

Waiting 100+ Years for Version 2.0 - grellas
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110519/17104214346/waiting-100-years-version-20.shtml

======
grellas
Copyright terms in the U.S. did not always run into the 100+ years category.

Here is a rough summary of how the terms have evolved under U.S. law (the
details of which are nicely summarized here:
[http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/05/27/copyrights-last-for-a-
limit...](http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/05/27/copyrights-last-for-a-limited-time-
at-least-in-theory/id=17391/)):

1790: maps, charts, and books - 14-year term

1831: 28-year term with option to renew for another 14 years (musical
compositions, prints, dramatic compositions, photographs, works of art and
music added to list of protected works in 1800s)

1909 (a major act): 28-year term from date of publication, renewable for
another 28 years (applied to "published" works only, with state laws governing
unpublished works) (motion pictures added to list of protectible works)

1976 (another major act): newly published works (life of author plus 50
years); works copyrighted before 1978 (term increased from 28 to 47 years, for
75 years total with renewal) (applies to all works, whether or not published,
once in a fixed medium of expression; state laws preempted and no longer
valid; computer programs also protected by the 1980s)

1998 (Copyright Term Extension - "Sonny Bono Act"): works created after 1978
(life of author plus 70 years, with joint works tied to life of longest living
author, and with works-for-hire, i.e., corporate authorship, getting the
shorter of a 120-year term from date of creation or a 95-year term from date
of publication); works created before 1978 (total term increased from 75 to 95
years)

The rough summary above is just that and many nuances exist. If this all makes
your head spin, there is a nifty "public domain calculator" to assist you,
found here: <http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/calculator.html>

The trend is pretty obvious: wildly long terms for copyright are in fact a
relatively recent phenomenon, as are legislative efforts to go back to early
works and give them _ex post facto_ term extensions. It didn't always used to
be this way. The focus seems to have moved away from protecting primarily an
author's rights to a creative work during his lifetime to protecting a
"franchise," often corporate, that lasts well beyond the lives of those around
when a work is created. These are policy decisions, of course, albeit (and
sadly) much influenced by lobbying today.

~~~
swombat
I thought this was worth putting into a chart. Assuming an average author life
of 75 years, this is what the extension of maximum copyright terms looks like:

<https://skitch.com/swombat/fbhmf/maximum-copyright-terms-us>

Basically, it's well approximated as an exponential curve, or maybe a logistic
curve (aka S-curve). Unless there's a serious change in the accepted
perspective of copyrights, it's not at all unreasonable to assume that within
our lifetimes, copyrights may be extended to last effectively forever.

Tragic.

~~~
sehugg
Mary Bono: "Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last
forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the
Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack
Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the
Committee may look at that next Congress."

------
replicatorblog
I understand the argument about reforming patents in an accelerated age, but
how exactly do copyrights stifle creativity?

How would the public benefit if all of a sudden Mickey Mouse was in the public
domain? I can see a bunch of toy companies salivating, but how will it improve
the public good?

How has Mark Twain's work been remixed or creatively remained since it entered
the public domain?

Would publishers not have released "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" if "The
Scarlett Letter" was still protected?

Again, patent reform makes some sense since increased access to core tech has
proven to spark innovation in unforseen places, but I can't think of many
examples where copyrighted material entered the public domain to the benefit
of us all.

Also, copyright law seems to be pretty flexible with fair use provisions,
limitations on what can be copyrighted (e.g. no recipes), etc.

As a case in point consider Avatar. It was widely mocked as being "Dances with
Wolves with Aliens" and it is the highest grossing movie ever. How is that
possible when the IP world is as muddled as the author suggests?

~~~
iwwr
_I can see a bunch of toy companies salivating, but how will it improve the
public good?_

Unfortunately, IP companies are devising ever draconian laws that impact
liberties, legal due process and privacy. IP companies have made themselves
into one of the great enemy of civil liberties; if that is the logical
consequence of having to enforce IP, perhaps the whole system has to be
scrapped.

Still, framing everything in the context of 'public good' is a slippery slope.
Some things are right or wrong without utilitarian calculus.

P.S. Mickey Mouse is a Disney trademark, which makes it theirs in perpetuity.
Arguably, trademarks are the weakest and least intrusive category of IP.

~~~
derleth
> Arguably, trademarks are the weakest and least intrusive category of IP.

They aren't really IP; they're consumer protection. Trademarks are meant to
allow people to know who makes what they're buying by giving companies a way
to definitively mark their wares without having to worry that someone else is
going to rip off that mark in a confusing fashion. 'Confusing' works out to
meaning a given trademark only applies to a specific field of endeavor; look
at United Airlines vs United Van Lines, the moving company, or Cisco the
networking hardware maker vs Sysco the restaurant supply company.

