
Access denied - gasull
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/01/public-domain
======
praptak
To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification
of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social
agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a
_reasonable_ amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral
for the content consumers to to the same?

I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said
consumers lack the lobbying power only makes their actions illegal, not
immoral.

~~~
CoffeeDregs
>To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument >for
justification of piracy.

There's very little pirating of content that is over 20 years old, so I'm not
sure how the copyright extension thing would justify piracy...

~~~
StavrosK
People grant protection to works on the provision that these works become
freely available after N years. The copyright industry just goes ahead and
extends this unilaterally, just because they want to. Why should the public
keep up its end of the deal when the copyright industry doesn't?

~~~
CoffeeDregs
I still don't see what this has to do with grandparent's point that this was
affecting _piracy_. I certainly agree with your point. I just don't see how
it's relevant to the points of either parent or grandparent.

~~~
StavrosK
He didn't say it affects it, he said it justifies it.

------
njl
There are two competing interests here. First, Disney wants to keep control of
Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel unreasonable at all that they
should. Second, the rest of the stuff that is of little commercial value but
of potential cultural value should be freed from uncertain or uninterested
ownership.

The answer feels trivial to me, which means I'm probably missing something.
Fixed term for a few decades from the creation of the work, maybe 30 years or
40 years. After that, you need to give a copy of the work to the Library of
Congress, pay a nominal fee, and you get a 5 year extension. Take as many of
those as you want.

This greatly simplifies everything. If you find a work that is older than the
base term, you look it up in the copyright extension database. If it's in
there, you can find out who owns the rights to it, and try to license rights.
If it isn't in there, it's public domain. If somebody doesn't stay on the ball
enough to renew their rights every five years, it probably isn't all that
commercially valuable, and moves into the public domain.

~~~
w1ntermute
> Disney wants to keep control of Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel
> unreasonable at all that they should.

It feels completely unreasonable to me. There's no reason why Disney should be
given an exception when others aren't. It's idiotic to suggest that they
should get special treatment just because their IP is commercially valuable.

~~~
coderdude
I disagree. Disney is the perfect example of when copyright should be
extended. Disney (the man) is dead but he didn't die owning a portfolio of
cartoon IP. Disney (the corporation) owned that and still has a global
business that lives and dies by the fact that it can maintain its brand. I
don't see any benefit to mankind if people were suddenly free to print Mickey
Mouse onto t-shirts and sell them.

~~~
pyre

      | I don't see any benefit to mankind if people were
      | suddenly free to print Mickey Mouse onto t-shirts
      | and sell them.
    

Mickey Mouse is a trademark of the Disney Corporation. Someone selling Mickey
Mouse t-shirts would quickly run afoul of Disney's trademark lawyers. If
Steamboat Willie fell into the public domain it would just mean that I could
legally sell copies of it on DVD, or I could dub my voice over the video and
post it to YouTube. Neither of these would materially harm Disney. Printing
frames captured from Steamboat Willie on t-shirts would fall into an area
where Disney could reasonably take someone to court for violating their
trademark. Printing a generic image of Mickey Mouse on a t-shirt would be
blatant violation of trademark, and practically an open-and-shut case.

I can't tell if you're just trolling or uninformed, but there are always a
handful of posts in these discussions that don't understand the differences
between patent, copyright and trademark.

~~~
coderdude
I just didn't know that Mickey Mouse was also trademarked. I do understand the
differences between the three, however.

~~~
danielweber
I had a really long convoluted discussion with an IP lawyer, and he claimed
that only specific instances of Mickey Mouse's likeness were protected by
trademark.

I haven't really absorbed his argument, but he seemed pretty sure about it,
and that we needed something else to (legitimately, in both our opinions)
protect Disney's ability to control their brand even if copyright expired. He
recommended giving Disney something very much like "right of publicity" for
Mickey Mouse so they can still control the character, while allowing lots of
old stuff to still enter the public domain.

~~~
pyre
To me, this sort of stuff seems like the IP law equivalent of bailing out
banks (or GM) because they are "too big to fail."

Even if specific instances of Mickey Mouse's likeness are trademarked, I have
a hard time believing that someone could be selling "Mickey Mouse" t-shirts on
the street and not be in a risky legal grey zone.

[I'll also note that as an IP lawyer he probably has a rather conservative
view of this. Thinking from Disney's perspective they don't want any trademark
lawsuit to be in a legal grey zone. They want them all to be slam-dunks so
that they can get their way.]

------
simonsarris
It saddens me a good deal that most of us can come up with very compelling
arguments that un-restricting these works would benefit society, yet there
seems there's very little we could do to make even a splash of change.

In fact, I gander the comments here will soon be filled with of "here's how I
would do it" comments, none of which will make a mote of a difference.

What can we do, really?

It seems _insane_ that the reasons given hold any merit beyond a money-grab.
And while I may be a bit myopic here, the "motivates content-producers" feels
flimsier still than monetary arguments.

