Lessig - Public Domain Dead in 35 Years 469
tcd004 writes "Lawrence Lessig, in an article on the Foreign Policy site, predicts that the public domain will die a slow death at the hands of anti-piracy efforts. From the article: 'The danger remains invisible to most, hidden by the zeal of a war on piracy. And that is how the public domain may die a quiet death, extinguished by self-righteous extremism, long before many even recognize it is gone.'"
Going to die? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's dead Jim.
Lessig? (Score:5, Insightful)
In any event, people simply don't care. As long as they have a cool ringtone, that is.
People forget (Score:4, Insightful)
Fight back! (Score:5, Insightful)
Will it be dead? (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as people are out there sharing ideas freely, it'll survive. It may not get as much attention as it does right now (i.e. all the attention open source gets right now), but as a concept, it cannot die.
There, I had a thought and shared it. PD was just reborn
I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Although, things aren't so great right now, and will probably get worse before they get better.
Anti-piracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Going to die? (Score:5, Insightful)
An author can easily purposely put something in the public domain, or use a copyleft that is almost as good. That doesn't solve the original problem.
Public Domain's Not Dead, Just On Hold (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress wouldn't extend copyright again, would they?
Of course, new stuff locked down by DRM won't know when it's supposed to expire, so 90+ years when it's supposed to expire, no one will know what to do with the scrambled bits.
Re:I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I foresee a crisis at Disney (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Going to die? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fight back! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Going to die? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is however a huge, and admittedly 99% crap, amount of work that is released with creative commons style licenses, or released into the public domain immediately.
I hope that over the years -- as popular culture becomes more and more formula driven -- that a new and burgeoning culture arises that sees the various sharing licenses as well as public domain as the best option. Where anyone can release their creative works into the world, and their merits, not their marketing budget, determines whether it is successful or not.
Culture of Greed (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the incentive for people to give away things when the trend is to become wealthy as quickly as possible?
People who already are wealthy are the ones with the greatest means and free time to create more wealth...it is a mindset.
Authors have control (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, PHBs and paternalist OSes from Redmond may decide the implement restrictive DRM settings for their own idiotic reasons. I noticed more than one company annual report that uses a password protected PDF to prevent copy-past operations for who knows what reason. Yet the first time a small content creator's use of DRM causes problems for their big client, the small company will "turn off" DRM.
As long as there are people that want to be heard as far and wide as possible, there will be a public domain.
Another Prohibition (Score:5, Insightful)
Only about one in twenty or one in a hundred will go to the effort of buying the illegally chipped merchandise that will become available in flea markets, on the Internet, and via other black-market channels. This gear will be sold like the pressed-grape-concentrate bricks of the Prohibition era, which came with detailed instructions explaining that it was totally illegal to use them to make wine and giving careful step-by-step directions on what you must not do to stay legal.
It will create more social unrest, injustice, and disrespect for the law. As with prohibition, and with current marijuana laws, a huge fraction of the population will be felons according to the law. Enforcement will be inconsistent and selective. Most people breaking the law will not be deterred because they will feel that getting caught is unlikely and totally a matter of bad luck.
My analog cassette player died last year. My old CD player is starting to become unreliable. I'm not sure what the useful life of a solid-state laser is, but I'm beginning to suspect it's less than ten years. The next one I buy will probably have DRM.
Prohibition eventually ended, the "war on drugs" will eventually end, and the war on the public domain will eventually end. Probably not in my lifetime, though, and not until a lot of damage and misery has occurred.
Such a short article but so wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
While I see the guys point he probably couldn't be more wrong if he tried. I never used to release anything I wrote or developed into the public domain. As restrictions increase though I am more and more inclined to release my material, in part, as a protest. Most of it is not really worth anything to anyone but me but there are a few gems in amongst it that potentially have value.
While I don't imagine everyone will follow my course I imagine that there are suficient like minded people that will do the same to ensure that we will always have a body of public domain work. As restrictions increase public domain works become more and more appealing. Public domain will never replace private domain as there is to much money in it. Public domain work, though, can certainly keep the private domain in check and limit its powers. The only danger is nutty legislation that effectivly bans public domain work and I can't ever see that happening.
I actually don't see copyright as being all that bad. In fact I would go as far as to say I quite like it. The length copyright applies for is far to long. IMHO it should be more like 20 or 30 years but I could be persuaded that it should be somewhat longer. I like the way the author doesn't have to apply to any central body to copyright a work. It just magically happens. That's great because it stops leeches making a quick buck of other peoples work.
