Techdirt: what didn't enter the public domain this week, that should have

[Winehole23]

So, What Didn't Enter The Public Domain This Week, That Should Have

from the take-a-look dept

A couple weeks ago, I pointed out that, while some stuff was entering the public domain in many countries around the globe on January 1st, here in the US, we got a big fat empty set. The good folks over at the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke University have put out their depressing annual post about what should have been entering the public domain this year if we still were working under the previous copyright law regime, before it changed in 1978 via the 1976 Copyright Act. Under that law, the maximum length of copyright was 56 years -- meaning that works from 1956 would have entered the public domain yesterday. There were some impressive works that will remain locked up for decades:
The post lists out a bunch of books that would be going into the public domain:

• Winston Churchill, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Volume I and Volume II
• Philip K. , Minority Report
• Ian Fleming, Diamonds are Forever
• Fred Gibson, Old Yeller
• Billie Holiday, Lady Sings the Blues
• Alan Lerner, My Fair Lady
• Eugene O'Neill, Long Day’s Journey into Night
• John Osborne, Look Back in Anger
• Dodie Smith, 101 Dalmations

They also list out a bunch of movies, music, scientific publications and much, much more. All locked up. As they note, the more popular of these works continue to survive (but not have the same sorts of revivals they might otherwise have), but lesser works are literally disintegrating and disappearing because we can't make copies. Extra shameful are some of the movies that were made on top of existing public domain works -- yet whose own adaptations may never reach the public domain. Movies like Forbidden Planet and Around the World in 80 Days were examples of works built on the public domain, but which themselves remain completely locked up. It's very sad if you support culture.

And, of course, this only covers works that were kept under copyright for the full 56 years. Since the earlier copyright law required a renewal at 28 years, and 85% of copyrights were not renewed (suggesting that the vast majority of copyright holders don't value them past 28 years), lots of works from 1984 should also be entering the public domain, but probably won't get there for another century or so.

And the real sad part is just how much culture we're losing because of all this:

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the current copyright term is that in most cases, the cultural harm is not offset by any benefit to an author or rights holder. Unlike the famous works highlighted here, the vast majority of works from 1956 do not retain commercial value. This means that no one is benefiting from continued copyright, while the works remain both commercially unavailable and culturally off limits. The public loses the possibility of meaningful access for no good reason.

It's difficult to see how this situation makes any sense at all.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...uld-have.shtml

[Winehole23]

In 1976, the US Congress decided to extend the copyright on works that had been created with the understanding that they would enter the public domain after about 56 years (depending on whether the copyright was renewed after 26 years). This decision set the stage for a series of subsequent copyright extensions, each one coinciding, roughly, with the imminent entry to the public domain of the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons. Effectively, the public domain has ended.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/01/wor...ml#more-203407

[CubanMustGo]

As much as the printed word, these asinine extensions of copyright also impact music - popular and classical. Harder to get sheet music for, harder to perform because of the hoops you have to jump through to get performance (and recording) rights. FU Sonny Bono Act.

[Winehole23]

FnA, brother.

[Winehole23]

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet will hold a hearing on Wednesday consisting of a lone witness; the Register of Copyrights, head of the Copyright Office in the Library of Congress. In testimony released today, Register Maria Pallente says, ”I think it is time for Congress to think about the next great copyright act, which will need to be more forward thinking and flexible than before.”


A source told Billboard the hearing is “part of a coordinated, slow march” by House Judiciary chairman Bob Goodlatte and Register Maria Pallante toward reforming copyright.


On its face, the statement is significant for its boldness and its blunt call for an update to the DMCA. But Mike Masnick at Techdirt is skeptical:

In the end, she is thinking big, but there’s a lot to worry about in here, along with a few good things. Perhaps of even greater concern than Pallante’s thoughts, is that, for the time being any process in Congress will be lead by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee. While Goodlatte is slightly better than Lamar Smith — and, as he constantly reminds people in Silicon Valley, his son works at Facebook, Goodlatte has a long history of siding with the maximalists, and having little grasp of the importance of the public benefit in copyright.


Also telling is that nowhere in the entire speech did she mention anything about SOPA. Pallante was an unabashed supporter of SOPA, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee in favor of the bill back in 2011. The fact that the public rose up against it highlights how these issues have become a significant concern to the public, and one would hope that it would lead Pallante to make clear that any such discussion needs to take that into account.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...copyright-act/