Do most creative works really need even ten years of protection? Do you
suppose Shakespeare would have made more plays or less if copyright existed in
his day?

~~~
MarkMc
I'm not convinced that un-restricting works would benefit society. If Disney
gets to keep copyright on Snow White forever, about a third of the movie's
profit will continue to be paid in tax.

So the choice is between (a) letting 7-year-olds everywhere watch Snow White,
and (b) having more money to pay for roads, schools and cancer research. Is
option (a) necessarily better?

~~~
nitrogen
_If Disney gets to keep copyright on Snow White forever, about a third of the
movie's profit will continue to be paid in tax._

Do you have any evidence to counteract the common wisdom that movies rarely
actually make any money on paper?

 _So the choice is between (a) letting 7-year-olds everywhere watch Snow
White, and (b) having more money to pay for roads, schools and cancer
research. Is option (a) necessarily better?_

Letting Disney sell Snow White doesn't magically create money from nothing.
The money that isn't spent by consumers on Snow White will be spent on
something else, which will eventually be taxed, funding roads, schools, and
cancer research.

------
mullingitover
By 2019 it'll have been 49 years without a single work entering the public
domain. And somehow I doubt that we'll even get there, the goalposts will
likely get moved again before 2019.

And people wonder why there's such widespread disrespect for copyright.

~~~
wpietri
Only if we let them move the goalposts. We stopped SOPA, and we can stop this.
Personally, I plan to spend money both money and time on this battle when it
happens.

------
Anm
I also agree with purchasable extensions, as long as the prices increase
exponentially from a very modest price in the first renewal.

Further, I think there is room to tie trademark into the process for media
properties. In cases like Steamboat Willy, the character reflect a trademark
for the Disney business. If it were applied as such, one might argue that a
public domain version of the film (which could be seen as a product in the
trademark domain) might be freely distributable but not modifiable without
risking trademark infringement. This protects the free flow of information to
later generations, as well as provides the company a means to protect the its
brand from confusing or abusing variants/remixes. Further, registered
trademarks already require regular renewal from a living person or operating
business.

Not sure how one would apply that music and non-fiction (or if one should even
try); seems about useful as copyrighting N seconds of silence.

(Obligatory: I am not a lawyer.)

------
mcculley
It's only tangentially related, but I had to make a comment:
<http://www.economist.com/comment/1835110#comment-1835110>

I happily pay for my subscription to The Economist and enjoy reading it on my
iPad. But they don't even allow you to select a single word in an article,
which would make it possible to look things up in a dictionary.

This kind of limitation to attempt enforcement of copyright is part of the
whole problem right now.

~~~
netrus
I doubt that they do it to prevent copying. I can access every article from
the newspaper on their website as nicely formated HTML.

~~~
mcculley
You have to go out of your way when writing an iOS app to prevent
selection/copy in text views. They had to at least think about it.

~~~
chc
Or they just don't use standard text views and didn't go out of their way to
re-enable it. Back in the early days of OS X, you'd see a lot of controls that
looked like the real thing but acted in subtly different ways because they
were re-implementations to add some minor feature.

------
jimhefferon
The standard of "xx years since the death of the author" can be quite awkward
when the author is not prominent. Imagine if computer code was "10 years since
the death of the author" and you found something on an archive. Better is "xx
years since creation."

~~~
danielweber
Yes, while we can fight about the length, it should be a flat length. Young
people who make works shouldn't have them last longer than old people who make
works.

------
herge
I wonder if the period of 2009-2015 will have a bumper crop of content
entering the public domain in Europe because so many young people died in the
Second World War.

~~~
_delirium
Depends on the country: some have explicitly extended the copyrights for
people who died in the war. For example, writers who died in active service of
the French military have copyright for 100 rather than 70 years postmortem:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mort_pour_la_France>

~~~
mullingitover
This makes a lot of sense. By extending copyright even further after their
deaths, it will incent these authors to create more posthumous works!

~~~
rdl
Presumably it was to not discourage people in the future from
enlisting/responding to the draft for fear of copyright, and to avoid the
"poor windows and orphans of the famous writers who died in the war". Maybe
the French are different, but "will my copyright endure longer if I die" would
not really be on my list of concerns in war.