Re:I foresee a crisis at Disney (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll be terrified to see the day that the USPTO actually starts selling the rights to public domain works of unknown origin.
I can honestly see it happening.
Misleading Catch Phrase (Score:5, Insightful)
But plenty of people love to share their work and ideas. Some of these people are going to be putting stuff in the public domain. Also, with copyleft and similar policies, a lot of copyrighted material is going to provide similar benefits to public material (reusability).
All is not lost, and all won't be lost as long as enough people behave socially rather than trying to grab as much money and power as they can.
Re:Going to die? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing has fallen into the public domain for almost a half century before I was born.
That is amazing isn't it? Back in the days when it took years to publish and distribute a work artists were given fourteen years of protection. Today, despite near instantaneous communication, they are protected for a hundred years or better. It's no wonder that so many people don't give a damn about sharing copyrighted works.
Re:Going to die? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're implying that works without a copyright symbol attached are in the public domain, you are mistaken. Copyrights in the U.S. are opt-out, not opt-in.
Re:Will it be dead? (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Going to die? (Score:3, Insightful)
...and now let's go back to reality. Marketing budgets cut through the babel of thousands--millions !--of other products competing for attention in the marketplace. The only "merit" that ensures survival in the marketplace is marketability.
That's a hard truth, but it's what it is. Great work is seldom popular work.
That's exactly the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
I much more feel that society and culture are the root of the problem. Let me explain.
One problem is the political system. Winner-take-all is a way of counting votes that basically admits only 2 parties (a 3rd party will take away votes from the party closest to it, increasing the likelihood that the less-favored party wins).
Because there are only 2 parties, and it's hard to start up a 3rd party with a fighting chance, it's hard to improve the situation once both parties start down the Dark Path.
Enormous amounts of money are invested in election campaigns. One party cannot significantly cut investments, because that is almost certainly yielding victory to the other party. Campaign money has to come from somewhere.
Both parties receive heavy sponsoring from the corporate world. It is not at all unreasonable to suspect that this might convince some politicians to view their sponsors in a favorable light, and be more inclined to pass legislation that helps these sponsors than legislation that inhibits these sponsors.
In short: what's good for the company is good for the party. There are clear signs of corporate influence on the government.
The principle of freedom of the press exists so that the media has the freedom to inform the public about political wrongs. The idea is that politicians can get away with a lot of crap as long as nobody knows, so some entity has to be responsible for keeping the public informed. This entity is the free (e.g. independent from the government) press.
The problem with the free press is that it is dominated by large corporations. These same corporations also sponsor politicians. So, on the one hand, they can influence politicians in a way that wouldn't be desirable from the small man's point of view. On the other hand, they can cover it up so that noone finds out.
So, it's the corporations pulling the strings in the important parts of society. Pair this with an individualist culture bent on material gain and personal happiness, and I think you can see how big a problem there is and how hard it is to change it.
Oh, and yes, everybody preaches freedom, liberty and democracy...but more and more freedoms are taken away. Citizens of the USA now enjoy noticably less freedom than citizens of the European countries the USA originally loathed for their authoritarianism, so I think the freedom, liberty and democracy message can be safely discarded as a lullaby to keep the uninformed public from waking up.
Re:I foresee a crisis at Disney (Score:3, Insightful)
Like when the govt. allowed two sisters to copywrite "Happy Birthday"?
Not dead. Just comatose. (Score:2, Insightful)
I also think to some extent the generational gap results in over protection to those with the pocket-books. Copyright didn't play an important part of culture so the leaders aren't comfortable speaking its language. Whenever you have that situation, where a leader is relying entirely on the advice of his "counselors" you have the problem of the leader's view taking on the characteristics of the view of whomever speaks to him the most. And quite frankly those with the most get the ear. As more of us get into congress that are comfortable with the issues and have independently formed opinions, you will see a change to a more reasoned debate.
I hope.
Refreshing (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. It's not in fashion here on Slashdot to actually be optimistic about the mechanisms of change in a representative government. But what people keep forgetting is that the American government was deliberately set up to move slowly on issues of major import. Sometimes that slow pace seems good (when people are trying to overturn something you like), and sometimes it seems bad (when you're trying to turn the tide and it's difficult to do so), but it's that way for good reason.
