Public Domain Day | Hacker News Reader

Public Domain Day

law.duke.edu

91 pointsDanielRibeiro23 comments

There are already ways for fixing the system. They can not be applied to the works already out there, but for all the works that are to come. Authors, artists and all the other creative people out there should consider releasing their work under a creative commons license (https://creativecommons.org/).

Of course creative people should be compensated for their work. Therefore we need ways for consumers to pay for what they consumed on a voluntary basis. Flattr and Kachingle come to my mind. Louis CK showed that people are willing to pay (even though he did not release under a CC license).

Giving away a startup idea for free: Start a clearing house system based on stripe, where people can pay artists and authors for their work. Pay for the the business expenses with a marginal fee, maybe 10-15% that is very clearly and transparently communicated to the public.

I would rather pay 10$ for an ebook|film|album where 9$ reach the artist, than buy something DRM crippled for 15$ where only 2$ reach the artist. Even more so, if it is only marginally less convenient to pay than to simply download from TPB.

So yes, the system is fundamentally broken, but it is in our hands to build something better.

William Patry, a famous copyright expert who worked for Google, actually put out an entire book of ideas about how to fix copyright not very long ago (it's even named "How to Fix Copyright"). I guess that not many people around here have noticed it though.

Or how about a kickstarter-like platform in which authors and artists agree to release their work under a CC license once $x has been raised.

I have no problem "pirating" works that should be in the public domain by now, such as The Great Gatsby. It is clear that Congress has stopped representing the American people, and I refuse to respect laws that were designed to benefit a well-connected few at the expense of the public.

I'm right there with you in thinking copyright lasts far too long but for the sake of argument what if someone said "I don't pay taxes because (x) is wrong with our tax system" or "I'm alright with forcing myself on a woman because what qualifies as rape is far too broad a definition" or even "I drive as fast as I want in school zones because I can see when a damn kid is crossing the road"? Sure, the law doesn't make sense but how does breaking it help the situation? Can't we find better ways to get the attention of those in power to make a change? I feel like these kinds of protests don't help. They just call people like you "bad apples" and write you off. There has to be a better way. I'm not faulting you for your position, just wondering if maybe there's something else we can do.

sage_joch mentioned pirating works that would otherwise be in the public domain (eg, The Great Gatsby), so I would say it's more equivalent to refusing to pay some particular tax that one disagrees with while still paying others.

> There has to be a better way.

Well, there doesn't have to be. The system might just be irretrievably broken.

A difference is that the anti-copyright position is quite generally agreed (and also seems rationally well-supported). Disavowal is not merely a wild personal impulse.

And a/the virtue of any law is that element of general agreement, not just that it happens to be the law. So to do something agreed on but not law seems righter than to do something that is law but not so much agreed on.

Perhaps it could be put simply as: ultimately the law should follow us, not the other way around.

Right, and that makes perfect sense. But haven't you seen representatives point to people like this and write them off as "bad apples"? When a large enough portion of the population deliberately ignores a law in protest it can't just be the end of it. That's only part one. Disobedience as a protest isn't enough. There has to be a second part where we somehow communicate to those in power why we act this way and why things need to change. Without that second part we're all just a bunch of hippie, counter culture, bad apples as far as they're concerned.

Seriously, this has to be fixed. This is completely broken and a total failure of the legal system.

Don't worry -- the popular culture of today (and yesteryear) is being saved by pirates.

I always thought it was be interesting to start an online collection project to get modern day authors to contribute just one item each to the public domain. It could be anything, a novel, a short story, a poem, or even a vignette; whatever they felt comfortable with.

But it probably wouldn't work. Modern authors don't seem to appreciate how important the public domain is to society.

Wait; Europe doesn't have any lower copyright limits than the US - they're both at life + 70 - so if the latter isn't getting any new works into the Public Domain, isn't that because they already are?

It's because the license length has been extended. As a result, works that were close to enter public domain at the time of the last extension has still not entered the public domain and won't for some years yet.

See the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.

A.K.A. the save Mickey Mouse from the public domain act.

Yes. For example, Joyce's works were already in the public domain in the US, Ulysses has been available on project Gutenberg since 2003. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4300

It's crazy. In Ireland we are now finally celebrating the expiration of the EU copyright on Joyce's work. There will be public readings and other events throughout 2012 as a result: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0101/break...

from the article: "presumptively illegal"

Who wrote this?

Do they mean "presumptively infringement"?

My understanding is that copyright is enforced by the copyright holder, not the state (unless of course they are the copyright holder).

As such, infringement is not a "crime". Hence it is not "illegal". There is no violation of copyright "law". Infringement is a violation of someone's copyright, a right to sue granted by the government. A private right of action is created.

Simply put, the copyright holder can sue for damages. They may or may not choose to do so.

Is this incorrect?

Is there a criminal statute covering such copyrighted works as discussed in the article?

Apologies for my ignorance.

The one nice thing about our copyright laws is that they auto,attic ally apply as soon as you've created something. That's a good thing I think people overlook. Even so, I think the author's lifetime plus 70 years is far far too long. I'm pro-copyright for sure but I also think 14 years is more than enough time.

If you can't accomplish what you wanted with your work within 14 years then it's time to let someone else build on it. Copyright is all bad. It's just how it's set up and enforced here in the US that sucks.

why is that such a good thing? plenty of people don't give a crap whether something they just typed is copyrighted or not. They just don't bother going to find the right creative commons licence. I doubt you want all those rights over your comment, for example. Why should copyright automatically block me from using it? Why should your message, or this one, be the stuff of SOPA? If someone is going to get such a strong and longlasting government-granted monopoly on what I can do with what I see and read online, to the detriment of myself and potential recipients of what I therefore won't effectively communicate to them/share with them, why is it such a bad idea, or unfair, to ask people to claim that protection with a simple (c) mark? the public domain would benefit tremendously, as would everyone who would gain certainty over what they can safely use and what they can't, without having to do rights clearances on something as insignificant as a forum post.

Automatic copyrighting is required by treaty, namely the Berne Convention. However, in the US you have to register your copyright before you can sue and damages generally only apply for infringement after the registration. Laches, implied license and fair-use likely cover the remainder your concern.

There's no need to get this technical about it. Its reasonable enough to assume that you're free to copy and use my comment here as you please and that I don't give a damn about that. I doubt anyone will make a fuss over something like that. It's basically fair use and you're example takes it too far amd isn't very realistic.

I do agree that people should use a copyright mark if they want to claim their rights but in most cases it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell if something like a blog post or comment author is going to throw a fuss over copyright. And if you happen to get it wrong then they'll ask you to take the infringing work down before any lawsuits come out (in most cases).

As a counter-example, there were some great sci fi novels written in the 80s and 90s which I'm only just discovering & I fully believe the author still deserves money for them.

How about 14 years from the date at which the author transfers the copyright to another party, or lifetime of the author if they don't transfer it? That said, I totally agree that authors lifetime + 70 years is too long. Take off the extra 70 years & I think you've got a fairer figure.

There's no reason you can't pay the author after the copyright has expired. People have shown multiple times they're willing to pay more than they legally have to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com