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry is the only one on the list who I've heard of.

~~~
_delirium
I think it was some kind of feeling of fairness: that, absent the war, they
would've lived longer, so there should be an adjustment to make copyright
expire according to when they would've "normally" died. On the other hand,
that's true of any copyright system based on years postmortem: you could argue
the same about someone killed by a drunk driver, or hit by lightning, or
murdered. That's one reason I prefer publication-date-based systems rather
than years-postmortem systems (the other reason is that death dates for
lesser-known authors are often very hard to actually find, whereas publication
dates are typically printed right in the book).

Plus, I think the argument is weaker when duration is already life+70. If it
were, say, life+0, or life+10, you might have an argument about their
widow/orphan, but life+70 is already enough to cover any survivors comfortably
for the rest of their own lives. Life+100 gets into territory where their
great-grandkids are getting the money.

------
jimworm
The last copyright extension might be the last Disney could push for. If they
pushed it significantly further, they would lose the copyright of their older
works to the Brothers Grimm.

Walt Disney's first animated film "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was
published in 1937, 74 years after the death of Jacob Grimm. The Mickey Mouse
copyright extension is 70 years after the death of the longest surviving
creator.

That said, they could lobby to increase copyright terms for post-1927 works
only, or corporate works only and leave natural persons out in the cold. It's
uncertain whether these moves would be too politically extreme for Disney.

------
drpgq
How much does Canada's terms differ from the US?

~~~
_delirium
It's typically shorter than both the U.S. and Europe: 50 years postmortem. For
example, Ernest Hemingway (died 1961) entered the public domain in Canada last
year. In most of Europe (life+70) his works will enter the public domain in
2032, and in the U.S. (95 years from publication, for works published before
1978) they'll enter at staggered times starting from the 2020s.

That's why this exists: <http://www.gutenberg.ca/>

------
OGinparadise
Can someone make the argument about why should Disney be forced to give up
copyright to Mickey Mouse? Or The Beatles to the music they created?

~~~
darkarmani
They were given the copyright only with the limitation that it would expire
someday. You have the argument backwards.

Can any one make the argument why we should give Disney an unlimited monopoly
on the content they create? Why should we pay for courts and systems to
enforce their artificial scarcity, if they cannot uphold their side of the
agreement?

~~~
OGinparadise
_"They were given the copyright only with the limitation that it would expire
someday. You have the argument backwards."_

Maybe not, if it's something I invent or write, why does someone have to give
me rights over it? They shouldn't take them instead... "shall not."

I understand how the constitution is written but

~~~
darkarmani
> why does someone have to give me rights over it?

They don't have to give you rights over it. You already get all of the natural
rights associated with it. What you don't get is the additional right to
prevent other people from using it or copying it until a government gives you
that right.

Restricting other people is an artificial construct and that is enforced by
the government. This is artificial scarcity unlike property rights where
ownership naturally deprives someone else of the property.

Ideally, the government only grants you a limited (time) monopoly in exchange
for incentivizing people to create. If we aren't going to get anything in
exchange, why should we grant you additional rights?

~~~
OGinparadise
_"What you don't get is the additional right to prevent other people from
using it or copying it until a government gives you that right."_

If you can copy my code /book or whatnot what rights do I have? Almost none.
If there was no government, I could kill you for it to maybe scare others.

> "This is artificial scarcity unlike property rights where ownership
> naturally deprives someone else of the property."

Can I use your house while you are away? On the nightstand, I'll leave $5 or
whatever the wear and tear might be for the night.

Or "clone" Coca Cola? They can keep theirs

~~~
darkarmani
> Can I use your house while you are away? On the nightstand, I'll leave $5 or
> whatever the wear and tear might be for the night.

Ah, see?--"while i am away". Possession of tangible items deprives someone
else the use of it. There is no such natural limitation on ideas or expression
of ideas. It requires additional government "interference" before ideas and
expression are made to be scarce.

> If you can copy my code /book or whatnot what rights do I have?

Exactly! Additional rights are granted by the government, not taken away. You
possess the original copy. Why would you assume to have an additional rights?
If you don't want people to copy it, don't let them see it.

~~~
OGinparadise
_Ah, see?--"while i am away". Possession of tangible items deprives someone
else the use of it. There is no such natural limitation on ideas or expression
of ideas. It requires additional government "interference" before ideas and
expression are made to be scarce._

You are not using your home anyway and I was gonna pay the wear and tear.

Better for the public good, hell, maybe I get some great ideas while I sit on
Bill Gates' porch ;)

 _"Possession of tangible items deprives someone else the use of it."_

If no one can legally copy my book (or my grandfather's book) I had a better
chance of making money from it; if it's free fewer people will buy a copy (we
can all agree to that.) If the government says that now I no longer have
copyright, how aren't I deprived of something?

Some people leave homes, estates, gold coins, stocks, others leave books or
songs. Roy Disney's family is a live and well, and so is Disney Inc, and to me
it seems unfair to them to lose Mickey Mouse

~~~
darkarmani
> If no one can legally copy my book (or my grandfather's book) I had a better
> chance of making money from it; if it's free fewer people will buy a copy
> (we can all agree to that.)

Of course. But if you want to base fairness on your chances to make money,
just ask the government to force people to give you money instead of this
convoluted IP situation.

> If the government says that now I no longer have copyright, how aren't I
> deprived of something?

I'm not sure how you can say you are deprived of something because they "only"
gave you a 90 year copyright. It's like saying someone deprived you of money
because they only gave you a million dollars not an infinite supply.