People are already starting to fight back. Lessig, McLeod, and others are writing about copyright excesses. There are a handfull of Representatives in Congress who really understand what's going on, and they're trying to educate their peers. We lost the Eldred case at the Supreme Court, but that's certainly not the end of the road.
End to American dominance too? (Score:1, Insightful)
Arguably you could say the US is a superpower based on it's culture (or lack thereof). They haven't conquered anywhere by force, but have introduced, TV, music, films, the whole American lifestyle. Surely if a smaller and smaller percentage of public domain creative works are American, they will have a lesser cultural influence on the world (especially if sales of DRM'd "culture" slow as consumers realise what they lose).
Re:I foresee a crisis at Disney (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, that's exactly the problem. They have you using words like "ripping off" to describe what they do with thos public domain stories. As long as the public feels like this then congress can do whatever it wants (translation:whatever is suggested to it by the media giants) with copyright law.
I realize you were just pointing out hipochricy. But the terms you used to do it, so pervasive in our society, are the exact terms and feelings Disney counts on so the public never questions their "right" to keep their works locked away forever.
TW
Re:what DIES is the system as we know it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Going to die? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's three reasons I can think for this.
The first reason is simply that while digital content may cost a lot to produce originally, making copies is basically free. This means that every sale is profitable, no matter how low the cost. This, in turn, means that there is no market where selling the product wouldn't be profitable, no matter how low a price you must set in order to sell it. So, you sell the same product for a high price in rich western countries, and for a low price in poorer countries, maximizing the profits in each particular area. However, this model breaks down if someone buys the product in areas of low price and sells it in areas of high price.
In other words, companies want the benefits of globalization for themselves but not for their customers.
The second reason is that companies like to sell the same product several times. First you buy a ticket to see a movie in a theater, then you buy it in a DVD. If theater and DVD versions were available at the same time, they would compete with each other - you might decide to simply rent the DVD and skip the theater completely. Because of this, the DVD version only appears after the movie has disappeared from the theater.
Now, movies are shown at different times at different countries. This means that a movie that debuted in the US is already released as a DVD there when it is shown in theaters here in Europe. Againt, the companies don't want their customers to get the benefits of globalization, but want them reserved for themselves.
The third reason is the simple fact that company executives are human beings (as hard as that might be to believe sometimes), and human beings like power; telling others what they can and cannot do gives them kicks, so why not do so ?
Isn't circumventing access control a crime nowadays in the US ?
Re:People forget (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Seriously (Score:4, Insightful)
"That can be arranged."
- RIAA
"*shrug*, *BLAM*"
- Your government
Re:Refreshing (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine that the country wakes up and eventually stops voting for the current crop of dung beetles, how do you take back property rights that have already been granted. Even if you believe that representative governments reflect the desire of the population and that the population is smart enough to vote in their own interest, how do we take back property rights granted world wide by treaties the US is a signatory too.
I think the corporations recognized that the people are fickle and may eventually recognize they are being ripped off, so they made sure that the US stamped the current order of things on nascent world law.
Re:Say what?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Source is not helping this situation either, there seems to be confusion between the 2 in many peoples minds.
In 35 years... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Going to die? (Score:5, Insightful)
*cough*
You mistake the freeloader attitude for an understanding and rejection of the issue.
Most people don't give a damn cause they get it for free, not because of some political opinion.
Re:I disagree (Score:2, Insightful)
I have to agree with you. You are right, despite the fact you don't really understand what you're talking about.
In a truly free society, nobody cares about things like laws, which, after all, are just restrictions we place on people's freedoms to maintain order. In a free society, copying will occur whereever it can, and will be stopped only where the copyright owner can muster enough brute force (through things like DRM) to keep it from happening. People will take what they need from whatever and whereever they can geti it, and probably still complain that the people who insist on owning their works are not creating enough, charging too much, not making what is available in a format they want, and so on.
Case in point: New Orleans. Talk about a free society. I hear you don't have to care about such silly things like lawyers and self-righteous extremism down there. You're welcome to take whatever you want from whomever you want. (Well, unless the rightful owner can muster enough brute force to stop you.) And like I've predicted, people are complaining that what is available isn't enough, or costs too much, or isn't available in the time or place where they want it. Mind you, they're all free to move whatever they can get to whereever they want, and they likely won't even get slapped with C&D order for doing so.
Yup. If you're looking for a truly free society, New Orleans is truly the land of the free. Anybody up for a road trip?
