Which authors will soon be public domain?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Daithi

I'm not sure what you mean by "Please don't judge the copyright systems of the entire world by the peculiar system that the US has adopted." I believe my criticism of countries that extend copyright protections, which have the affect of keeping works out of the public domain, is a valid criticism and is flaw affecting many nations and not just a pecuilar feature of the U.S. system.

I meant that the US seems to be uniquely extending copyright terms to prevent any new material from entering the public domain, largely (I understand) due to the lobbying of companies like Disney. I don't know of any other country which has done this. In pretty much every other country, new material enters the public domain, year on year, as one would expect it to.

[griffonwing]

The US lobbying is the WORST thing. Lobbyists SHOULD be illegal, as you have large corporations and special interest groups paying off congressmen and lawmakers for their own private ends.

I love America and what it USED to stand for, and I still stand for the beliefs of my forefathers, but I hate the US Govt and what a sh*tpile that it has become in the last 75 years.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by jgray

Why don't the politicians just simplify things? All this life + whatever is confusing. I propose that we use a new unit to measure the length of copyrights that is simple and honestly describes the process. This new unit is called the Mickey. The length of a copyright automatically extends to whatever is required to keep Mickey Mouse from going public domain. No more bothering the poor politicians with passing new legislation every few years, just automatically extend the copyright term every time old Mickey is in danger. And think of the children! They will be protected from seeing their hero sullied by public domain ruffians.

that way our politicians can feel really virtuous---They would have "slipped us a Mickey!"....

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I meant that the US seems to be uniquely extending copyright terms to prevent any new material from entering the public domain, largely (I understand) due to the lobbying of companies like Disney. I don't know of any other country which has done this. In pretty much every other country, new material enters the public domain, year on year, as one would expect it to.

I was under the impression that within the last couple decades several EU nations had extended their copyright terms from 50 to 70 years. I had also thought that several Eastern European nations had done the same, and that Australia had done the same, and that Canada was being pressured, and that the EU just recently extended copyrights that apply to music from 50 to 70 years (just as Beatles tunes were about to enter the public domain) and that they had been trying to extend it to 95 years. If I'm mistaken then my apologies.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Daithi

I was under the impression that within the last couple decades several EU nations had extended their copyright terms from 50 to 70 years. I had also thought that several Eastern European nations had done the same, and that Australia had done the same, and that Canada was being pressured, and that the EU just recently extended copyrights that apply to music from 50 to 70 years (just as Beatles tunes were about to enter the public domain) and that they had been trying to extend it to 95 years. If I'm mistaken then my appologese.

They are being pressured by the US to do that. The EU change to 70 I think was because of US interests. It was used as a strategy to get it changed to 70 in the US since they then could us the argument that they needed to be the same as in the EU.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by tompe

They are being pressured by the US to do that. The EU change to 70 I think was because of US interests. It was used as a strategy to get it changed to 70 in the US since they then could us the argument that they needed to be the same as in the EU.

Nevertheless, other countries have been extending their copyright terms, so I wasn't out of line to suggest that this trend will continue.

[jgray]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

that way our politicians can feel really virtuous---They would have "slipped us a Mickey!"....

That was a cheesey pun

I do think that using Mickey's would clarify things and Minnie-mize the confusion. Or do you think the whole idea is just Goofy?

[Jaime_Astorga]

In my personal opinion, Harry, it is not the consensus among the people of the developed nations, but merely the consensus of developed nation's politicians, being paid by rich corporations to do their bidding. And I consider politicians "paid" whether or not there is a quid pro quo or merely a number of campaign contributions...

And when those corporations start losing copyright protections for paying properties, they'll pay for some more extension. After all, that's how Berne got extended from Life + 50 to Life + 70 in the first place. Check the US government in about another 6-8 years. (1923 + 95 = 2018 -2009 = 9 more years and things start falling into the public domain again. Any bets that Congress doesn't extend them again? (And goes after Berne as well))...

Well said. I don't think the general voting population even knows what the public domain is, let alone follow or care about these extensions. In the absence of the threat of public backlash, politicians have no incentive but to listen to their lobbyists.

Why don't the politicians just simplify things? All this life + whatever is confusing. I propose that we use a new unit to measure the length of copyrights that is simple and honestly describes the process. This new unit is called the Mickey. The length of a copyright automatically extends to whatever is required to keep Mickey Mouse from going public domain. No more bothering the poor politicians with passing new legislation every few years, just automatically extend the copyright term every time old Mickey is in danger. And think of the children! They will be protected from seeing their hero sullied by public domain ruffians.

Agreed. Every time Mickey Mouse is in "danger" of falling into the public domain, Disney will lobby congress to extend copyright terms. Once those terms are enacted, the U.S. will pressure and bully other countries into matching them.

[Daithi]

One book I'd like to have that is in the public domain in life+50 countries is The Bad Seed (1954) by William March (died in 1954). Sweet adorable eight-year-old Rhonda is a sociopathic murdering little monster. This is the book that started the evil children genre (The Omen, The Exoricist, The Good Son, Children of the Corn, The Orphan, etc.).

[basschick]

how could you leave The Other off your evil children list?

Originally Posted by Daithi

One book I'd like to have that is in the public domain in life+50 countries is The Bad Seed (1954) by William March (died in 1954). Sweet adorable eight-year-old Rhonda is a sociopathic murdering little monster. This is the book that started the evil children genre (The Omen, The Exoricist, The Good Son, Children of the Corn, The Orphan, etc.).

[bill the smith]

All that this copyright law stuff will do is to encourage people to download pirate stuff. Same as mp3s.
Does anyone here seriously suggest that, because the MR servers are in Canada, nobody in the USA downloads ebooks from it which are PD in Canada but copyright in the US?
Nearly all the books and authors mentioned in this thread are available in pirated pdf or txt. Just Google them.
I know that we all think pirate books are terribly wrong, but could someone explain to me why it is illegal for me to download and possess a pirated copy?
I just mean possess it, not distribute it in any way.
Exactly, which law says that it is illegal to possess a pirated ebook?
Thanks. I am very confused.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by bill the smith

I know that we all think pirate books are terribly wrong, but could someone explain to me why it is illegal for me to download and possess a pirated copy?

Because by downloading it you are creating a copy which is not authorised by the copyright holder in your country of residence, and doing that is a breach of copyright, if the book is still in copyright in your country.

I just mean possess it, not distribute it in any way.
Exactly, which law says that it is illegal to possess a pirated ebook?
Thanks. I am very confused.

In the UK, the law concerned is the 1989 "Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act".

[HarryT]

To add to the above, it should be noted that this is not a "crime" in most countries. It is a civil matter, and the copyright holder would have to sue you in a civil court. This is extremely unlikely to happen if you download a copy for personal use.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by HarryT

To add to the above, it should be noted that this is not a "crime" in most countries. It is a civil matter, and the copyright holder would have to sue you in a civil court. This is extremely unlikely to happen if you download a copy for personal use.

And even if it happens, you are looking at a monetary fine, not jail time (although monetary fines in copyright cases can get ridiculous at times).

[corroonb]

The first copyright law was for 14 years. Reasonable really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne