Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, but only after a significant amount of time.

Yes, within a few decades.

Yes, within a decade.

Only in certain cases.

I am undecided.

No, never.

Other (Please post)

Don't care. / View poll.

[Virex]

I'd be happy if they went back to the pre-1978 copyright laws. 28 years after the work is created, with an option to renew it another 28 years after that.

It has to be public domain as opposed to first come first serve rights because it encourages creativity, competition, and enriches our shared culture. That's what public domain is all about. Imagine if shakespeare wasn't in public domain... No school would be able to produce a play based on his works, or get cheap copies of his works. You'd have to pay through the nose for lines like "Alas, poor Yorick" and "Romeo Romeo, where for art thou Romeo."

Instead it is part of our societies shared cultural wealth. We can all enjoy them as we see fit, read them, listen to them, watch them, produce our own versions of them, etc.

Could I get a quote on that? Because as far as I know, there's quite some leniency in coppyright laws when it comes to educational purposes and the usage of quotes in non-commercial fashion is, as far as I know, completely free.

[fenrif]

IANAL, and I'm not familiar with copyright law other than how I see it enforced (and I've no idea how the US copyright law works differently than the UK, let alone any other countries). I admit I was exaggerating about the specific lines, though you can trademark specific phrases (you're fired for example) and limit people using them that way.

Obviously there are certain things that don't have to worry about this, parodies I believe are protected for example. But my point is that you shouldn't have to be a teacher or comedian or what have you to participate in our shared culture. When you see fan-made films being blocked for distributing for free, let alone essentially never being allowed to even recoup the cost of production, it's ridiculous. There was a zelda fan film that took the creators four years to make, I think it was online for a week or two before they were ordered to take it down, for example.

My point is that it shouldn't be an indefinate thing controlled by the coorperations, with little caveats and compromises here and there to ape the true purpose of public domain. As it stands now, if you want to participate in our shared culture by remixing a song, or re-editing a film, or even creating your own work within a pre-existing continuity, you do it entirely at the pleasure of the content owner. Often it isn't even the content creator.

I'm not even talking about profiting off of it, just the creative expression.

[Grakelin]

There should be a time limit if only so that we can get access to it after the creator has passed on. Fenrif is bang on about why we have a time limit at all: If Shakespeare or Bacon or Weber or even Marx had laid down a copyright, died, and retained the copyright forever, we'd be in a pretty bad place as an enlightened generation.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong, in my eye, with Tolkien's children still maintaining a copyright on Lord of the Rings (especially since his kid wrote a number of books in the setting, so it's not like he's just abusing it for the moneys, he at least feels obligated to contribute). The whole point of making literature open source is so that when we need to quote a passage or refer back to it, we don't need to go to a medium to ask permission.

[fenrif]

There should be a time limit if only so that we can get access to it after the creator has passed on. Fenrif is bang on about why we have a time limit at all: If Shakespeare or Bacon or Weber or even Marx had laid down a copyright, died, and retained the copyright forever, we'd be in a pretty bad place as an enlightened generation.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong, in my eye, with Tolkien's children still maintaining a copyright on Lord of the Rings (especially since his kid wrote a number of books in the setting, so it's not like he's just abusing it for the moneys, he at least feels obligated to contribute). The whole point of making literature open source is so that when we need to quote a passage or refer back to it, we don't need to go to a medium to ask permission.

But if Tolkien's work was public domain his kid could still write books about it, and could still market them as being written by the son of the original author.

Public domain, aside from all the reasons i've stated before, is also (supposed) to be used to encourage people to keep creating. Rather than just making one thing then riding off the success of that for the rest of their lives, and their childrens lives, and their grandkids, etc. Public domain encourages people to keep creating, writing, composing, filming, producing, etc. Keep working in their profession. The first of the lord of the rings books should be public domain now. (wikipedia says they were originally published in 1954). This doesn't mean his son can't profit from writing more books in the franchise... It just means everyone else can too, or can create their own LoTR films or games, or do a literary mash-up akin to Pride and Predjudice and Zombies.