There is a difference between freedom and liberty. Freedom is something every creature on this planet is born with; the freedom live, to defend oneself, to shiver in the cold, or to die of starvation when food runs out. It is not something we fight for, or earn, or even have to defend. And contrary to the popular saying, freedom is free.
Liberty, on the other hand, is not something we have, it is something we grant to others. It's a concept which exists only within the context of civilization, and thus is what makes (some of) us humans unique among the creatures on this planet.
So you are correct, in a free society the public domain will never die, but now I'm not so sure I'd want to live in that kind of free society. I think I'd rather live in a liberated society, where copyright owners grant me the ability to make copies of their works (even though they could prevent me from doing so) and in return I choose to not spill copies of those works onto KaZaA, even though I have the freedom to do so.
And I agree that things are likely going to have to get much worse before people realize that it isn't really freedom they're after, but liberty. And the road to liberty lies not in being stronger or smarter or richer or better armed than the next guy, but in being more committed to his liberty in hopes he will in turn be comitted to yours.
Then again, this civilization thing really is a fairly new and untried concept. Maybe some people would prefer to live like animals.
Re:Going to die? (Score:2, Insightful)
For example. Medication costs $500 million to develop, market, patent. Company tries to get three products through the process and one makes it. From the one they CAN sell they need to recoup the costs of production. Third world country like Brazil says they will only pay a price slightly over the cost of production of the pill when all the other costs of making the pill are disregarded.
What you are suggesting is the same for digital media. Who cares how much the carpenters, painters, sets, directors, actors, etc cost? All that matters to you is that you think the movie should be available to you at a $2 or less cost since you can purchase blanks for that amount and thats really all thats involved, isn't it?
Re:What are you on? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Going to die? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're mostly right, but the mess that is copyright law today certainly contributes to people's attitudes about violating those copyrights. People don't feel bad about downloading songs without paying for them because they don't see it having a meaningful effect upon the artists. If, however, musicians were actually paid the money for those songs a lot of people might feel guilty about "ripping off" their favorite bands. As it is now most musicians survive on touring and merchandising.
Re:Going to die? (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with the BSD licence is that if I write a piece of software and release it under the standard three-clause BSD licence, somebody else could take that software -- the result of my hard work and the rightful property of all humanity -- add a feature which would make for one-way compatibility, make it closed-source but gratis, distribute it widely and effectively subvert my efforts. Even worse, they might later claim that my attempt to replicate their feature in a piece of software I originally wrote was somehow violating their IP.
And the GPL is enormous. For stuff like web scripts, it is overkill
Mickey vs. Snow White (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Going to die? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep, the day Mickey Mouse becomes public domain is the day i will stop downloading.
In short, I will never stop downloading. The copyright system has not honored its side of the bargain, so I dont see how the public can still be required to.
Re:Do NOT obey the laws. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Going to die? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I foresee a crisis at Disney (Score:4, Insightful)
Which also implies that draconian copyright law will make great art one day no longer possible.
Re:Lessig? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure I fully understand this comment. Are you referencing Ray Bradbury's remarks about how Michael Moore "stole" the title for Fahrenheit 911?
"He stole my title and changed the numbers without ever asking me for permission."
Re:Going to die? (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, the choice is between limited copyright and no protection at all, not limited copyright and eternal entitlement.
By the way, the 14 year term did refer to copyright -- a hundred years ago. Now, mostly because of Disney's lobbying (we couldn't have Mickey Mouse becoming public domain, now could we?), copyright is life of author + 70 years, or 100 years in the case of works created by a corporation. It cannot be passed down to your executors.
Also, copyright lasts that long whether you assert it or not. You're thinking of trademarks -- they're the things that last indefinitely, but only while you're asserting them.
Re:Communism must die. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it actually has been tried a lot. However, the results of the attempts never were what Marx and Engels hoped for. All the evidence is against communism. Principles, which dozens of countries have tried with usually disastrous consequences, are very likely to be flawed.
When it comes to Public Domain in the internet world, we won't know for another couple of dozen years how it will work out, but we can of course theorize (that means "guess") about it, as Lessig does.
Re:Going to die? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lawrence Lessig overlooked copylefts?? Lawrence Lessig, the founder of Creative Commons, author of Free Culture [wikisource.org], and director on the FSF board??
I rather doubt it.
