But seriously, I think HN must have a keyword bump, namely for U.S./Copyright/Show HN. It also probably has a few elite sites that rank high, like the Atlantic, and Tech Crunch. That or because it was voted up twice in new within it's first minute of being posted, which resulted in the front page, which only exacerbates the process.
While we are at it, can we exempt scientific papers from copyright? Copyright only serves the interests of journal publishers, who are entirely redundant now that we have the Internet. Rather than ensuring access to scientific work, copyrights have become a way to restrict access -- even universities cannot guarantee their students and professors access to all journals. Journal articles are reviewed by volunteers, and sometimes journals are even edited by volunteers.
We need to stop this nonsense already. Copyright is not an incentive for scientists, it is a burden.
There's probably more that needs to change than just the length of copyright terms. Registration should perhaps be required to get copyright.
I don't know if having copyright at all is a net benefit. Whatever is best, it might be something to approach in several steps and not all at once. Maybe we could get all scientific papers in the public domain at the same time, though.
It is not just about where the papers are published. A system needs to be established that allows peer review to happen in a meaningful way, archives must be established and maintained, etc. Right now, journals are facilitating peer review and archiving papers, but that carries the cost of papers being locked behind paywalls with outrageously high prices that ensure that the general public has difficulty accessing that work. I would suggest a system in which university libraries act as archives, providing HTTP links for people who want a handful of papers or BitTorrent for people who want large batches and for distributing the archives to other libraries. Peer review would be facilitated in software, using some threshold signature scheme to assert that a paper passed review and using some secure computation protocol to protect the anonymity of authors; people would be invited to review papers by being given a share of the signing key.
My point is that we have a legal system in place now that protects and promotes the existence of a publishing system that is grossly out of date, and that we have a chance to do better (and to abolish the old system).
If someone could provide further detail as to the benefit of this, I might be willing to consider signing. I just dont know enough about both arguments to make a determination.
Well, considering that White House Petitions don't work. I wouldn't worry about this one...
To simplify the arguments:
Pro (Current) Copyright: We need to protect artists. We need to protect the invested parties interests.
Against (Current) Copyright: Internet. It's companies who Copyright protects not Artists. Copyright actually stifles creativity and application of invention.
That's my take of this whole thing anyway. I don't care either way to be honest. It's all high level creation issues, and I've never had a personal run in to warrant an extreme positioning either way. I'd like is someone could give a more detailed explanation or correct any of my takeaways.
Those are not the arguments that people in the real world (tm) use.
Pro current or longer copyright terms: I made something, it's mine, I should be able to control it. Forever. Forever minus 1 day, to make it "limited times".
Opposing current or longer copyright terms: We (society) make deals with artists to incentivize the creation of works. Current copyright terms for most works, life + 70 years for works by individuals or 95 years for corporations, are 70-130[1] and 81 years, respectively, longer than necessary to incentivize the creation of new works.
"Pro (Current) Copyright: We need to protect artists. We need to protect the invested parties interests."
Eh, I don't think you'll hear much talk about artists when the copyright lobbyists meet with our elected representatives. More likely, you'll hear this: copyrights are an important source of revenue for a major part of the US economy. We need stronger copyrights to protect that revenue stream. The only time people talk about artists is when they are appealing to the general public's moral sentiments.
"Against (Current) Copyright: Internet. It's companies who Copyright protects not Artists. Copyright actually stifles creativity and application of invention."
It depends on who you ask. People in the anti-copyright crowd (like myself) are not all united on what should change. RMS has said that copyright can be good e.g. when applied in the way that the GPL applies it, or that it can be bad, so the system should be reformed to ensure that GPL-style application is promoted (or GFDL for written documents, or creative commons, etc.). My view is that copyright was made obsolete by the development of PCs and global computer networks, and that a new system must be developed to ensure that artists are paid, that scientists can publish papers, and that the utility of PCs and the Internet must be legally protected (e.g. we must ensure that we, the general public, have access to computers that are not restricted or designed to fight us, and we must ensure that we continue to have access to a global communication network that makes no distinction between the nodes connected to it). There are some who want to create a complete anarchy, where copying is entirely unregulated -- where no system for ensuring access to creative works exists.
"It's all high level creation issues"
That is not really true. Copyright is about you, even if you do not personally do the sort of work that copyrights cover. Copyright is about your ability to access human knowledge; it is about your right to sing "Happy Birthday;" it is about your continued access to things like the Internet, and ensuring that the Internet does not degenerate into a cable TV network (which is a system designed with copyrights in mind). The combination of PCs and the Internet has the potential to upend copyrights and completely change the way in which knowledge and entertainment spread, having an impact as broad and lasting as the printing press (which was the reason copyright was first created) or as writing itself (which forever changed the way information was passed from generation to generation). Human civilization is made possible by communication, and copyrights are about communication; if you do not care about copyrights today, you will eventually be forced to care, should copyright law continue its outrageous expansion (and there is no reason to think the expansion will stop any time soon).
Thank you for the insightful elaborations and clarifications.
Regarding the expansion of copyright in the near future, do you think that the general public of the US will simply allow things to get out of hand before making concessions like you suggested (GFDL/GPL), or will the internet (software?) as we know it simply be overtaken, with the only recourse to simply use another paradigm for open communication and sharing.
My opinion is that, with more and more older people adopting technology, and younger people being born (obviously, right?), we'll in a general public sense, shift our priorities to a more logical and open copyright system. I would give it 20-30 years though...
I wanted to vote for this, but 10 years seems kind of short. Maybe something between 10 and the current "life plus 70". I think 28 years seems pretty fair.
5-10 years should be the default. But let's say you could get another 10 years extension, but you'd have to renew it, but you'd have to pay say $1,000-$5,000. I mean, if you want to renew it, presumably you're making money from it, and it's worth investing copyrights for another decade. If it's not making you money anyway, then it should go into the public domain. I think the end goal was to "enrich" the whole society indirectly, by the authors a monopoly just enough time to make their money back, and be a worthy investment.
It looks like the Hacker News front page is in danger of being taken over by petitions.whitehouse.gov on this first business day of 2013. The petition kindly submitted here for comment reads in full:
"Current copyright terms are much longer than necessary for promoting progress. Excessive copyright terms limit the usefulness of the works they cover without leading to the creation of more works.
"I ask the government to limit copyright terms to a maximum of 10 years with no exceptions. Compared to current copyright terms 10 years may sound very short, but 10 years is a long time; it may still be too long. I also ask that currently active copyright terms all end within 10 years.
"It is not society's duty to reward authors and artists for their creativity or hard work. Copyright should only exist as an incentive. The excessive monopoly terms must end."
This is a typical doofus petition to the White House in that the author has not even done the elementary research work of looking up the clause in the federal Constitution about copyright:
"The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8 clause 8
The best way to appeal to Congress (which has the authority on this issue, NOT the President) to change copyright law is to lean hard on the "limited time" language from the Constitution as well as point to real-world examples of places with shorter copyright terms (where?) with beneficial effects for the national economies of those places. Look for empirical examples when arguing about public policy.
Note that the United States Supreme Court has already interpreted the "limited time" language from the Constitution broadly enough to allow the current,
long copyright terms in United States law (which was adapted to European law in this regard during my lifetime). Copyright terms in the United States used to be relatively short compared to those in most other countries with modern copyright laws, perhaps because of the constitutional language. But appealing to the constitutional language would be part of the task of persuading Congress to change the current law.
I've been thinking a lot about copyright terms lately, and this is what I have come up with: You get 5 years for "free", just like we have now. The next 5 years cost you $10k. The next costs you $100k. Add a zero every 5 years. It's going to be very difficult to keep a copyright for more than 20 or 25 years, but if it's really worth that much to you, then by all means...
Copyright terms need to be reformed, but 10 years is far too short. Right now almost nothing is entering the Public domain and that's wrong, the books/music/movies of my parents and grandparents are still under copyright.
