If things stay as they are (or get worse), I expect to see an interesting side effect for today's authors: the vast majority of people creating today--those who don't produce blockbuster franchises that ageless corporations can milk eternally--will be totally forgotten in fifty or a hundred year's time. And not forgotten in the "who is that, let me look it up" sense, but rather effectively not included in any meaningful records our children's children would access.
Why? Because long copyright prevents volunteers from remembering your work after you're dead.
That's not the case for centuries-old authors today. Thanks to the public domain, volunteers from all over the world at places like Project Gutenberg and Archive.org lovingly scan, transcribe, produce, catalog, store, and make available old works for today's generation to enjoy. Not just famous stuff like Dracula, but obscure works, works that were unpopular in their day, works that didn't matter then and maybe don't even matter now. The public domain makes this possible--it keeps the memory of authors alive, because as humans we instinctively know it's important to our culture.
But the work you produce today, unless it's highly profitable to a corporation, will be shackled by draconian laws and punishments for hundreds of years. Why should volunteers risk their freedom and treasure to transcribe your 150-year-old work still under copyright? They won't, and you and your work will be forgotten, while we keep re-using and sharing obscure writing from 1923.
"I thought it was a moral outrage. There wasn't anyone speaking out for the public interest."
- Sen. Hank Brown, the only Senator to be against extending copyright in the 90s. Shame there were not more like that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...
The way I read it, the intent of latter half of the sentence clearly is to enable artists to profit from their works. Note that it does not say "all artists shall be paid no matter what". But by having exclusive rights to their works, it can work roughly like any other property in a capitalistic society: that is, artists may be able to capture rewards proportionate to the amount of the value they provide.
Think about it. If you have the right to use land for 95 years, after which it reverts to my possession... you do not own that land. You're just leasing it from me.
No copyright holder owns any of this. They have a long-term lease to be sure, but it's not theirs. And they're bad tenants. They're ruining the property apparently out of spite, that is, when they're not trying to bribe politicians to steal it away from us forever.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-mi...
When talking about the disappearance of books, Isaac Asimov's Great SF Stories anthology series[1] always comes to my mind. Around 2006 I spent a whole week searching for it - of the 25 books I managed to find only four or five.
Nevertheless, I assembled a pretty big (and pretty illegal) collection of nearly-impossible-to-find sci-fi stories during my days in high school, but lost it when my computer went wrong a few years later. (I am sure I could have recovered them somehow, but back then I had no idea.) Last year I tried to reassemble my collection but I gave up, it would have been too much work.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Isaac_Asimov%27s_Grea...
1) "Putting in the public domain" isn't actually possible in considerable parts of the world; you'd have to use a license like the CC0 to achieve as such,
2) Dead people can't give out licenses, and
3) Society has largely come to rely on the (mistaken) notion that copyright is a measure for ensuring income for artists, and in return this makes it very, very hard for an artist to break that notion by CC0ing their work, and still gain an income.
And in countries where they do not have a concept of public domain, simply change the royalty to 0 after that period of time.
Or, simply say, after 10 years, you'll also be permitted to do x, y, z with this work (where x might be redistribution, derivatives, etc).
At least in the US, authors have the right to do this today.
Perhaps if you want to be listed on those sites, you should do that before you die. Or your heirs can if they have no ongoing payments from that work any more.
Steamboat Willie will never enter the public domain.
It isn't just abandoned works. All cultural works should eventually be available to build upon.
Also, let's not justify the desire for having things for free by calling somebody's artistic labor a "cultural idea" and implying it should be made available for free. If you find value in something, pay for it as the creators wish. If you wish to build on top of it, license it.
Small-budget adaptations should be possible, as well as large-budget.
The old 56-year copyright term used to be split into two 28-year periods. You basically paid a one-time fee: half at the original registration, then half (adjusted for inflation) at renewal. If you didn't renew, then you got to pay half the fee for half the copyright term.
Only 15% of copyrights on books, periodicals, and music were ever renewed. The renewal rates were higher for maps (40%) and motion pictures (50%).
Thus, commercially-significant work was protected. However, the vast majority of work (85% of books!) only had an ephemeral cultural value, so the authors chose to take the fee discount and allow their works to enter the public domain.
Source: Divide 1977 renewals by 1950 registrations for each category. This is off-by-one (27 years instead of 28) because 1949 and 1978 tabulations aren't as easy to access. That's why I give round numbers.
Would a US based company be able to do the same if they only released it abroad?
CETA, Canada-EU: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/08/canada-shaped-copyright-r...