The original 28 years + 28 years works towards this. You can create something when you're 20, and if its still profitable when you're almost 50 you can keep it going untill you're almost 80. But after that it belongs to society. It should work out that thigns become public domain within the audience's lifetime, even if it's just so they can share their pop-culture heritage with their grandkids. As it stands now only generations that weren't around for somethings release can get it in public domain.

I honestly think the death of public domain is a hugely important issue, and ties in with a lot of the reasons why people feel ok about filesharing. If we still had a working public domain system, then not only would people know they could get works for free if they just waited, but you'd have all the works of the past to keep you busy in the meantime. Obviously this doesn't encompass the entire issue, but it's a big part of it.

[Grakelin]

Public domain is far from dead.

And if I write something and support my family with it, I don't want it to die with me, thus destroying the future of my children. Tolkien Jr. couldn't just market LOTR books in a world filled with cheap knock-offs. My God, that's the worst idea I've ever heard! The reason LOTR is still copyrighted material is because it is held by Tolkien's estate. This was the will of the authour.

If we still had a working public domain system, then not only would people know they could get works for free if they just waited, but you'd have all the works of the past to keep you busy in the meantime. Obviously this doesn't encompass the entire issue, but it's a big part of it.

I don't know what this 'still' thing is, copyright law has only gotten more liberal over time. There are a number of problems with this statement, however:

- I'm not going to wait 56 years to pick up my copy of Harry Potter.
- If people actually did do that, it would be impossible to earn a profit by writing Harry Potter.
- Harry Potter would not exist because JK Rowling would go back to teaching full time.
- You're still allowed to write Harry Potter fanfiction, but you are not allowed to sell it for money. This seems like a perfectly acceptable path to me.
- This stuff isn't dead just because somebody has a copyright on it. If I want to indulge in my Great-Grandfather's culture, I can still go out and pick up a copy of Mein Kampf a CD with Dean Martin on it. I can still read Lord of the Rings. The only reason people maintain a copyright is so they can continue selling it to people. Are you aware that if I go to my local bookstore and buy an anthology of Lovecraft works, it will cost me $50? Lovecraft is (arguably, there have been fights) in the public domain, and many legitimate sites on the internet offer his work for free. Public domain has not made him any more accessible than Tolkien.

[Vester]

So, yep, what it says on the tin. Should franchises / intellectual properties that don't get touched by the company that owns them (i.e. releasing a significant product within that franchise) go public domain?

Pros:-

• No more intense legal debates about copyright after fifty years.
• Allows people to eventually get their hands on what they love and create more of it.
• Stops intellectual properties from ever eventually dying out.
• Releases rights to the fans.

Cons:-

• Would likely be heavily exploited.
• Intense legal debates on how long it should be since it has been "used" and what constitutes a significant product.

I was considering this whilst playing Creatures 3, which is a part of a franchise which will never be developed further. It still has a pretty loyal fanbase, but it's been dwindling for a few years due to lack of updates and literally 0 response from the company that owns the franchise.

So, what do you guys think?

What kind of timeframe are we talking about here?

[fenrif]

Public domain is far from dead.

And if I write something and support my family with it, I don't want it to die with me, thus destroying the future of my children. Tolkien Jr. couldn't just market LOTR books in a world filled with cheap knock-offs. My God, that's the worst idea I've ever heard! The reason LOTR is still copyrighted material is because it is held by Tolkien's estate. This was the will of the authour.

I want everyone to always give me free money forever, and for this to apply to my entire lineage untill the end of time. But that only benefits me. The will of the author doesn't have anything to do with it. Copyright laws being extended is. If copyright laws were still set at the 1978 limit, it would be public domain.

I'm loving your intimage knowledge of marketing in a public domain marketplace, but provided his son's book is as good or better than the competiton I don't see why it wouldnt sell. Competition is a good thing. Especially in creative works.

