Posts Tagged ‘law’

See What Copyright Law Robbed You Of In 2011

Monday, January 3rd, 2011

I cribbed this from Gizmodo but they got it from Duke University so that’s okay but what’s most important is the list of works which should have entered the public domain this year – but won’t – because the copyright laws were changed back in 1976 to completely fuck us all up the ass.

Images of Lord of the Flies, The Doors of Perception, Rear Window, 20000 Leagues Under the Sea, Seven Samurai, Waiting for Godot, Sports Illustrated, Horton Hears a Who!

Wikipedia image Wikipedia image Wikipedia image Wikipedia image Wikipedia image Wikipedia image Wikipedia image Wikipedia image

It’s important to remember:

Under the law that existed until 1978 . . . Up to 85% of all copyrighted works from 1982 would be entering the public domain on January 1, 2011.

Here’s just a taste:

Current US law extends copyright protections for 70 years from the date of the author’s death. (Corporate “works-for-hire” are copyrighted for 95 years.) But prior to the 1976 Copyright Act (which became effective in 1978), the maximum copyright term was 56 years (an initial term of 28 years, renewable for another 28 years). Under those laws, works published in 1954 would be passing into the public domain on January 1, 2011.

What might you be able to read or print online, quote as much as you want, or translate, republish or make a play or a movie from? How about William Golding’s Lord of the Flies? Golding first published Lord of the Flies in 1954. If we were still under the copyright laws that were in effect until 1978, Lord of the Flies would be entering the public domain on January 1, 2011 (even assuming that Golding or his publisher had renewed the copyright). Under current copyright law, we’ll have to wait until 2050. This is because the copyright term for works published between 1950 and 1963 was extended to 95 years from the date of publication, so long as the works were published with a copyright notice and the term renewed (which is generally the case with famous works such as this). All of these works from 1954 will enter the public domain in 2050.

What other works would be entering the public domain if we had the pre-1978 copyright laws? You might recognize some of the titles below.

    • The first two volumes of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of Rings trilogy: The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers
    • Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot (his own translation/adaptation of the original version in French, En attendant Godot, published in 1952)
    • Kingsley Amis’ Lucky Jim
    • Aldous Huxley’s The Doors of Perception
    • Dr. Seuss’ Horton Hears a Who!
    • Pauline Réage’s Histoire d’O
    • Fredric Wertham’s Seduction of the Innocent, subtitled “The influence of comic books on today’s youth”
    • Tennessee Williams’ Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
    • Mac Hyman’s No Time for Sergeants
    • Alan Le May’s The Searchers
    • C.S. Lewis’ The Horse and His Boy, the fifth volume of The Chronicles of Narnia
    • Alice B. Toklas’ The Alice B. Toklas Cookbook

Under the pre-1978 copyright law, you could now teach history and politics using most of Toynbee’s A Study of History (vols. 7–10 were first published in 1954) or Henry Kissinger’s A World Restored, or stage a modern adaptation of Erich Maria Remarque’s A Time to Love and A Time to Die for community theater.

The 1950s were also the peak of popular science fiction writing. 1954 saw the publication of Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend (filmed three times in the last half century by Hollywood), Philip Wylie’s Tomorrow!, Arthur C. Clarke’s The Deep Range, Robert Heinlein’s The Star Beast, and the Hugo Award-winning They’d Rather Be Right by Frank Riley and Mark Clifton. Instead of seeing these enter the public domain in 2011, we will have to wait until 2050 – a date that, itself, seems the stuff of science fiction.

Pieces of history, too, remain locked up. The first issue of Sports Illustrated – which featured on its cover the then Milwaukee Braves’ Eddie Matthews at bat with the then New York Giants catcher Wes Westrum – would be entering the public domain on January 1, 2011. (Time Inc., owner of Sports Illustrated, retains the copyright through 2050.)