"Canadian reforms had an impact on the negotiations. Requirements to extend the term of copyright or create new rights for broadcasters and visual artists were removed from the draft text. Moreover, the digital lock rules and Internet service provider liability provisions were substantially re-written to better reflect the Canadian approach ... the “made-in-Canada” approach is gradually garnering increased attention around the world as a creative, viable alternative ... other countries have been considering adopting the Canadian model on issues such as Internet provider liability or the creation of user-generated content."
NAFTA, Canada-US-Mexico: http://www.barrysookman.com/2011/02/19/is-copyright-part-of-...
TPP, Canada-US-Mexico-Australia-New Zealand-Malaysia-Singapore-Japan-Vietnam-Brunei-Peru-Chile : http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/10/new-tpp-leak-canada-emerg...
"..the U.S. wants Canada to eviscerate many of the recent reforms found in copyright and counterfeiting legislation along with court rulings on patent protection. These demands focus on enhanced criminal liability for copyright infringement, eliminating the Canadian approach to Internet service provider liability, extending the term of copyright protection, and expanding patent protection. Canadian negotiators have thus far resisted many of the proposed changes, offering alternatives that are compatible with current law. Yet as the treaty negotiations continue, the pressure to cave to U.S. pressure will no doubt increase, raising serious concerns about whether the TPP will force the Canadian government to overhaul recently enacted legislation that it has steadfastly defended as reflecting a balanced, “made in Canada” approach."
Not sure about a US company releasing abroad. The US copyright holder could probably argue they violated their copyright during production if the film was produced in the US. Then again if the filming was done in London but paid for by the US company they would be alright I guess? Popeye may be an interesting case as he's still copyright in the US but not most other places.
Taxi medallions were a similar phenomenon pre-Lyft and pre-Uber.
http://mashable.com/2012/08/08/kim-dotcom-raid/
> Taxi medallions were a similar phenomenon pre-Lyft and pre-Uber.
Neither Uber nor Lyft put an end to Taxi medallion system.
If you disagree with a law, ignore it. If enough people do the same, the burden from enforcing the law becomes too much and it simply stops being enforced or is legislated away due to the societal harm it causes.
An arguable example of this in action is the War On Drugs. This war has been waged for years, and the black market has not only survived, it has thrived in the economy of scarcity that is created and maintained by said war. People and legislators all over the country (the world?) are beginning to see that this war isn't benefiting anyone and have begun legalizing marijuana. Marijuana is one of many drugs, but it's a step in the right direction.
Now we see the mighty MS open sourcing the server side of .NET. IMO they are forced to do so because of the pressure from awesome platforms like Ruby on Rails, Python, Node.JS etc. that would soon make them irrelevant unless they follow suit.
In 50 years time, the best creative work both art, writing and tech will be available freely on permissive licences, and we won't care if it enters the public domain, even though it probably will anyway.
The great thing is the stuff you need (tools, information) is available this way. The stuff you want but don't need (awful Hollywood films, etc.) is protected by copyright and you have to pay for it.
Also the illegal file sharing has disrupted music massively. We now have so many songs you can listen to on Youtube for free. Imagine telling someone in 1990 you can listen to unlimited free music legally (albeit with ads!).
Aside from that, there is a considerable difference between public domain and 'freely licensed'. The latter involves an absolute nightmare of tracking down licenses and understanding the interactions between licenses, when working on a project of significant size (and influence). And licenses like the GPL make this even harder by being very restrictive.
> Also the illegal file sharing has disrupted music massively. We now have so many songs you can listen to on Youtube for free. Imagine telling someone in 1990 you can listen to unlimited free music legally (albeit with ads!).
The majority of music on Youtube is not there legally.
Maybe not just yet, but a 20% price drop is likely only the beginning.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/upshot/new-york-taxi-medal...
*Neither Uber nor Lyft put an end to Taxi medallion system.*
If a citizen tries to get copyright law amended through the courts, they will face an epic battle from all sides.
"Sometimes all it takes to alter the course of history is one pissed-off person. Supap Kirtsaeng wasn’t a crusader or lone nut; he was just an eBay trader who got backed into a legal corner and refused to give up.
To help pay for grad school at USC, he sold textbooks online—legitimate copies that he’d purchased overseas. But academic publishing behemoth John Wiley & Sons sued Supap, claiming that his trade in Wiley’s foreign-market textbooks constituted copyright infringement.
... Once Supap’s struggle hit the spotlight, powerful supporters such as eBay, Public Knowledge, Costco, and Goodwill Industries joined the fray. But the forces pitted against Supap were arguably more powerful: the movie and music industries, publishers of books and software, and even the US Solicitor General."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&...
Right, because Congress surely won't extend terms again before that.
They're right, IMHO. Congress gets to set the terms of copyright, and it's "limited" so long as any particular Congress can allow it to expire at their pleasure. Don't like it? Elect a different Congress.