From Pierce Nichols, a friend who designs both rockets and aircraft flight system controls, on Facebook:
Thanks to that fucking dirtbag Sonny Bono and the rest of the Hollywood mafia, no works in the US have passed into the public domain in 11 years, and none will pass into the public domain until 2018. Which won't happen, because Congress will once again vote for effectively indefinite copyright terms.
Copyright should be... chopped back to 14 yrs, renewable for 14, like it was to begin with. And renewal should be expensive.
Slashdot has a few more details on the subject but Pierce's wording stands on its own pretty effectively.
This is not a small thing. Copyright, when first introduced into British law in 1710 was deigned to protect the work of authors for a limited time: the author's lifetime plus 14 years. (The intent was to protect the author rather than the publisher, printer or distributor, who had previously held effective control over whether the work was seen, in what form it was seen, and by who.) In 1790 this term was expanded to 28 years. It's a good idea to think about what practical effects that first expansion had. I mean, 28 years is a third of a lifetime for the average modern American; how long was that when the concept was considered new? I asked around and here's what I found:
From DemocraticUnderground.com:
Data compiled in 1790 by a prominent physician, Dr. Benjamin Rush, indicates that of 100 people born in the city of Philadelphia, more than one-third died before the age of six and only one quarter of the population survived beyond 26. Life expectancy in 1790 for the US population was 34.5 years for males and 36.5 years for females.
28 years, in other words, was essentially a full single lifetime back then. By the time you hit 28, you were old: you had already fathered or born at least two or three children and had very likely watched at least one of them die. You knew on your 28th birthday that you had very little time on Earth left. If you were wealthy, you could reasonably expect a bit more time than that, but not that much.
The point is that the author's first-, second,- and possibly third-generation heirs were intended to receive any benefit of copyright past the death of the author until expiration, at which time they had the option of renewing it. It was never intended to be a method of absolute control over intellectual property by non-human entities (i.e., corporations).
I know that such experiments like Creative Commons licensing and CopyLeft have had their impact, but by and large, the authors, producers, and publishers of movies, plays, books, even computer software applications are bound by these laws which make less and less sense to non-corporate analysis with each revision approaching perpetual corporate control over what was intended from the beginning to be a temporary benefit for the creator and his or her immediate heirs.
There has to be a better way of doing this, is all I'm saying.
Recent Comments