I don't know what this 'still' thing is, copyright law has only gotten more liberal over time. There are a number of problems with this statement, however:

Did you even read the link i posted? Please explain to me how copyright law has gotten more liberal in regards to public domain. Throw down some links to back you up aswell. I really don't think you know what you're talking about here, sorry.

- I'm not going to wait 56 years to pick up my copy of Harry Potter.
- If people actually did do that, it would be impossible to earn a profit by writing Harry Potter.
- Harry Potter would not exist because JK Rowling would go back to teaching full time.
- You're still allowed to write Harry Potter fanfiction, but you are not allowed to sell it for money. This seems like a perfectly acceptable path to me.

First of all, you're only allowed to write harry potter fanficion at the authors/publishers pleasure. If they decide they don't want you too they are within their rights to stop your works. The legality seems murky, which is as bad as it being illegal. Anne Rice is quite famous for opposing all fanficion of her characters and works, and constantly threatens to sue to get them taken down apparently.

Secondly, obviously you're taking this out of context, since it was a small part of my post, and doesn't refer to everyone doing this. I said it doesn't encompass the entire issue for a reason. Some people are just going to avoid paying for things for whatever reason. I was merely pointing out that some of those people might instead be able to induldge in public domain works.

- This stuff isn't dead just because somebody has a copyright on it. If I want to indulge in my Great-Grandfather's culture, I can still go out and pick up a copy of Mein Kampf a CD with Dean Martin on it. I can still read Lord of the Rings. The only reason people maintain a copyright is so they can continue selling it to people. Are you aware that if I go to my local bookstore and buy an anthology of Lovecraft works, it will cost me $50? Lovecraft is (arguably, there have been fights) in the public domain, and many legitimate sites on the internet offer his work for free. Public domain has not made him any more accessible than Tolkien.

I'm not saying, and never said anywhere that public domain equates to things not being sold. Merely that if LoTR, for example, was public domain you could download it for free in addition to buying it at a bookstore, buying the DVDs or what have you. Obviously not everything dies because it has a copyright on it. Popular things will continue to be sold (notice how all the things you listed are hugely known iconic cultural texts?) but what profit is there in selling the stuff that wont create blockbuster sales?

Here's a little annecdote for you, it might've been in that article I posted though I can't remember... There's been a huge blogscene growing up around people ripping old vinyl records to mp3s and uploading them for free. Loads of people are into it. But it's illegal, beacuse none of the records are public domain. Some people are apparently starting to get cease and disist letters to stop them. These records aren't even sold anymore, the music wasn't upgraded to the new formats. The copyright owners were content to let them rot away to obscurity untill these people started sharing them.

In your indefinte copyright world of no-public domain that music would die out. Unprofitable, unsold and unknown.

[ChairmanPoo]

IMHO copyrrights are absurdly lengthy. I don't fathom why does the content industry get such an absurd priviledge, over the others.

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

Scenario A:

Author Booky McBookenstein gets a great idea for a book series, and writes a novel, and begins working on a second one. His intellectual property should remain his own (so other people don't leech off his great idea right away) as long as he keeps writing, IMO. If Penny Publisher wants to write a story set in McBookenstein's world, she should need his permission.

Scenario B:

Author Penny Publisher gets a great idea for a novel, and writes a novel, and then leaves everything to sit with no intention of expansion, her work should go into the public domain for purposes of expansion and continuation. She should still see monetary returns when someone wants to distribute her book.

[fenrif]

Scenario A:

Author Booky McBookenstein gets a great idea for a book series, and writes a novel, and begins working on a second one. His intellectual property should remain his own (so other people don't leech off his great idea right away) as long as he keeps writing, IMO. If Penny Publisher wants to write a story set in McBookenstein's world, she should need his permission.

Scenario B:

Author Penny Publisher gets a great idea for a novel, and writes a novel, and then leaves everything to sit with no intention of expansion, her work should go into the public domain for purposes of expansion and continuation. She should still see monetary returns when someone wants to distribute her book.

