC (Tue) by kune (guest, #172) [Link] I'm not so sure. I'm pretty much convinced that software, that needs gcc and Windows XP APIs will be around in forty-fifty years from now. Probably that software will run in virtual-everything environments, but it will be there. OS/360 Job Command Language is still around since it's introduction in the sixties, which is more than 40 years now. There will be some GNU programms, which have little reason to change (sed, grep, gzip). I'm not sure whether changing (C) 1993 to (C) 1993-2044 will save you a dollar.
What are you missing? Posted May 24, 2005 17:27 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] It wouldn't hurt the GNU effort any to put extremely old versions in the public domain; the more recent and usable stuff would still be copylefted.For example, there was discussion some time back of a "Founder's Copyright". The idea was that the first American copyright law had a term of 14 years, renewable once for another 14 year term. The idea would be that a copyright holder could voluntarily agree to put a work in the public domain after 28 years. So, if RMS so decided, he could make the first public release of Emacs public domain in 2013 (1985+28). Such ancient software would only be of historical interest, and would probably have value only to researchers and historians. It wouldn't be of much value to the proprietary software developers of 2013.
What are you missing? Posted May 24, 2005 18:59 UTC (Tue) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link] I once tried to find a really old version of Emacs and a really oldversion of the Gimp. The earliest Gimp I could find was 0.54 and that wasn't from any official website. I'm not sure anymore what the outcome of my searches for an ancient emacs version were -- but I came away with the idea that it might very well become really hard to find source code to application version from before the prime-time freeware CD distributions in the future.
What are you missing? Posted May 24, 2005 20:36 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] I seem to recall emacs source being 10mb uncompressed around 1989 or so. I have no idea what it is today. In any case, given how small drives were at the time that may go a long way towards explaining why it is so hard to find really old versions of emacs.
I'm sure there are some old cartridge tapes out there with copies. Good luck reading 'em though.
What are you missing? Posted May 25, 2005 6:10 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] In those days (1985) you got your Emacs on a big fat 1600 bpi magtape, by mail, sent by RMS himself (back when he was sleeping on the floor at MIT and using the fees he charged for tape duplication to buy food).Yes, I'm old (though not as old as RMS).
What are you missing? Posted May 25, 2005 9:32 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] 0.54 is a seriously old version of The GIMP (e.g. it's older than the GIMP toolkit itself). I don't know anyone who has run an earlier version, although obviously Spence & Pete must have had some reason to call it 0.54 rather than say 0.1 or 1.0...
The GIMP was a project for a class, so it's quite possible that earlier versions, especially those with substantially less functionality, never existed outside of a private version control system.
What are you missing? Posted May 25, 2005 8:18 UTC (Wed) by t_norup (subscriber, #14071) [Link] Definitely agreed. As software becomes more and more tightly integrated with increasingly expensive physical objects the age of the software will grow.
Example: In the airport (Copenhagen), I'm working for, we built a new terminal a few years ago. The terminal building has two tiers, one for Schengen passengers (which more or less are all passengers originating inside the EU) and one for non-Schengen passengers (ie. non-EU pax) which are required by law to be kept separate until their passports have been checked. In order to lead passengers from the two tiers through boading lounges onto the aircraft and vice versa, there is an elaborate system of doors and staircases. The business rules for opening and closing these doors are in reality law and are so complex that handling personnel cannot be expected to be able to follow them.
So, of course these these doors are computer-controlled! The point is that the software controlling these doors is likely to exist as long as we have non-Schengen passengers in Copenhagen and as long as the two-tiered terminal still stands. 50 years is not completely unrealistic.
I know of several similar examples of software passing its 30-year birthday
What are you missing? Posted May 25, 2005 22:59 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] Any employee, who happens to work near those doors forthe 50 years(a steward, cleaner, sales man, whoever), will know the behaviour of those doors by heart by the itme the 50 years has passed. The employee can rewrite the software for those doors, without ever even knowing or being heared of the law! :D
subroutines and libraries can have that lifespan Posted May 24, 2005 17:55 UTC (Tue) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] While complete programs from 50 years ago may be mainly a curiosity, isolated subroutines and libraries can have that kind of lifespan. See, for example Netlib, which includes some numerical subroutines from the 1960s that are still widely used. (Most of these are in the public domain already, because prior to 1976 you had to explicitly write "copyright (c)" etc. in order to get copyright protection.)
