A useful project would be to take the MPEG 2 versions from the Internet Archive, apply modern cleanup, scratch removal, frame alignment, and exposure equalization techniques, and put those up. The MPEG 2 versions have no frame to frame compression, which is good for archival purposes. Cleanup technology has improved since most of those were scanned.
All streaming services currently lack older classics. I like the idea of a dedicated "Netflix for public domain" movies.
Maybe someone would like to pick this idea up and improve it (I don't know the dev). The video quality improvement sounds like a good idea already.
It would also be good to create versions of silent movies at their original presentation speed  (16Hz is probably more accurate than 24Hz). Movies like "The Passion of Joan of Arc"  should not be watched at a comical speed.
It might be a little bit rude to put it here, but that is something I'm working on , though with a little bit wider of an approach - I'm actively seeking indie productions as well.
> It would also be good to create versions of silent movies at their original presentation speed  (16Hz is probably more accurate than 24Hz).
Most of my focus at the moment is on a restoration tool I'm developing, but this sounds like a great ideas I'll circle back to.
- Lenfilm: https://www.youtube.com/user/LenfilmVideo
- Odessa Film Studio: https://www.youtube.com/user/OdessAnimationStudio
Which has only Bulgarian subtitles.
Similarly 1970 - 1990 porno streaming service seems like it should be able to make a little profit.
There’s also “Criterion Channel” which has streaming rights for a bunch of Hollywood classics.
Otherwise, I like it! Will pass it along.
Warning: Use of undefined constant browse_vid - assumed 'browse_vid' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/5/d229943463/htdocs/publicdomainflix/mobile/category.php on line 32
Using S7 galaxy, stock android, chrome
Would also be nice if the was a form for others to add new additions and a citation link. Not sure if this is available once you register and login, if it is then it'd be nice to not need to login for it.
With extreme difficulty.
There are quite a few lists of films that have fallen out of copyright, or were never registered correctly, but even those often contain elements, like the soundtrack, that may continue to hold copyright.
Secondly, what is Public Domain in one nation may well not be in another. I know of several films that are public domain in Australia, that won't reach public domain in America for another fifty-seventy years, and vice versa.
Legally speaking, if you're broadcasting for everyone without checking where they live, such as through the registration form, you can and do run up against people willing to litigate you to death over a film made in the 60s that hasn't seen mass broadcast since.
Finally, finding out who owns copyright of a work can be extremely difficult. A company can go under or get carved up, and various trademarks and copyrights can be passed around - often to different people, and occasionally, the copyright can be lost in that mess or owned by an entity that no longer exists. It's still not public domain - but nobody knows who should be angry at you if you broadcast.
Point Break (1991) is a good example of this.
Here's an article from someone who wanted to show it at a festival and couldn't work out the rights.
I suggest the law should say to successfully assert copyright infringement, your current contact info must be on file with the US Copyright Office, or your copyright is unenforceable.
But obviously it has the giant problem you say, that so many works are locked behind copyright snarls. A system of mandatory explicit registration would have the huge advantage of making things much easier to track.
Here's a compromise idea I've had: Retain implicit copyright; however, unless a copyright is explicitly registered, it cannot be sold, nor exclusively licensed (i.e. if you license it to someone, but haven't registered it, you cannot legally bind yourself not to license it to anyone else). And then any sales or exclusivity agreements would be tracked by the registrar.
So, under this system, if you need to know who to talk to regarding a copyright, then for explicitly registered copyrights you can consult the registrar, while for non-registered copyrights the answer is always the original creator. This does still leave the problem of finding the original creator in the latter case, but it's still much better than it being unclear who to consult at all.
It's possible there's some big hole in this I'm missing, but I'm hoping that this compromise idea would capture much of the upsides both of requiring explicit registration and of not requiring it.
(Not that such a thing will ever be implemented anytime soon, but...)
I'm happy enough with implicit copyright - though the argument about what should be inherently copyrightable does need to be fleshed out.
However, the current system generally works out to about seventy years after the death of the last person involved. (There are a lot of exceptions and nuances to this - it's a generalisation). Which can mean that a work is protected for nearly two hundred years. That is insane.
If we were to tame it back to two decades after last development, and make it so that only people, and not companies, can own copyright, then we might be in for a reasonable shot. (Companies can license copyright, and employ trademarks to protect themselves.)
As it is, the current copyright laws stifle creativity, and hand over power of most mainstream ideas to a corporation that can use things like DMCA and Content ID as hammers against any little players in the field. You can't create anything similar to what exists or has existed.
And yes, I do believe there is a 0% chance that this will ever happen anywhere.
That'll filter out the vast bulk of the garbage copyrights, as well as the stuff nobody knows who owns (likely including the owner).