I'm not actually too sure how public domain works when you're talking about series of books or films, I'm gonna have to look it up. But in my ideal world it'd work like this:

His intellectual property should remain his own untill the copyright comes out and it becomes public domain. He can continue writing books in the series. But once the time is up regardless of if he's still working on the series, the first book becomes public domain.

This in no way means he can't still write in that universe, or continue the story, or profit from it. It just means that the first book is public domain, and owned by everyone. This means that people can write within that universe if they want, and they don't need his permission. The setting has become public domain. Characters and settings and stuff from his later works still aren't public domain, so you'd need his permission to include those in your works, but you can add to it free of any sort of legal threats.

[Soadreqm]

Scenario B:

Author Penny Publisher gets a great idea for a novel, and writes a novel, and then leaves everything to sit with no intention of expansion, her work should go into the public domain for purposes of expansion and continuation. She should still see monetary returns when someone wants to distribute her book.

What do you mean with "public domain" here? If the work is in the public domain, anyone can distribute it in any way they see fit, without asking, paying or notifying the original author. You mean just the characters and setting should be free, but not the work itself?

How would you even enforce this? I suppose you'd have to take the author's word for it if she said she was working on a sequel, which would mean that you could still ban fanfiction if you wanted to, you'd just have to claim to be still working. This sounds functionally identical to the current system.

Public domain, aside from all the reasons i've stated before, is also (supposed) to be used to encourage people to keep creating. Rather than just making one thing then riding off the success of that for the rest of their lives, and their childrens lives, and their grandkids, etc. Public domain encourages people to keep creating, writing, composing, filming, producing, etc. Keep working in their profession. The first of the lord of the rings books should be public domain now. (wikipedia says they were originally published in 1954). This doesn't mean his son can't profit from writing more books in the franchise... It just means everyone else can too, or can create their own LoTR films or games, or do a literary mash-up akin to Pride and Predjudice and Zombies.

The original 28 years + 28 years works towards this. You can create something when you're 20, and if its still profitable when you're almost 50 you can keep it going untill you're almost 80. But after that it belongs to society. It should work out that thigns become public domain within the audience's lifetime, even if it's just so they can share their pop-culture heritage with their grandkids. As it stands now only generations that weren't around for somethings release can get it in public domain.

I honestly think the death of public domain is a hugely important issue, and ties in with a lot of the reasons why people feel ok about filesharing. If we still had a working public domain system, then not only would people know they could get works for free if they just waited, but you'd have all the works of the past to keep you busy in the meantime. Obviously this doesn't encompass the entire issue, but it's a big part of it.

Are you writing this from America? They were really late to ratify the Berne Convention. In the rest of the world (most of it), the copyright expiration has always been 50 years after the death of the author, minimum. Quite a bit more in a lot of places. Maybe a bit less for some new media that weren't considered "true art" in the beginning. Could you give the Cliff's notes on the history of copyright in your barbarous country?

Anyway, literary mashups like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies probably count as parody, and everyone is free to do them from day one. And if you're serious about publishing your fanfiction, you can always just change the names. The Generic Fantasy Setting originated, in large part, from Tolkien, and that didn't stop it from originating. Change Balrogs to Pit Fiends and you can make all the money you want.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

The main reason to let intellectual property revert to public domain is to encourage new creativity. It's the same with patents. At some point, the desire of the author to continue making money has to be balanced against the needs of the entire culture. Perpetual ownership in the form of inherited rights encourages formation of an aristocracy. The rich buy up patents and copyrights from those who hold just one. Then the richest buy up the intellectual properties of those who hold just a few. Eventually there are only a few hundred people who own anything of substance.

Do you think an aristocracy is a cool thing? What if you realized that you are almost certainly left out of that happy little club? It's the issue of the American Dream - people believe if they work hard they will succeed, and that's somewhere between "way too simple" and "a sinister lie". Would you support a "ruling class" if you knew you would never join it?