What are you missing? Posted May 24, 2005 20:44 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] You mean 75 to ~160 year-old software. Yes, copyright durations are justridiculously long, especially for software.
Public Domain Enhancement Act reintroduced Posted May 24, 2005 17:38 UTC (Tue) by The_Pirate (guest, #21740) [Link] Thes seems weird to me.
Why should _ANYBODY_ be allowed to hold a copyright more than 50 years?
IMHO, everything older than that ought to be public domain. Period.
I can't see how it possibly could hurt open source - or mr. John Doe, for that matter.
Public Domain Enhancement Act reintroduced Posted May 24, 2005 18:20 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Mark Twain made an argument for perpetual copyright.
Public Domain Enhancement Act reintroduced Posted May 24, 2005 19:01 UTC (Tue) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] I disagree with your assessment of the Mark Twain piece you link. Mark Twain write explicitly that he do not ask for 'unlimited copyright' (toward the end).
He dissent to the copyright extincting before the death of the author. This is not the same as 'perpetual' and does not address copyright hold by compagnies, which do not die and has different need.
Furthermore, M. Twain argument is essentially based on the fact that the profit is moved from the author to the publisher. In our information world, this is not a concern, since publishing is no more a priviledge.
In fact, there are several hints that M. Twain would reach a different conclusion in our time and age.
Public Domain Enhancement Act reintroduced Posted May 24, 2005 19:28 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] He didn't ask for perpetual copyright in this particular hearing -- the bill he was testifying for was an extension of the "Limited Times". But perpetual was his ideal term.When I appeared before that committee of the House of Lords the chairman asked me what limit I would propose. I said, "Perpetuity."Twain is a rare counterexample to the generalization that middlepeople are for copyright extensions, and authors and audiences tend to agree on moderate terms.
Public Domain Enhancement Act reintroduced Posted May 24, 2005 21:52 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] And he explained why. What is the excuse? It is that the author who produced that book has had the profit of it long enough, and therefore the Government takes a profit which does not belong to it and generously gives it to the 88,000,000 of people. But it doesn't do anything of the kind. It merely takes the author's property, takes his children's bread, and gives the publisher double profit. He goes on publishing the book and as many of his confederates as choose to go into the conspiracy do so, and they rear families in affluence. Today when copyright is lifted work is quite literally given to 88'000'000 people (and more). At least as far as digital copies are concerned. Since digital copy is perfect copy so you can not reap double profits - nobody will buy from you.
Public Domain Enhancement Act reintroduced Posted May 25, 2005 7:28 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] The European standard was "life plus 50 years". Unfortunately, the Germans then changed 50 to 70 because so many people died young in the world wars.
I would have thought saying "50 years or author's 100th birthday, whichever is longer" was a pretty good compromise. As for corporate works, maybe 50 or 75 years - WITH A RIDER! Basically the rider would say "if it's out of print, private copying is legal". You would have to show that (a) you made a reasonable attempt to obtain a legal copy, and (b) if a more recent edition is available commercially, you have to show that it was unacceptable for some reason.
Quite how you'd deal with price gouging, I'm not sure, but it shouldn't be hard to say that "charging more than the (inflation adjusted) original price is considered to be making the work non-available".
The other thing I'd like, is that the copyright claim should give a clear indication of how long copyright lasts! I'm finding this particularly with music, where I'm copying stuff dated in the 50s and 40s. Is it out of copyright or not? Without any knowledge about the composers and arrangers, it's very hard to tell...
Cheers,
Public Domain Enhancement Act reintroduced Posted May 25, 2005 13:55 UTC (Wed) by sphealey (guest, #1028) [Link] > What is the excuse? It is that the author who produced that book> has had the profit of it long enough, and therefore the Government > takes a profit which does not belong to it and generously gives it > to the 88,000,000 of people.
