What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2012?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Making up our own rules as we go, to illustrate your point?

No, answering your question of where I get this from. I can call a cat a dog, but that doesn't make it a dog.

The term copyright has been used in two different ways. The first is a legal monopoly on the right to publish written material. This was used in an attempt to control the flow of thoughts and ideas, i.e. censorship, as well as a method of generating revenue and was historically fairly common. For example, in 1469 the Venetian Senate gave a German printer the sole rights to print the letters of Cicero and Pliny. It had nothing to do with an author's rights to control the publication of his writings, though sometimes there were specific grantings to specific authors for specific works they wrote. In England, in 1556, printing was reserved to members of the Stationeer's Company which was founded under Royal Charter.

The other usage is the modern usage of giving authors the right to control the publication of their work. The first known copyright law of this sort was the Statute of Anne in 1709, which was titled "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned".

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, answering your question of where I get this from. I can call a cat a dog, but that doesn't make it a dog.

The term copyright has been used in two different ways. The first is a legal monopoly on the right to publish written material. This was used in an attempt to control the flow of thoughts and ideas, i.e. censorship, as well as a method of generating revenue and was historically fairly common. For example, in 1469 the Venetian Senate gave a German printer the sole rights to print the letters of Cicero and Pliny. It had nothing to do with an author's rights to control the publication of his writings, though sometimes there were specific grantings to specific authors for specific works they wrote. In England, in 1556, printing was reserved to members of the Stationeer's Company which was founded under Royal Charter.

The other usage is the modern usage of giving authors the right to control the publication of their work. The first known copyright law of this sort was the Statute of Anne in 1709, which was titled "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned".

Wrong again, this time as far as Western copy right is concerned. In 1523 the Spanish King gave Pigafetta (Magellan's on onboard chronicler) full copyright over the publishing of his record of the voyage. This even included confiscation of any illegal copies and a heavy fine per copy. The copyright was to last for 20 years. (Source: Laurence Bergreen, Over the Edge of the World).

And it seems likely that this wasn't the first case, since everything was so well thought out. Just the earliest example I have heard of.

As far as the Chinese example is concerned, copyright is still copyright. Your premise was that such restrictions were alien to Chinese culture. I have shown you that they are not. And the period mentioned was a rather liberal period, so censorship was not the issue, but revenues.

[pwalker8]

Right. In your eagerness to show me wrong, you aren't reading what I wrote. Your example is another example of the first type of copyright, a monarch giving a monopoly to a specific person for a specific work. It isn't a general granting of the control for all authors to the works which they author, which is the modern definition of copyright.

I also say that the first method was also used to generate revenue. It's right there in the post that you quote.

My initial premise is that the idea that works of art such as books and music are intellectual property which belongs to the creator of the work as a matter of course is historically not found outside of Europe. You haven't shown anything that challenges that premise. Your examples were of rulers asserting the right to control the copying of books themselves rather than a general assigning of such a right to the authors of the works.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

That was really the most asinine statement I've ever read here. Fit for a monkey, for sure.

Thank you. I aim to please.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Right. In your eagerness to show me wrong, you aren't reading what I wrote. Your example is another example of the first type of copyright, a monarch giving a monopoly to a specific person for a specific work. It isn't a general granting of the control for all authors to the works which they author, which is the modern definition of copyright.

I also say that the first method was also used to generate revenue. It's right there in the post that you quote.

My initial premise is that the idea that works of art such as books and music are intellectual property which belongs to the creator of the work as a matter of course is historically not found outside of Europe. You haven't shown anything that challenges that premise. Your examples were of rulers asserting the right to control the copying of books themselves rather than a general assigning of such a right to the authors of the works.

In my example the rights were given to the author of the book, not the publisher/printer (It had nothing to do with an author's rights to control the publication of his writings, though sometimes there were specific grantings to specific authors for specific works they wrote --- you are actually contradicting yourself here).

As for your "initial premise", that was a rather belated premise which only appeared after I gave you an example of early Chinese copyright. Tou did not state in your original post. You were talking Chinese historically enjoying free, uninhibited copying.

[pwalker8]

If you wish to assert that a monarch giving specific rights to a specific person for a specific work is the same as a general assigning of rights to all authors, then you are welcome to do so. I disagree. I've explained what I was talking about in my initial post and explained why I consider to two concepts different. Once again, I was and am talking about the general assignment of rights to all authors, not just a ruler giving a monopoly to a specific person the rights to copy, i.e. publish, a specific work which that person may or may not have been the author.

[allinhi/]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Those works are still available for others to modify as they see fit. Society has no right to the Disney stuff unless Disney says so.

Except

Disney was the strongest lobbyist pushing for ridiculously long copywrite periods and one of the main players in the draconian DRM measures in place.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by allinhi/

Except

Disney was the strongest lobbyist pushing for ridiculously long copywrite periods and one of the main players in the draconian DRM measures in place.