I think it's fairly clear that whatever 'property' interpretation you can put
on those laws, it's subservient to the consumer protection aspects.

~~~
iwwr
Well, there are people buying fake Gucci bags, knowing what they are. The
consumer is not deceived, although the trademark is broken.

~~~
derleth
True, and that sounds like a place where the law is being tested in a way the
original authors never anticipated.

------
billybob
It has never occurred to me before how odd it is for Disney to take public-
domain stories, rework them into blockbusters, then lock them up with
copyright indefinitely. What a strange combination of ideas.

~~~
Vivtek
Well, but doesn't Disney's copyright just apply to Disney's own instance? They
can't claim copyright on _other_ adaptations of Rapunzel, just their own and
the specific style of character drawings and so on, right?

~~~
swombat
I believe you're correct. The accusation of hypocrisy is based on the fact
that Disney has vigorously lobbied to keep characters like Mickey Mouse out of
the public domain, while happily plundering the fairy tales and characters of
earlier centuries.

~~~
ssp
_while happily plundering the fairy tales and characters of earlier
centuries._

It's even more striking if you consider that those fairy tales and characters
are the products of many, many retellings and adaptations throughout history.
The Grimm brothers didn't write them; they just wrote down one version of a
lot of them. In a real sense, Disney's modern retellings are just the latest
iteration on this process.

------
noonespecial
I think what we've actually seen is the simple realization that government can
provide perpetual monopoly with the smallest of bribes (err campaign
contributions). Once the idea that the government would step in give you a
monopoly became understood, functionally infinite limits on it were all but
guaranteed. In 100 years, Micky Mouse will still be just as copyrighted as he
is today.

------
ralfd
"It freezes the first release as the only release for up to several
generations."

This article is rather lackluster.

First, I don't see a problem with this (there is rightfully only one definite
version of Casablanca or Gone with the Wind) and second I would deny that this
is really an adequate description of popculture of 100 media industry:
Superman was restarted/remade many times. Want to adapt/change is story?
Invent your own Superhero. Can't get a license for James Bond? Get a different
name for your super agent.

The movie rights for Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit were a few generations
unavailable (which is a good thing because Tolkien feared a disneyfication of
his books), but nothing stopped someone from dreaming up his own fantasy
world/story with Orcs.

~~~
orangecat
_there is rightfully only one definite version of Casablanca or Gone with the
Wind_

That's just assuming the conclusion. Should there "rightfully" be only one
version of Snow White?

~~~
bartl
>Should there "rightfully" be only one version of Snow White?

And it's not the version by Disney, because that is not the original one.

------
GHFigs
_Disney's hypocritical plundering of the past_

How do you "plunder" the public domain? Is there not an army of pedants out
there eager to tell me that copyright infringement isn't stealing because it
doesn't deprive anybody of anything? Is it not the point of the public domain
that anybody can use it?

~~~
swombat
See <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2594477>

~~~
GHFigs
See what? You just used the same word in the same context, and it makes just
as little sense as it did before. Using the public domain isn't "plundering",
nor does it magically become "plundering" when a hypocrite, corporation, or
hypocritical corporation does it. It's a completely normal and desirable
aspect of having a public domain.

~~~
swombat
I think you have this impression that "plundering the public domain" is
somehow a bad thing - maybe that's where the misunderstanding comes from. I
don't think anyone who's using the term thinks plundering the public domain is
a bad thing - we all wish the public domain was even larger, so there would be
more plundering going on.

~~~
endtwist
Then the word you're looking for isn't "plundering" but perhaps "adapting" or
"borrowing."

    
    
       plun·der
          (v) Steal goods from;
          (n)  The violent and dishonest acquisition of property.
    

You can't steal that which is given away freely.

------
swombat
I only wish that this point was intelligible to those in charge of writing the
laws. Unfortunately, I think we are light-years away from this (valid)
viewpoint being considered anything other than a lunatic fringe. It's a shame.

------
zcam
So it s not about Textmate. Disappointed.

------
ChuckFrank
The Welcome to Las Vegas sign is great example of the benefits that come from
something not having copyright. Instead it becomes ubiquitous and justly
famous because people can include it in an infinite variety of
interpretations.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Fabulous_Las_Vegas_s...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Fabulous_Las_Vegas_sign)

------
pasbesoin
It's the money. Without the money, we never would have gotten to this state.

So, in that regard, it's an artificial, state-enforced monopoly. A limited
monopoly affords the producer the opportunity to make a living in return for
significant contributions. However, we've... "regressed" to essentially
unlimited monopoly, the boundaries of which we continue to expand (e.g. DMCA).

We've exchanged physical fiefdoms for "intellectual" fiefdoms, to similar
effect.

------
hellojere
After reading just the title, my hopes on Coda 2 rised up a little. Damnit.

------
medwezys
When I saw the title I thought it's about Textmate...