Of course, it was the government in the Hobbesian sense that prevented the general public from just taking the work in the first place, as was done for the first 10,000 years of human history, by creating the concept of copyright, granting it, and then enforcing it against the citizenry for the agreed-upon term. Society's return on investment for that forebearance is that the author not complain when the work enters the public domain at the end of the term - otherwise, it would have entered the public domain the first time he published it.
sPh
Public Domain Enhancement Act reintroduced Posted May 25, 2005 23:13 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] I agree. But, there is a question, WHAT IS AGOVERNMENT? Governmet, that should be us, the cociety, and, at least in eastern europe, it tends to be us, the simple society. You know, each nation has the government that it deserves, so, if the government screws up, we've got nobody else to complain but ourselves: why weren't we active enough to piecefully enforce and cultivate(by lobbying, by providing technical means that help to enchance democracy, etc.) the kind of laws and understandings that we like.
Public Domain Enhancement Act reintroduced Posted May 25, 2005 23:24 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] UUps, I forgot to mention. That's waht we'reexactly doing: some of us are developing new forum related software, cooperating with E-government project people, to enchance and X(I don't know the term in english, but it means: "to take in to use and to be used to using it".) public discussion about politics and to turn the debate between general public and the government a daily and natural piece of our decideing process. I'm sorry for the spelling mistakes. Currently I don't have a spell checker available, as I use Knoppix 3.6 (and the Kate spell checker didn't work).
Public Domain Enhancement Act reintroduced Posted May 24, 2005 22:34 UTC (Tue) by papik (guest, #15175) [Link] It's an interesting article.
But I think that he is worring too much about his daughters. He says that someone that discover a coalmine can leave it to his descendant.
He blame on governement that copyrights are too short, although copyrights exist only because of governement (and not any governement). He thinks that copyrights and patents (ideas) are exactly like physical property. That is something I can not understand.
He says that only an handful of books are still worth something after 42 years and I agree. But the other, who are the majority and are not valuable anymore, are nonetheway crippling any amelioretion anyone could do. You don't have to stand on the shoulder of giants to do something valuable, many times you stand on shorter people.
(I hope I explained my ideas in a comprehensible way)
Papik
Read Free Culture by Lessig Posted May 24, 2005 20:02 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig is an excellent book and goes into a lot of detail about the idea of the Public Domain Enhancement Act.
50 years is too long Posted May 25, 2005 0:25 UTC (Wed) by mcelrath (guest, #8094) [Link] 50 years is way too long, especially for software. Already there are video games for which the hardware to run them has all expired, and the media on which they were distributed has rotted. In order to preserve such things, many people are currently violating copyrights on these things in order to transfer them to newer media, run them under emulators, etc. The profit forecast for all media is an exponential curve, and the timescale on which profits fall to negligible values is only a year or two. The original copyright term of 14 years is more reasonable. Furthermore, it is the things for which people are willing to pay $1 that we most want to enter the public domain. These works become part of our public consciousness, and they need to enter the public domain in our lifetime so that derivative works can be made. The works for which no one is willing to pay $1 are also the ones that no one knows about, and the ones for which few efforts would be made to re-use. -- Bob
50 years is too long Posted May 25, 2005 6:15 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] 50 years is the minimum term allowable by international treaty. No country can choose a shorter term without violating the treaty.
50 years is too long Posted May 25, 2005 23:34 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] And most of the Intellectual Propertytreaties, as we know, are initiated one way or another by some United States intereats. As the US government is more pro-business then pro-citizen, then the term, US government, means practically, US business. Take Iraq, take software patents. Naturally, if SW-patents get enforced in EU, then it's the europeans fault that they were not smart enough and/or couldn't put up respectful representatives. We can then blame only ourselves. I don't know exactly about the WIPO, TRIPS, etc. but I believe that one might end up in the US one way or another.
50 years is too long Posted May 26, 2005 4:18 UTC (Thu) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] The US didn't sign the Berne Convention, first created in the early part of the 20th century, until 1978. The rules of this game weren't set by the US.
|
|
||||||||||||