New Rules for Using Public Domain Materials
Many people are surprised to learn that there is a moratorium on new works entering the public domain. During the Clinton administration, the controversial Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) was signed into law. Under the Act which added 20 years to most copyright terms “no new works will enter the public domain until 2019.” Enacted to ensure adequate protection or U.S. works abroad, the CTEA restricts access to works published after 1922. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Eldred v. Ashcroft, rejected a popular challenge to the CTEA. While the CTEA has substantially lengthened the commercial life of many works, the public domain remains a rich source of quality, inexpensive content for anyone dealing in creative works….
New Rules for Works Created Before January 1, 1978
Works created before January 1, 1978, were until recently protected for a total of 75 years, provided, certain copyright renewal formalities were followed. The CTEA amended the Copyright Act by extending the term of protection for works currently in their renewal term from 75 years to 95 years. Under the new law, any work published in 1923 (which would have otherwise fallen into the public domain on January 1, 1999), will now be protected until January 1, 2019.
Pay-per-view
Here’s troubling news: while the U.S. government has doubled the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over the last five years, you probably cannot afford to read the results of NIH-funded research. When you search the web, looking for the latest in medical information, you’ll find a lot of self-published opinion, rumors, and anecdotes. You’ll find very little peer-reviewed research, even if it is based on NIH research grants funded by your tax dollars. Most of this research is published in journals charging high subscription prices or pay-per-view fees.
Not only are taxpayers, citizens, and patients locked out of access, so are growing numbers of university researchers, practicing physicians, hospital staff, public health officials, and patient advocacy organizations.
Take action.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/take-action/open-access-action
And people wonder why medical costs are soaring.
Like tax code enactments, a significant portion of copyright law was included to pander to the RIAA and movie producers. Same old, same old. The greedy bastards with bucks rule. And, as Samuel Clemens observed, America’s only native criminal class is Congress.
Well, the CTEA isn’t exactly “new” since it was enacted and took effect in 1998.
Moreover, the author’s use of “new” in the statement “moratorium on new works entering the public domain” is ambiguous, perhaps misleading.
Certainly, “new” works, as in works recently created, will not enter the public domain. That is nothing new.
What the author means is that “additional” works will not enter the public domain for another 20 years.
Did you actually read this? It talks about new rules NOT new works.
>>>New Rules for Works Created Before January 1, 1978
Works created before January 1, 1978, were until recently protected for a total of 75 years, provided, certain copyright renewal formalities were followed. The CTEA amended the Copyright Act by extending the term of protection for works currently in their renewal term from 75 years to 95 years. Under the new law, any work published in 1923 (which would have otherwise fallen into the public domain on January 1, 1999), will now be protected until January 1, 2019. <<<
Are you referring to my comment?
If so, as I said, the CTEA came into affect in 1998. The expansion of protection that you quote occurred that year. Not exactly “new”, but I guess, “newer” than the 1976 revision to the Copyright Act, and certainly newer than 1909. But I guess it depends on what the meaning of “new” is.
My point about his other use of “new” as in “new works” was to point out something that he did at least a few times, which was to use “new” in an ambiguous way. I’m pretty sure that some people would think, “oh! A new law was recently enacted less than a year ago, that stops new works (i.e. recently created) from entering the public domain! EEEK!”
I’m all for outrage against the CTEA, but I want to make it clear that this is a bit of delayed reaction.
In any case, it’s clear that the guy wrote it in 1999, and then updated it in 2003 based on the Eldred decision.
Speaking of which, for all things Eldred: http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/cat_eldredcc.shtml
Anonymously – I read it the same way you do, in that the legislation was passed in 1999 – and “new” works should mean the annual cycle of copyright-expiration for old material has been stopped until 2019; unless “they” get it extended, again.
Jim – When will Real give me the “freedom” to buy music from their site, that will run on my Macintosh? 🙂 Larger issue (for me): When will any M$-DRM’d media play on a Mac (or Linux, even)? Apple got their DRM working on Windows, I’m not holding my breath for the reverse to be true. The iPod was out for two-years(?) before iTMS went online – why is an online source of music a requirement for owning an iPod? iPods play mp3, not just AAC – I could fill a iPod (if I had one) with just the music from my CD collection. As long as customers are voting with their wallets, by buying iPods that are not compatible with other online services, why should Apple giveReal a share of the market Apple spent a lot of $$$ to develop and promote?