Just doing whatever it takes to protect the empire. It's their stuff, not ours.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Just doing whatever it takes to protect the empire. It's their stuff, not ours.

Perhaps the answer, then is to make corporate copyright last for the lifetime of the company (just as individual copyright lasts for the lifetime of the individual + "X" years). That way, Disney get to keep their Mouse, and the rest of the US gets sensible copyright terms.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps the answer, then is to make corporate copyright last for the lifetime of the company (just as individual copyright lasts for the lifetime of the individual + "X" years). That way, Disney get to keep their Mouse, and the rest of the US gets sensible copyright terms.

Maybe for those who think copyrights should eventually expire.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps the answer, then is to make corporate copyright last for the lifetime of the company (just as individual copyright lasts for the lifetime of the individual + "X" years). That way, Disney get to keep their Mouse, and the rest of the US gets sensible copyright terms.

Yes, I had a similar idea. If Disney lost the the rights to the mouse, it would mean the loss of 10s of thousands of jobs, even 100's of thousands. Directly at Disney, but also at retailers, advertising companies, and at the factories that produce toys, etc for Disney (now the workers get paid well, if the Disney icon would become worthless then production would shift to low-end factories). A disaster for everybody, except for 99c stores and those sweatshop owners that have their employees work 60 hours each month at illegally low pay. Billions of dollars in value would be lost.

But unlimited copyright for books is a different story. The problem now is that the two are linked.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps the answer, then is to make corporate copyright last for the lifetime of the company (just as individual copyright lasts for the lifetime of the individual + "X" years). That way, Disney get to keep their Mouse, and the rest of the US gets sensible copyright terms.

How is that sensible? And what exactly do you mean by the life of the corporation? Is the corporation "dead" if another company buys a controlling interest in shares? What if the company buying the shares maintains the company it bought as a sub? What if it doesn't? What if the company undergoes a complete corporate re-org so it's barely recognizable, but the shareholders haven't changed? What if the company is just a hold company for one individual, and he dissolves the corporation?

Canada's Hudson Bay Company started in 1670, so I'm not sure a copyright term of 342 years+ is really what people think of as a "sensible" copyright term.

The problem with this suggestion (and other copyright maximizing suggestions like it) is that equating copyrightable expressions with physical property is comparing apples to oranges. Tubemonkey seems to think there's an inherent right to your ideas but that's not true; the rights are a fiction created by copyright law, law designed to encourage new ideas while understanding that any new ideas are recombinations of old ideas or incremental changes to same.

If you want to keep your ideas forever, just don't share them, problem solved.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Yes, I had a similar idea. If Disney lost the the rights to the mouse, it would mean the loss of 10s of thousands of jobs, even 100's of thousands. Directly at Disney, but also at retailers, advertising companies, and at the factories that produce toys, etc for Disney (now the workers get paid well, if the Disney icon would become worthless then production would shift to low-end factories). A disaster for everybody, except for 99c stores and those sweatshop owners that have their employees work 60 hours each month at illegally low pay. Billions of dollars in value would be lost.

But unlimited copyright for books is a different story. The problem now is that the two are linked.

If jobs are lost, it is because Disney failed to innovate and stagnated by resting on ideas and expressions that were created decades ago. Patents on pharmaceuticals last only 20 years or so (depending on your jurisdiction), but pharmaceutical companies appear to be doing okay; why should images of Mickey Mouse be different?

The point you bring up actually demonstrates how counter-productive copyright that lasts too long can be; the idea behind copyright is to encourage creators to create by giving them a limited monopoly, but the length of current US copyright actually encourages creators to rest on valuable IPs rather than take the risk of building new ones.

[Hellmark]

See, that's the thing, why would it mean a huge loss of jobs? Has Disney stopped making new content? Also, if one thing ends up in public domain, it does not mean that all related materials would end up in public domain as well. I mean, look at the Three Stooges. There are 4 episodes in public domain, yet they're still very tightly locked down. For a while, things stooge related were so bad that Comedy III (the company started by Moe, Larry, and Joe Derita back in the 50s when they were getting a raw deal from studios) went around suing everyone who even made fan websites. I'd say that public domain hasn't hurt them any, if they've been able to hold on the copyright for the likenesses through other, newer works.

[whitearrow]

There is a huge amount of confusion between copyright and trademark in this thread. Even if "Steamboat Willie" went into the public domain, it wouldn't mean that anyone could simply use Mickey Mouse in any new movie that they wanted to. The character is still trademarked by Disney.

Would Disney go bankrupt if someone else could release a DVD of early Mickey Mouse movies, which is the kind of thing we're actually talking about with an expiring copyright? I somehow doubt it.

It's also amusing to me that those who would defend Disney's right to perpetual copyright to the death somehow manage to forget that if perpetual copyright had been the law in the 1930's, Disney probably couldn't have made, say, Snow White, which would still have been under copyright to the heirs of the Grimm brothers.