Think of the movies from 1954 that would have become available this year. You could have showed clips from them. You could have showed all of them. You could have spliced and remixed and made documentaries about them. (You could have been a contender!) Instead, here are a few of the movies that we won’t see in the public domain for another 39 years:

    • On the Waterfront, directed by Elia Kazan; starring Marlon Brando, Eva Marie Saint, Rod Steiger, Karl Malden, and Lee J. Cobb
    • Director Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window, starring James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Raymond Burr, and Thelma Ritter
    • The original Japanese-language release of Seven Samurai, directed by Akira Kurasawa; starring Takashi Shimura and Toshir? Mifune
    • Dial M for Murder, directed by Hitchcock; starring Ray Milland, Grace Kelly, and Robert Cummings
    • Walt Disney’s 20000 Leagues Under the Sea, starring Kirk Douglas and James Mason
    • The cult horror classic, Creature from the Black Lagoon
    • The enduring holiday chestnut, White Christmas, starring Bing Crosby, Danny Kaye, Rosemary Clooney, and Vera Allen, featuring songs by Irving Berlin
    • The Barefoot Contessa, starring Humphrey Bogart, Ava Gardner, and Edmond O’Brien
    • Brigadoon, with Gene Kelly, Van Johnson, and Cyd Charisse; from the Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe musical

If you wanted to find guitar tabs or sheet music or record your own version of some of the great music of the early 1950s, January 1, 2011, would have been a happy day for you under the old copyright laws. I Got a Woman (Ray Charles and Renald Richard), Mambo Italiano (Bob Merrill), Mister Sandman (Pat Ballard), Misty (Erroll Garner), Only You (and You Alone) (Buck Ram), Shake, Rattle and Roll (Jesse Stone, under his songwriting name, Charles E. Calhoun) – they would have all become available.

Go – read the whole post. It goes on to list many, many, many more works which rightly should have become public property – representing the culture we’ve grown up in, been immersed in and must respond to with works of our own.

But that didn’t happen.

Instead, we exist in a continually growing cultural vacuum which benefits undead corporations and renders our own view of the world around us into a relentless advertisement for more of the same.

Copyright was created to protect the public domain – to ensure works would eventually fall into the commons – so we would all benefit. The law, and our own government representatives, have been corrupted – the laws inverted and twisted – and this effort continues – and will continue – until we either give up or stand up.

You and yours are poorer now.

Happy New Year.

Go make something new.

Cheers.

Theft: A History Of Music

Monday, September 27th, 2010

Cory Doctorow posted this on BoingBoing and I thought I’d share it with you. James Boyle, Jennifer Jenkins and Keith Aoki – the same folks who brought us “Bound By Law” – have another treatise on copyright in comic book form coming out called: “Theft: A History Of Music”.

Here’s a sample page:

theft a history of music

Can’t wait to read the whole thing.

Meanwhile – the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) is slathering on the brown lipstick for a lobbying trip to Washington where they’ll dance like a self-pleasuring monkey to the lying tunes of the US music industry, conveniently ignoring the actual facts about Canadian copyright law as so deftly explicated by Prof. Michael Geist. I’m so fed up with this bullshit – let’s just toss a nickel in Graham Henderson’s tin cup and kick him down the stairs.

Cheers.

Electronic Books and the Canadian DMCA

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

I found this great video over Michael Geist’s blog who also links to a post by Sarah Bannerman. Created at the Vancouver Film School it’s an excellent primer about the impact of DRM on electronic books.

terms&conditions from mediamold on Vimeo.

Pass it on.

Cheers.

Will Copyright Laws Stifle Creativity?

Sunday, August 30th, 2009

There’s been a lot of bullshit happening in Canada as the Harper government does its best to look pretty whilst wearing the brown lipstick of the U.S. media industry. You can find out more about the pitiful shenanigans of the music industry, blatantly stacking town hall meetings to discuss copyright reform, and the suppression of alternative voices at these so called “open and public discussions”, on other blogs like Michael Geist and Jill Golick or P2P.net and BoingBoing. I’ve ranted and raved about it before – and doubtless will again – but right now it’s the weekend and I’m lazy and I’m gonna go lie down and read a cheap mystery novel.

In the meantime, here’s a short video of Prof. Lawrence Lessig giving a talk this past February at the New York Public Library (along with Steven Johnson and Shepard Fairey) addressing the very real concerns that our copyright laws are being hijacked by dying media industries to support a failed and archaic business model and in those efforts to stem the inevitable tide of technological and cultural progress they are stealing our voices, stealing our right to speak and hear about our world.