On the other hand, should minor things be copyright-able? Like this message I am writing?
If you spent a year writing a book, sure, copyright it. But if you drew a quick doodle on a napkin, scanned it and put it on a t-shirt to impress your friends, is that really worthy?
If you can't be bothered to register a copyright, which just takes a few minutes, it is not worth copyright protection.
> If you can't be bothered to register a copyright, which just takes a few minutes, it is not worth copyright protection.
Wait, does copyright registration take just a few minutes currently? I hadn't realized. That's good to hear.
Edit: I guess I was implicitly assuming that we'd also be adding a registration fee, which, even if small, makes registration the sort of thing you're not very likely to do for a day-or-two project.
Another filter is you have to mark it as copyrighted in order for protection.
This system worked quite well before implicit copyright.
Sure, but my point is that there a number of cases where having to make that decision doesn't really have good results. When you're a professional you can make a point of explicitly copyrighting everything. When you're just some random person posting stuff on the internet because you think it's cool (like, if you write a short story in a Reddit comment), you are not realistically going to bother to copyright it all simply due to the inconvenience (and if you have to pay a fee you're certainly not going to), so I don't think requiring this has good results in this case.
> This system worked quite well before implicit copyright.
I mean, certainly it did, no question there, but I'm wondering if we can do even better by getting the advantages of both. I'm not sure your replies are addressing this point, really. Like, could you give an example of a case where my proposal would seriously fail at the goal of preventing a copyright snarl?
I'm not quite sure what your proposal is, but implicitly copyrighting something just because someone spent several hours on it isn't an improvement. Everyone who suddenly smells $$$ is going to retroactively claim that.
I would say a limited time without registration would be perfect. Then an extended time period if you register it. The registration would then include all the individual parts that make it up.
I know. That was a mistake.
It was considered to be in the public domain by 1930 in most countries, but thanks to Florence Stoker who attempted to hunt down and eradicate the film at every turn, it becomes public domain in the US probably in 2041. It could be even later, depending on a few small things.
The Internet Archive , and TorrentFreak, with the former being the more active in the area.
My own knowledge comes from more selfish, commercial, reasons, in that I've tried to use PD content to kickstart my site's collection. (To be clear: Not affiliated with the parent of this thread in any way shape or form.)
If you want to donate - I'd highly recommend the Internet Archive, but they do have an American slant to what they attempt to give back. That is, if it isn't PD in America, then it might not be the best fit for them.
The attacker needs to run either one program or another program (with more sophisticated code but who cares, it's already written).
So really it's the same level of effort if you assume someone is just running prebuilt software, which is usually the case
When you're browsing with HTTPS, a third party may see:
- Your DNS queries (revealing the name of the website you're visiting),
- The handshake of your TLS connection, including Server Name Indicating (SNI) (revealing the name of the website you're visiting).
- A third party on the network is not however able to see the content of the website you're visiting, or the data you're submitting to the site.
When you're browsing with HTTP, a third party may see:
- Your DNS queries (same as above)
- The name of the website you're visiting (via the host header)
- Any and all information sent between you and the website, as well as being able to modify any and all data sent between you and the website.
It's a false claim because the instrumentation is automated and the execution is identical.
To be even more specific about HTTPS, if someone is lying to you about DNS, lying to you about the key signer and lying to you about the keys, it still doesn't work because your browser ships with verification keys from the major key signers.
So the attacker would still have to break cryptography because they couldn't do a fake chain that matched the domain and the key that was sent to you with your browser.
Now if someone managed to break RSA then again, this would become a single program with as much effort to run as any other program even though it sounds like a lot more work. But there's no public break so it's assumed to be unachievable without vast computing resources.
I think the original Conan books are completely public domain but I know that ”Conan” is under a dicey trademark somehow that people don’t dare mess around with. So, I believe if you write a story about a barbarian from Cimmeria who rescues damsels from snake people you can make all the money you want selling it and keep it yourself. As long as you don’t call it ”Conan”.
0 - http://publicdomainflix.com/mobile/the-street-fighter-1974_f...
Even though it is very biased and seems to have been a propaganda tool, the movies are actually pretty well crafted.
The "public domain movies" site does not have the entire series, but you can find them at youtube
It makes sense: there's no way a one-person operation can afford the bandwidth to stream movies. I am however impressed by the effort the owner goes to to find out the copyright status of each entry.
The short answer is, they forgot to put the copyright notice on it, and at the time, that made it public domain.
Nice vid on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI1kqlt4vkA
Ah, after further research I see that the US only joined the convention in 1988.
It's the first movie adaptation of Richard Matheson's "I Am Legend."
It was filmed in the suburbs of Rome, Italy.
What I was trying to express is:
No, if we just "leave things be", a copyright extension will happen again.