Celebrating Public Domain Day

January 1 is Public Domain Day for works still under copyright that were first released in 2028:

Public Domain Day 2024

The article includes selected lists of books, plays, films, and musical compositions being liberated, so to speak, in 2024. It also explains some of the intricacies of copyright law and explores the question, "Why Celebrate the Public Domain?"

Most famously, of course, the earliest version of Mickey and Minnie Mouse becomes available for public reproduction and reinterpretation in 2024 (with some qualifications and caveats -- trademark, for instance, has a longer and more tenacious life than copyright):

Mickey Mouse Will Soon Belong to You and Me

As an unintended side effect of what this essay labels "overlong" copyright protection under U.S. law, "many properties with less pedigree than Winnie [the Pooh] or Minnie can disappear or be forgotten with their copyrights murky." As Cory Doctorow is quoted as saying, the remarkable 95-year endurance of some classic works "makes you think about the stuff that we must have lost, that would still have currency," or might have, if that material had been freely available for reproduction and distribution.

As the first article cited above puts it, "Most older works are 'orphan works,' where the copyright owner cannot be found at all. Now that these works are in the public domain, anyone can make them available to the public. This enables access to our cultural heritage -- access to materials that might otherwise be forgotten. 1928 was a long time ago and the vast majority of works from 1928 are not commercially available. You couldn’t buy them, or even find them, if you wanted. When they enter the public domain in 2024, anyone can rescue them from obscurity and make them available, where we can all discover, enjoy, and breathe new life into them."

Having had the experience of editing two paperback fiction anthologies in the early 1970s, I've often mentally grumbled about the problems inherent in the "life of author plus seventy years" rule that reigned for several decades. An editor who wanted to "rescue" an undeservedly neglected story from obscurity would have to find out whether copyright was renewed under the older system, when the author died, and who holds reprint rights -- if they're still in force -- in the present. For a very old, little-known work, the latter information might be almost impossible to discover, as the above quote mentions. Nobody benefits from continuation of the copyright, and readers who might enjoy the story and appreciate the long-dead writer's creation are deprived of that opportunity.

As Cory Doctorow, again, says in an essay on the Medium site, "First in 1976, and then again in 1998, Congress retroactively extended copyright’s duration by 20 years, for all works, including works whose authors were unknown and long dead, whose proper successors could not be located. Many of these authors were permanently erased from history as every known copy of their works disappeared before they could be brought back into our culture through reproduction, adaptation and re-use."

Public Domain Is a Banger

His characterization of this process as "slow-motion arson" might be a bit extreme, but he makes a point well worth considering.

Margaret L. Carter

Please explore love among the monsters at Carter's Crypt.

The "Catch" in Author's Monopoly

Cory Doctorow's March LOCUS column asserts, "A Lever Without a Fulcrum Is Just a Stick":

Lever Without a Fulcrum

The "lever" here is copyright law, the "author's monopoly." The article focuses on some ways the common practices of major publishers can use this "lever" as a "stick" to beat creators. According to Doctorow, broad copyright protections designed in theory to safeguard the rights of authors often don't accomplish that goal in practice if publishers' contracts demand control over the exercise of those provisions. Authors, particularly novice writers, usually can't negotiate changes in standard publishing deals; they face "take it or leave it" offers. E-book and audio rights, for example, are seldom left under the creator's control. This situation effectively strips the "author's monopoly" of much of its power. "The fact that the company can’t reproduce your book without your permission doesn’t mean much if the only way to get your book into the public’s hands is through that company, or one of a small handful of companies with identical negotiating positions."

Doctorow analyzes phenomena such as music sampling, record contracts, Audible (the audiobook provider), video streaming, and DRM in relation to the general problem that, "Market concentration at every part of the supply chain is conspiring to make life harder for artists." His proposed solutions involve rights reversion clauses, changes in licensing rules, and unionization, among other possibilities.

I might suggest that authors deal with small presses (both print and e-book) rather than the Big Five. Small publishers can provide a personal touch and, often, more flexible contractual terms. But, of course, the mammoth corporations offer bookstore exposure and high-volume sales; the latter are almost impossible to achieve online without strong marketing skills. Also, an author who feels she lacks the expertise, resources, or time to exploit subsidiary rights effectively might prefer to leave those outlets in the hands of a publisher with the connections and experience to do so for her. It's a puzzlement.

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

Monopolies, Publishing, and Online Media

Cory Doctorow's latest column briefly surveys the history of antitrust enforcement, considers the effect on creative artists of the concentration of market share in a few mega-organizations, and analyzes a provision of the European Union's new Copyright Directive. Spoiler: He's against it (that one clause, anyway).

Steering with the Windshield Wipers

I must admit my initial reaction to the first paragraph was amusement at a tangential thought. Doctorow illustrates the monopolizing of an industry by a few corporations or only one with this suggestion: "Take off your glasses for a sec (you’re a Locus reader, so I’m guessing that you, like me, are currently wearing prescription eyewear) and have a look at the manufacturer’s name on the temples." If you need glasses to read text on a screen, how are you supposed to read the brand name on them when you take them off? I tried, and as I expected, the print is way too small. LOL. Anyway, Doctorow reveals that most eyeglass frames and lenses are made by the same company that owns the major retailers in the field. (So my personal choice, Lenscrafters, isn't really independent of its alleged competitors such as Pearle Vision. We live in a weird world, all right.) From that point, he asks how we got into this situation and proceeds to discuss Facebook and other Internet social media engines. He offers examples of "overconcentration blues" in film and TV, the music industry, publishing, and social media sites (with particular emphasis on Facebook's privacy problems).

He strenuously objects to the EU Copyright Directive's clause that requires online providers to "block anything that might be unlicensed, using automated filters." In Doctorow's opinion, "This is a plan of almost unfathomable foolishness." One of his primary objections is that the policy won't stop infringement, because filters are susceptible to abuse, "imperfect and prone to catching false positives," and "cheap and easy to subvert." He also believes the rule will be so expensive to comply with that smaller companies will be squeezed out, to the benefit of the mega-conglomerates.

In near-apocalyptic language, he works up to the conclusion that "monopolies are strangling the possibility of a pluralistic, egalitarian society." This article, however, doesn't answer the logical next question: What must we do to be saved? As for the publishing industry, it doesn't seem to me that the dominance of the Big Five (possibly soon to become four) is quite so dire for authors as it used to be. We now have alternative outlets that didn't exist in the past, in the form of a multitude of small presses and e-publishers, as well as inexpensive self-publishing.

Some services, in my opinion, SHOULD be provided by monopolies. Maintaining utility infrastructure such as the electrical grid or the sewer system, for instance. But not publishing.

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

"Stifling Creativity" AKA The Profitable Ingenuity Of The Lawless

Applying bricks-and-mortar laws to the internet would "stifle creativity" and prevent "the sharing" of "information" and generally "end the internet as we know and love it". Such is the gist of the so-far-successful opponents of the controversial copyright law that was just rejected by the EU Parliament.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44712475

"Critics said the laws would stifle creativity..."

Allow this author to translate. The "creativity" that would be stifled" by a reform of European copyright laws is not the genius of authorship, musicianship, cinematic film making, or the artistry of a photographer or painter. No, it is the profitable ingenuity of thieves.

"Sharing"..."information", is usually a matter of monetizing stolen creations of others. Pirate sites don't publish and distribute helpful advice or uncommon knowledge. Their "information" is more likely to be illegal copies of movies, games, works of fiction, music. And, they don't "share" like one neighbor does to another over the garden fence. They broadcast (like tossing seeds in a wide arc over a ploughed --or plowed-- field), usually for the purpose of payment from advertisers.

Legal blogger Gill Grassie for the law firm Brodies LLP  examines what is legally or logistically unacceptable about the draconian Article 13 of the EU proposal.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=06f30201-e4c4-4756-8035-a7c35b486bf2

To wit, bigger platforms might have been obliged to prevent copyright infringing work from being uploaded by users.  Additionally, websites might have had to pay a license fee for displaying  snippets of text snagged
(my term) from published  articles.

By contrast, and from the sharp end, here's a fine video analysis of piracy by film maker Ellen Seidler of who profits from piracy, and how, and why. (It's from 2012, but still relevant.).
https://thetrichordist.com/2012/04/03/who-profits-from-piracy/

If lawmakers were to intellectually follow the money, they might do a better job of protecting creators. Perhaps the wrong Congressional and legislative bodies are looking at the problem... and of course, too many lawmakers are campaign-funded and lobbied by entities that find piracy profitable.

Aatif Sulleyman for the Trusted Reviews site examines the reasons produced in a 2018 survey on why Britons steal online.
https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/piracy-reasons-copyright-infringement-3501618

It seems to boil down to the love of a freebie. It's free, and it's convenient. Or at least, that is the popular perception.

(But, all this "free" stuff is ruining musicians' livelihoods. A musician debunks the idea of touring and T-shirts as an adequate substitute for record sales, and points out that concert performances provide zero income for songwriters:  https://thetrichordist.com/2018/07/11/a-timely-repost-the-economics-of-mid-tier-touring-from-someone-who-has-done-it-for-34-years/ )

Aatif Sulleyman wrote this, about watermarking.
https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/piracy-future-covert-watermarking-free-stream-3483149

This author never expected a search for "remove watermarks on copyrighted content" to produce any search results at all. Wrong!
https://www.google.com/search?q=remove+watermarks+on+copyrighted+content&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab

Colour me shocked.
On the other hand, the same socially responsible purveyors of useful information will also assist bricks-and-mortar perps.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&ei=LmpLW8KjIOrCjwT41IDwAg&q=How+to+crack+a+safe&oq=How+to+crack+a+safe&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.213654.229082.0.238308.58.33.0.0.0.0.112.2566.31j1.32.0..2..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..38.20.1528...33i22i29i30k1j0i273k1j0i131k1j0i67k1.0.sypCEQvBLpE

I should probably now clear my cookies... and so, dear reader, should you.

The host of this blog (Blogspot) puts cookies on visitors' devices, and conveniently infers that visitors agree to deer-tick-like cookies piling on and burrowing in. Most sites to which this article has linked make the same inference.

Although "Cookie Consent" is the new panic according to legal blogger Eduardo Usteran, blogging for Hogan Lovells, blogs and websites have been obliged to let visitors know about their no-opt-out cookies
since an EU directive in 2009.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9192c959-3e9f-4288-aef1-5e4c8740b0cd&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2018-07-05&utm_term=

All the best,

Rowena Cherry