Will copyright laws stifle creativity? If the major media companies are allow to corrupt our elected officils and subvert our democratic processes to assert their right to define what culture is – as in: whatever they sell us and nothing else – then Yes the laws of copyright are a threat to creativity and freedom of speech as well as freedom of thought.

Make noise. Kick these fuckers in the nuts.

Cheers.

P. S. Actually the mystery novel is not cheap, it’s Dashiel Hammett’s classic “The Big Knockover” – in case you were wondering.

Canada’s Copyright Consultation

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009

Speak Out On Copyright

UPDATE: As mentioned in the earlier version of this blog post, Michael Geist will launch has launched the Speak Out On Copyright website and you should go there now.

I’ve been bleating for some time now about how the Harper government was trying to jam through Bill C-61 in the hopes of looking good in that particular shade of brown lipstick the U.S. media lobby loves so well, and how in the well-intentioned but malignantly misguided efforts to reform copyright law in Canada the people most affected by these changes – the people of the country – were not consulted.

Let's tell 'em what we REALLY think!

Here’s your chance.

Michael Geist reports on the launching of the Copyright Consultation Website where you – and everyone you encourage to go there – can let the government know exactly what you feel and think about copyright law and how it affects you, this country and the world.

As Geist himself says in a previous post:

There has been some criticism over the past week about perceived “A” lists for those invited to roundtables and those excluded. My view is that the only list that really matters is the list of people who take the time to make a public submission. That process is open to everyone and this is the ideal opportunity to ensure that Canadians voices are heard. The government has not consulted on copyright since 2001 and this consultation represents both a crucial opportunity and a potential threat. While Canadians can ensure that the government understands that copyright matters and that a balance is needed, some groups will undoubtedly use the consultation to push for a return of Bill C-61. Indeed, the recording industry has already said that that bill did not go far enough. That means we could see pressure for a Canadian DMCA, a three-strikes and you’re out process, and the extension of the term of copyright to eat into the public domain.

Countering those calls will require broad participation. To help foster that participation, tomorrow I will be launching a new website geared specifically to the copyright consultation along with my short form response to these questions. I plan to blog a long form response throughout the summer.

Geist will soon have his own site up to help organize voices that can speak just as loudly as the favoured elite who get to sit in on the roundtable discussions and twist the government’s ear. This is important shit that will affect everything from the public domain, the DMCA, that fucking ACTA bullshit, Net Neutrality, Freedom Of Speech, government transparency, open culture and more.

I’ll be sure to holler about it when the other site comes online.

In the meantime visit the consultation site – tell your friends – talk about it – think about it and be sure to give Geist’s latest post a read since it really distills the issues to the core points that will affect everything we will do for the rest of our lives.

Everything? Really? Isn’t that a bit of an exaggeration? Indulging in hyperbole, perhaps? Not when you give it even just a moments thought.

Here’s Geist’s thoughts on Why Does Copyright Matter?

For me, copyright matters because I am a professor and my students need access to copyrighted materials and the freedom to use those materials. It matters because I am a researcher who needs assurance that as materials are archived they will not be locked down under digital rights management. It matters because I am deeply concerned about privacy and fear that DRM could be harmful to my personal privacy. It matters because I have created videos and need flexibility in the law to allow for remix and transformed works and do not want my content taken down from the Internet based on unproven claims. It matters because I am a writer and I need certainty of access to speak freely. It matters because I am a consumer of digital entertainment and I want the law to reasonably reflect the right to view the content on the device of my choice. It matters because I am a parent whose children have only known life with the Internet and I want to ensure that they experience all the digital world has to offer. It matters because I live in a city with a strong connection to the digital economy and we need forward-looking laws to allow the next generation of companies to thrive. It matters because I am a proud Canadian who wants laws based not on external political pressure, but rather on the best interest of millions of Canadians.

So think about it. Read about it. Talk about it. Visit the site(s).

And then speak up.

Cheers.

P. S. Muchos gracias to Jimmy Kayak (aka Jim Taylor) for his shout out about this post and the issue at large. Thanks, man!

James Boyle – RSA Talk On Public Domain

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

Hey! It’s Tuesday! Let’s blog about important shit instead of posting video clips of cute puppies juggling elephant poo. Actually, that sounds pretty cool, doesn’t it? I’ll go search for that as soon as I’m done here.

In the meantime, here’s a talk given by James Boyle at the RSA which goes hand-in-hand with some of the presentations given by Lawrence Lessig on the same theme: Intellectual property laws have a significant impact on many important areas of human endeavour, including scientific innovation, digital creativity, cultural access and free speech..

Boyle gives a good talk and it’s worth having a listen to what he has to say, which is an extension of his book The Public Domain: Enclosing The Commons Of The Mind.

If you must skip ahead through the talk please be sure to jump in at the 16 minute mark. That’s where the crux of Boyle’s observations come to a head and deserve to be heard by everyone.

The power of the media corporations lobbying efforts are concerned only with their self-interested quest for short term profits and control over the marketplace – unfortunately, for all concerned, the marketplace of intellectual property is not a mere physical space stacked with physical goods for sale – it exists in our minds and in our perceptions of the world around us and in our ability to speak to each other about our world and our lives.

The changes to copyright law and the subsequent corruption of the democratic process by these lobbying efforts serve to undermine our culture and our most basic human freedoms by the steady erosion of the public domain.

We live in an information age and we need to understand and respond to the laws which are being formed with respect to that information. It’s not just the business of the media corporations – it’s your business too.

Pass it on.

Cheers.

P. S. I found this over on BoingBoing from copyfighter Cory Doctorow.

UPDATE: TorrentFreak reports on the latest Wikileaked draft of ACTA:

ACTA is an international agreement that aims to target piracy and counterfeiting globally. The degree of secrecy surrounding the negotiations is astonishing. Many institutions, the press and various individuals have requested that the participating countries provide an insight into their plans, but none have succeeded thus far.

It almost seems they are actively blocking the public from having their say, while in contrast they continue to receive input from anti-piracy lobbyists such as the RIAA and MPAA. However, as time progresses more details about ACTA become public, largely thanks to Wikileaks.

Once again large media corporations are designing legislation outside of democratic discourse which directly affects your life.

These people are fascists.

Cheers.

The Militarization Of CyberSpace

Tuesday, March 31st, 2009

Great post in BoingBoing today from Cory Doctorow about CBC Radio’s Search Engine interview with the folks at the University of Toronto’s CitizenLab regarding their uncovering of a global hacker spy-ring. As Doctorow points out, the major focus of the interview – and the most compelling – is how this “signals a turning point in the ongoing militarization of cyberspace, and whether this demands a comparable peace movement for the Internet.

You can find the full interview at the CBC Search Engine site or just listen right here:

I’ve pointed out before on this blog the fucktard antics of the U.S. Air Force in their attempt to achieve dominance (their words) in cyberspace and how the Pentagon has classified the internet not just a potential theatre of war but as a potential enemy – the internet itself as an enemy which must be controlled and, if necessary, defeated.

Whatever those dicks are smoking I want a pound of the other stuff.

I’m not adverse to being defended against those who would seek to do us, or anyone, harm – but I’ll be damned if I’ll agree to live in a dictatorial police state in order to have that protection.

The genie is not going back in the bottle. The net isn’t just the next wave of communications toys destined to fall away to the back shelves of an antique shop along with the old radios and television sets. The net is becoming our Main Street. It is where we are going to be living. Yeah, sure, the real world will carry on, for better or worse, under our inept efforts to manage and care for this garden – but the net will form a large chunk of where and how we live our lives. The net will be where we define ourselves as human beings.

Look around. Look on the street where you live. How would you feel about it being a battleground? A lot of folks in the world already live that hellish physical reality. Can you imagine troops on your street telling you where you can and can’t go? Imagine being followed, listened in on and told what you can and cannot say or hear. Imagine speaking to a friend and seeing them be whisked off the street and taken away without explanation. It happens already – all over the world – even in our neck of the woods.

That’s the digital equivalent we are speaking of. This same shit is happening in cyberspace, where there are no rules of international law governing the behaviour of governments and corporations for the protection of the unwashed masses known sometimes as cattle, sheep, peasants or – perhaps more quaintly – people.

If we are intent upon reclaiming the rule of law in our world we need to include cyberspace in that effort. A peace movement for the internet? Sign me up.

Pay attention. Make noise. Don’t be afraid – be pissed off.

Cheers.