I found this: Published Thursday 19th August 2004 20:29 GMT http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19/p2p_lives_on/
Highlights
“The court then went one step further to say it’s unwise to alter copyright law in a way that could stifle innovation just to suit well-established players in a market”
UNWISE, but hey a guy has to make a buck. This means bad laws get passed. A lobbyist passes the buck.
“the software makers cannot control the behavior of their users.”
They can’t even control the behavior of their applications. Look at XP SP2. You don’t know what it will break, and MS has been producing programs for years. John Dvorak recently exposed how crappy MS Word is, which got me thinking about what protections these sort of apps deserve. MS Word is protected by law, but who really needs it?
As long as customers are voting with their wallets, by buying iPods that are not compatible with other online services, why should Apple giveReal a share of the market Apple spent a lot of $$$ to develop and promote?
It’s a strange question. I’m not sure people should be valued as a result of their net worth. Apple may of spent a lot of $$$ developing and promoting online services and the iPod. I can respect that. Their technology can be destroyed in much less time than it took to create. The cost of doing this are low, while the benefits could be high Incentive!. If you don’t destroy your technology, you can be certain the competition will. Deconstructing music distribution and reinventing a new model means wealth gets distributed in a new way. Apple wants a piece of the pie and it’s a big pie. Fair enough, so far? Apple is promoting music, they just are not making any music. Apple may start decomposing, while others compose. I say, good luck Apple, Linux should help iPod sales grow and you can let users program their devices. This should help bring down the iPod prices. Apple could start a rock & roll band. It’s a free country. Rock on.
M$-DRM’d WMA vs Fairplay’d AAC vs Real’s format is just another painful (for consumers) version of the Beta/VHS, DVD-R/DVD+R, HDTV (progressive/interlaced) format wars. This isn’t about what is best for consumers, this is about which company can establish it’s format as the “standard”.
I dislike the way Real is playing this up as a “freedom” issue for customers of a competitor’s product – when said customers didn’t have any expectation of this “freedom” when they bought their iPods – and knowingly “enslaved” themselves to Apple’s online music-service, when the purchased the iPod.
A related argument:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001831.php
Quote from that article: If Real actually cared about “Freedom of Music Choice,” it would be telling its customers to burn the downloaded music they purchase to CD, then rip to any DRM-free format they like (including MP3, WAV, or AAC, all of which play just fine on the iPod).
‘The best things in life are free’ was a song title in 1927, by Buddy DeSylva and Lew Brown, to music by Ray Henderson.
“Apple Records sued Apple Computer for trademark infringement after Apple Computer added sound to their computers. The lawsuit was settled with the agreement that Apple Computer would never enter the recording industry.”
“Apple developers named one of the sample sounds “Sosumi” (“So sue me”) as a way of thumbing their noses at Apple Records. Apple Records did not sue.”
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Sosumi
Money can’t buy you love. Sosureal.
Real is just trying to make a buck. Apple has some good design people (maybe not as good as Ford) and iPod is a smash hit. Instead of focusing on distributing tunes, they may want to do some more R&D with their battery line.
Apple Recalls PowerBook Batteries
Apple reports that the affected batteries could overheat, posing a fire hazard. Apple received four reports of these batteries overheating. No injuries have been reported.
Can you picture Rush Limbaugh holding his smoking Mac? The firewire Macs cost between of $2,000 to $2,600. The batteries also retailed separately for about $130. The batteries were all manufactured in Taiwan. Don’t we make batteries here? Is the iPod made in Taiwan? CPSC and Apple advised customers affected by the fault to contact Apple immediately. It was called a defect, when it was made in the USA, now it’s been offshored so it’s a fault. I heard that an iPod can start smoking. Pour some more gasoline on the fire Steve.
Veering off-topic:
Jim’s comment: “Deconstructing music distribution and reinventing a new model means wealth gets distributed in a new way.”
Funny how my brain locks onto the “..wealth gets distributed in a new way” part, and is reminded of this story:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-270706.html?legacy=cnet
Highlight: The patent in question belongs to Intouch Group, a 15-employee digital music company in Berkeley, Calif., that has sued Amazon, AOL Time Warner’s Entertaindom, Liquid Audio, Muze, Listen.com and Loudeye Technologies’ DiscoverMusic, accusing them of infringing its patent covering a potentially wide range of downloadable and streaming music.
Yes, wealth is being distributed in a new way!
That is, if such “leagalized extortion” qualifies as new. 🙂
Explore the Different Varieties of Pioneer Car CD Players…
I am sure that at one time or another that you have wished that you could listen to some music that was different from the usual stuff that you get on your car radio. Today there are many solutions to this. For instance you have add-on CD players, car …