[HN Gopher] Party Like It's 1925 on Public Domain Day (Gatsby an... ___________________________________________________________________ Party Like It's 1925 on Public Domain Day (Gatsby and Dalloway Are In) Author : apollinaire Score : 88 points Date : 2021-01-09 04:38 UTC (18 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.npr.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org) | mvellandi wrote: | I made http://www.great-gatsby.com last week as a web-book | project to practice responsive design. | | Since ebooks are generally superior with bookmarks and more | features, I tried to compensate by at least by making the chapter | navigation, text sizes, and line spacing at multiple screen sizes | enjoyable. I used Tailwind CSS and Alpine JS for static pages | which became a little wonky at times, but I'm okay with it. | Arubis wrote: | A little tangential, but are there any ongoing efforts to reduce | the incredibly long term of copyright that have a shot in hell of | success? I'm pleased that the periodic re-extensions that defined | my youth have stopped, but would be saddened of that we're the | end of the story. | | Usually it takes a Big Visible Event to nudge something like that | into happening, and I can't picture what that'd be. Failure of | imagination, perhaps. | acabal wrote: | I'm not sure if there's an effort to _shorten_ copyright | (unfortunately), but the fact that things are starting to enter | the public domain again is already a big win for culture. | | I imagine companies like Disney would lobby pretty hard against | shortening copyright. A possible middle ground would be to | return to the regime where copyright had to be registered and | renewed regularly, with a cost to doing so. | pavlov wrote: | The cost should be exponential. First 20 years free. Ten | years more costs $10,000. Another ten $20,000. Etc. | | Under this model, it would cost about $2.5M to maintain a | copyright for a full century. If a work still remains | valuable, you're looking at spending millions annually on | renewals, with the cost doubling every decade. It's an | incentive to innovate rather than collect royalties on the | old stuff forever. | Thorentis wrote: | Such a system only benefits the exact people and companies | which we _don 't_ want abusing the copyright system. Why | would Disney bother paying their lawyers millions of | dollars to lobby for another extension when they can pay a | small (comparative to royalties they receive) fee to | automatically have it extended? | dstick wrote: | Agreed, even if you add two 0's to that number, it would | still benefit Disney (et al), and skew the system | negatively for smaller content creators. | pavlov wrote: | Small content creators benefit almost nothing from | content >20 years old anyway, rare exceptions | notwithstanding. Having a real tax on the most valuable | IP would be a net benefit. | cma wrote: | You could set it up so the fee funds small grants for | artists. | pavlov wrote: | The difference is that the renewal fee is a real tax on | IP, whereas Disney paying lawyers mostly benefits | lawyers. | | I don't mind if Disney still owns "Snow White" a century | from now, if they're paying a $100M tax to do so. | | Such a fee on _each_ copyrighted work is a huge burden | even for a large corporation. They'd choose carefully | what they want to retain. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | This scheme would seem to be of most benefit to the rich | and successful, or bigger companies, while smaller | companies or mid-level authors would be screwed over. | especially ones who had a hit late in their career and | could stand to profit off of their earlier works but didn't | waste the money to keep them in copyright, not having had | the money to waste. | Arubis wrote: | I've seen this and similarly structured ideas floated since | the Slashdot days, and they resonate with me--but there's | never a corresponding path to actually get buy-in from | legislators. Feels similar to, but distinct from, a tragedy | of the commons situation--the commons would benefit from | supporting something like this, but there's no organizing | to make it happen and insufficient individual incentive to | do it on behalf of the general public. | anonunivgrad wrote: | Beyond the tragedy of the commons w/r/t the general | public, the other problem (or maybe a specific aspect of | the same problem) is that the commercial beneficiaries of | shorter copyright are companies and projects that don't | exist yet. It's hard for hypothetical future businesses | to lobby against existing current businesses. | segfaultbuserr wrote: | Legal reforms are unlikely, but there have been some voluntary | efforts. | | Creative Commons used to have a "Founders' Copyright" [0] | program that emulates the original U.S Copyright system. You | enter a contract and delegate your copyright to CC, CC adds | your work to a maintained list. After 14 years (or 28 years if | renewed), CC grants permissions to allow unrestricted uses of | your work by others. Tim O'Reilly was a prominent supporter, a | few O'Reilly books were supposed to be published under this | program [1]. Unfortunately, this program is no longer active. | I'm not sure why, but I guess it was due to maintenance cost. | | The new experimental Copyleft Next License [2] also includes a | Sunset Clause. It's a strong copyleft license, but 20 years | after the initial publication of a work, the copyleft | requirements no longer apply, it automatically degenerates to a | MIT-style license. I like the idea - If nobody cares about a | long-obsolete version of a copylefted program, you may as well | to maximize its remaining value by allowing unlimited uses (as | long as new code is still being written, the copyleft of the | current version remains in effect). Perhaps not good for all | programs, but suitable for many. | | AFAIK, a general license suitable for all works doesn't exist | yet. But it should be easy to write one, for example... | | > Copyright (C) 2021 segfaultbuserr. All rights reserved. An | irrevocable License is granted hereby: 20 years after the | initial publication of this Work, you may reuse the Work in | accordance to the conditions of CC-0 in Appendix. Meanwhile, | you may not use, distribute or modify the Work without the | explicit permission from the author. | | > Appendix: [CC-0 text] | | The proprietary license used before expiration can also be | replaced with any other licenses. | | [0] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Founders_Copyright | | [1] It's also unclear whether anything has ever been actually | published under Founders' Copyright by O'Reilly. The website | says, "we're applying to hundreds of out-of-print and current | titles, pending author approval." But did any author approve | it? | | [2] https://github.com/copyleft-next/copyleft-next | acabal wrote: | The Great Gatsby is up for free on Standard Ebooks: | https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/f-scott-fitzgerald/the-gre... | | There's also the great 1925 WWI novel by Ford Madox Ford called | No More Parades: https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/ford-madox- | ford/no-more-pa... | | (The 3rd part of the series becomes US-PD in 2022.) | mvellandi wrote: | I figured y'all would post it right away, and I linked to the | standard ebook from my web-book page at http://great-gatsby.com | Big fan of your group's work! | tempest_ wrote: | So does Steamboat Willie enter the public domain in 3 years? | verisimilitude wrote: | I was hoping that would come up! No, probably: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#S... | toyg wrote: | I think this source, linked from that wikipedia page, is | actually more directly enlightening: | http://copyright.nova.edu/mickey-public-domain/ ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-09 23:00 UTC)