Happy Brthday shows the problems with the system. A killer law review article titled "Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song" traces how a Happy Birthday to You started out life as Good Morning to All a song with the same melody but different words, written as a classroom greeting by two teachers in the 1890's is still under copyright. It's one of the best things I read in 2012 and readable by a non lawyer.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/rbrauneis/happybirthday.htm
The first copyright law in the english language, the Statute of Anne from 1710 had a term of 14 years renewable for another 14 years. Under those terms things like StarWars would be entering the public domain, which given where it is in culture and the profits lucas has seen sound about right.
Going to 10 years would mean that most authors/comic book creators would NEVER see movie option money and film studios wouldn't
I'm not entirely against long-term copyrights, but I'm not for them either. If a company/individual still rakes an exorbitant cashflow from a given copyrighted work, why not let them keep it? Let's make the law smarter. Initial copyright is free (14 yrs); first renewal is free (+4 yrs); subsequent renewals (every four years) increase in cost exponentionally (e.g., $2^n where n is the number of renewals): if a work is still profitable after 20 years, why not extend it another four? However, for a work to be profitable under these extension guidelines after sixty or eighty years it would have to be a monumental work indeed. This also allows less profitable works to fall into the public domain more quickly.
The other issue with our current copyright law is lost works: works where the rightsholder can no longer be found or even identified. This should be changed vis a vis copyright registration - register a work and after the copyright expires it is published freely online in a digital fashion.
19 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 53.7 ms ] threadBut seriously, I think HN must have a keyword bump, namely for U.S./Copyright/Show HN. It also probably has a few elite sites that rank high, like the Atlantic, and Tech Crunch. That or because it was voted up twice in new within it's first minute of being posted, which resulted in the front page, which only exacerbates the process.
We need to stop this nonsense already. Copyright is not an incentive for scientists, it is a burden.
There's probably more that needs to change than just the length of copyright terms. Registration should perhaps be required to get copyright.
I don't know if having copyright at all is a net benefit. Whatever is best, it might be something to approach in several steps and not all at once. Maybe we could get all scientific papers in the public domain at the same time, though.
My point is that we have a legal system in place now that protects and promotes the existence of a publishing system that is grossly out of date, and that we have a chance to do better (and to abolish the old system).
To simplify the arguments:
Pro (Current) Copyright: We need to protect artists. We need to protect the invested parties interests.
Against (Current) Copyright: Internet. It's companies who Copyright protects not Artists. Copyright actually stifles creativity and application of invention.
That's my take of this whole thing anyway. I don't care either way to be honest. It's all high level creation issues, and I've never had a personal run in to warrant an extreme positioning either way. I'd like is someone could give a more detailed explanation or correct any of my takeaways.
Pro current or longer copyright terms: I made something, it's mine, I should be able to control it. Forever. Forever minus 1 day, to make it "limited times".
Opposing current or longer copyright terms: We (society) make deals with artists to incentivize the creation of works. Current copyright terms for most works, life + 70 years for works by individuals or 95 years for corporations, are 70-130[1] and 81 years, respectively, longer than necessary to incentivize the creation of new works.
I assume that 14 years is plenty of time, perhaps one 14 year extension should be allowed. 14+14 years was the original copyright term in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790
Eh, I don't think you'll hear much talk about artists when the copyright lobbyists meet with our elected representatives. More likely, you'll hear this: copyrights are an important source of revenue for a major part of the US economy. We need stronger copyrights to protect that revenue stream. The only time people talk about artists is when they are appealing to the general public's moral sentiments.
"Against (Current) Copyright: Internet. It's companies who Copyright protects not Artists. Copyright actually stifles creativity and application of invention."
It depends on who you ask. People in the anti-copyright crowd (like myself) are not all united on what should change. RMS has said that copyright can be good e.g. when applied in the way that the GPL applies it, or that it can be bad, so the system should be reformed to ensure that GPL-style application is promoted (or GFDL for written documents, or creative commons, etc.). My view is that copyright was made obsolete by the development of PCs and global computer networks, and that a new system must be developed to ensure that artists are paid, that scientists can publish papers, and that the utility of PCs and the Internet must be legally protected (e.g. we must ensure that we, the general public, have access to computers that are not restricted or designed to fight us, and we must ensure that we continue to have access to a global communication network that makes no distinction between the nodes connected to it). There are some who want to create a complete anarchy, where copying is entirely unregulated -- where no system for ensuring access to creative works exists.
"It's all high level creation issues"
That is not really true. Copyright is about you, even if you do not personally do the sort of work that copyrights cover. Copyright is about your ability to access human knowledge; it is about your right to sing "Happy Birthday;" it is about your continued access to things like the Internet, and ensuring that the Internet does not degenerate into a cable TV network (which is a system designed with copyrights in mind). The combination of PCs and the Internet has the potential to upend copyrights and completely change the way in which knowledge and entertainment spread, having an impact as broad and lasting as the printing press (which was the reason copyright was first created) or as writing itself (which forever changed the way information was passed from generation to generation). Human civilization is made possible by communication, and copyrights are about communication; if you do not care about copyrights today, you will eventually be forced to care, should copyright law continue its outrageous expansion (and there is no reason to think the expansion will stop any time soon).
Regarding the expansion of copyright in the near future, do you think that the general public of the US will simply allow things to get out of hand before making concessions like you suggested (GFDL/GPL), or will the internet (software?) as we know it simply be overtaken, with the only recourse to simply use another paradigm for open communication and sharing.
My opinion is that, with more and more older people adopting technology, and younger people being born (obviously, right?), we'll in a general public sense, shift our priorities to a more logical and open copyright system. I would give it 20-30 years though...
Or any internet-based petition for that matter.
"Current copyright terms are much longer than necessary for promoting progress. Excessive copyright terms limit the usefulness of the works they cover without leading to the creation of more works.
"I ask the government to limit copyright terms to a maximum of 10 years with no exceptions. Compared to current copyright terms 10 years may sound very short, but 10 years is a long time; it may still be too long. I also ask that currently active copyright terms all end within 10 years.
"It is not society's duty to reward authors and artists for their creativity or hard work. Copyright should only exist as an incentive. The excessive monopoly terms must end."
This is a typical doofus petition to the White House in that the author has not even done the elementary research work of looking up the clause in the federal Constitution about copyright:
"The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8 clause 8
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92preface.html
The best way to appeal to Congress (which has the authority on this issue, NOT the President) to change copyright law is to lean hard on the "limited time" language from the Constitution as well as point to real-world examples of places with shorter copyright terms (where?) with beneficial effects for the national economies of those places. Look for empirical examples when arguing about public policy.
Note that the United States Supreme Court has already interpreted the "limited time" language from the Constitution broadly enough to allow the current,
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 US 186 (2003).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1214768485224110...
long copyright terms in United States law (which was adapted to European law in this regard during my lifetime). Copyright terms in the United States used to be relatively short compared to those in most other countries with modern copyright laws, perhaps because of the constitutional language. But appealing to the constitutional language would be part of the task of persuading Congress to change the current law.
Happy Brthday shows the problems with the system. A killer law review article titled "Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song" traces how a Happy Birthday to You started out life as Good Morning to All a song with the same melody but different words, written as a classroom greeting by two teachers in the 1890's is still under copyright. It's one of the best things I read in 2012 and readable by a non lawyer. http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/rbrauneis/happybirthday.htm
The first copyright law in the english language, the Statute of Anne from 1710 had a term of 14 years renewable for another 14 years. Under those terms things like StarWars would be entering the public domain, which given where it is in culture and the profits lucas has seen sound about right.
Going to 10 years would mean that most authors/comic book creators would NEVER see movie option money and film studios wouldn't
The other issue with our current copyright law is lost works: works where the rightsholder can no longer be found or even identified. This should be changed vis a vis copyright registration - register a work and after the copyright expires it is published freely online in a digital fashion.