It's the same reason why it's a bad policy to relax taxes on rich people. If wealth consolidates to a small minority, the impoverished mass tends to revolt and redistribute by force anyway. China's economic history can be broken up into periods where this trend washes back and forth.

And I second fenrif, in denouncing the quote by Grakelin on copyright getting more lenient. It's gatting far worse, constantly. Every time Mickey Mouse's copyright is about to expire, Disney lobbies Congress and gets them to extend the copyright period by another decade or so. At that rate, you might as well just say that everything before Disney will be public domain, and everything after Disney will be in eternal copyright.

We need cultural articles that belong to all of us. If something is owned by a company somewhere, it is not really ours. The sheet music, the painting, the poem, are held back from us. We definitely need a mechanism for authors to benefit from their work. But we just as surely need a mechanism to free that work.

Copyright is an aberration from the natural human method. Normally, if you hear a song, and you want to sing it, you do so. If you read a poem in a book and you want to write it down for a friend, you do so. Along the way you might change things a little. Maybe it's just a slight difference that pleases your sensibility. But maybe it's actually an objective improvement. These changes spread, and eventually the most popular (most effective) versions predominate. This is good for our culture and for us as human beings, and the desire of one human to make additional money long after he dies must be subordinated to the needs of every other human.

The same goes for inventions. Imagine if the first person to patent an Internal Combustion engine had retained that patent forever, and nobody could build upon his ideas to make an improved engine. We would have exactly one motor vehicle company in the world that could make internal combustion vehicles. The quality of those cars compared to what's available today would be horrendous because of lack of competition pressures and lower creative input. The car market would be a travesty, with prices far too high because of the monopoly.

But we can't just leave the inventor or author out in the cold. Imagine if your work could be stolen immediately, and all your effort was for nothing. So we need to encourage creative people, and one way of doing that is to give them control over their intellectual property for some time. During that time they must wring whatever profit from it they may, because when their ownership expires everyone else can use and build off of their work for free.

Effectively, a copyright is a freezing of cultural development. It's necessary to have some minimal copyright to encourage cretivity in the first place, but excessive copyright is an even greater detriment to culture than none at all. And it has an additional negative effect of consolidating wealth.

Incidentally, it doesn't matter whether it's used or not. A company will just put out a blurb every year for each of its IPs saying they're working on something.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

IMHO copyrrights are absurdly lengthy. I don't fathom why does the content industry get such an absurd priviledge, over the others.

Big companies bribe Congressmen. They call it Lobbying.

[Virex]

Reminds me of a snarky comment my dad once made:

"We critisize people in Afrika for being corrupt because they hand out bribes to get things done. In repsonse, they accuse us of covvering up our bribes by making them in the form of vacations and 'gifts'..."

[Soadreqm]

We need cultural articles that belong to all of us. If something is owned by a company somewhere, it is not really ours. The sheet music, the painting, the poem, are held back from us. We definitely need a mechanism for authors to benefit from their work. But we just as surely need a mechanism to free that work.

That post was really long, and I kind of skimmed through it and I am sorry.

Anyway.

I don't think it's evident that we need cultural articles to belong to the world. Is the world's artistic output severely crippled by Steamboat Willie not being public domain? Especially since copyright expiring on that wouldn't actually make Mickey Mouse public domain, as Disney has trademarked the character, which uses different mechanics. I can see it matters quite a lot with inventions, probably including software, but for purely artistic works, does it really matter if you can't legally publish your fanfiction? (As fanfiction, that is. You can always rename the characters and say it's original.) Actually, I checked, and Steamboat Willie is up on Youtube, so for Disney, being under copyright doesn't even hurt availability.

Admittedly, it sometimes does, and abandonware doesn't really exist as a legal concept yet. I'm not sure it needs to, however. The way it works right now, companies send cease-and-desist letters first, and only resort to lawsuits if you don't obey. So, functionally, you can get away with uploading ANYTHING as long as you heed the legal warnings you get afterwards.

Improving upon other people's work, on the other hand, is often either over enough to qualify as parody, or subtle enough to go unnoticed.