The issue is that a large part of our culture is copyrighted and owned by people who are going to milk this copyright for all it's worth, as long as they can. Creative Commons/GPL/GFDL are only useful if you already own the copyright, and it's not practical to replicate everything.
Re:Going to die? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or at least that's what was originally planned. Now it's been corrupted all to hell.
Re:Going to die? (Score:3, Insightful)
As it is now most musicians survive on a day job.
Re:Going to die? (Score:2, Insightful)
Since the purpose of the public domain is to explicitly give up copyright protection, I'm not sure where you got this idea.
In an ideal world, it would be enforcible -- with exactly the same penalties as copyright infringement -- that every Derivative Work based upon a Work already in the Public Domain should be in the Public Domain.
In an ideal world, the public domain would serve the purpose that the author of a creative work can purposely give up copyright protection for that work. After they do that, they no longer have any legal claims on how the work is used. It can be used by anyone, for any purpose. And guess what? That's exactly what the public domain currently provides. So I guess we live in an ideal world, in this sense.
The GPL exists because people did not want to let others use their code in any possible way. It's kind of similar in some respects, but the original author wanted to maintain some measure of control. That's fine, since that's what copyright is for in the first place.
The problem with the BSD licence is that if I write a piece of software and release it under the standard three-clause BSD licence, somebody else could take that software -- the result of my hard work and the rightful property of all humanity
Whether it is the rightful property of all humanity is a matter of opinion. I happen to believe that code I write is not automatically and rightfully anyone else's property, but you're free to think so for your own code. If you do, you should release it to the public domain, since that is the express intention of the public domain's existence: to give something to humanity (ie, "the public").
-- add a feature which would make for one-way compatibility, make it closed-source but gratis, distribute it widely and effectively subvert my efforts.
How does it subvert your efforts, since your work is still available for anyone to use?
Even worse, they might later claim that my attempt to replicate their feature in a piece of software I originally wrote was somehow violating their IP.
Only if they have a patent on it (which I guess is not that unlikely these days), or can somehow prove that you are copying their implementation.
Re:People forget (Score:1, Insightful)
What's that? Content providers don't deserve a monetary return in proportion to the value of the work? They should just do it all for the non-monetary incentives? Then why don't you come over and clean my house in return for a compliment and a little fame? Oh, right, because sometimes there is no substitute for a material return to productive activity.
Oh wait, let me guess, I know how you're going to make sure people provide content: you'll have the government fund all intellectual works. Fabulous idea! That makes you the first person ever to get around Ludwig von Mises's calculation critique of planning. Please, share with the world how you determine what to produce without the guiding information of market prices, and I'll attend your Nobel Prize award ceremony. (Sorry, Bank of Sweden Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel.)
Oh, that's not your idea. Hm, what's left? Oh, I remember now: you think people should all voluntarily pool their money to sponsor artists and authors, who would then release their content for free. Wow, you solved *another* age-old problem in economics: the problem of public goods. Apparently, you know why people would contribute at socially optimum levels even though they get the same benefit with and without contribution, even though this problem has eluded economists for ages!
Please, for the love of God, don't criticize copyright until you have the slightest clue of what would replace it.
Re:End to American dominance too? (Score:2, Insightful)
They haven't conquered anywhere by force
Tell that to the Native Americans and Iraqis
I agree - an analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Going to die? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think he's just going through a bitter mid life crisis.
Re:In 35 years... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two reasons to expect these protectionist IP trends to continue, even if the Western world loses its position in the front seat of global policy.
For one, countries will tend to use loose intellectual property standards to get the leg up on other countries if they feel they are "behind." The United States stole a good amount of British IP after divorcing themselves from the crown, but after the economy grew, they implemented more normal standards. Look for China, and other industrializing nations, to operate in the same way- IP rules and protections will come as their economy stabilizes.
Secondly, we're talking about multinational corporations here. The fate of these large conglomerates is not necessarily tied to the waning or waxing fortunes of the Western world. These companies will leverage politicians in all countries by appealing to greed, as they always do. Rest assured that they will try to keep themselves, and their oh-so-valuable IP, well-protected.
Our Western IP enforcers may disappear, but new ones will take their place.
Re:Going to die? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I have, and do.
First off, I hate Britney Spears, and I hate when she is used as the icon of modern copyrighted material, for some reason. Let's instead talk about what might be a better example: The Beatles. You may love them, you may hate them. But you have to admit they are better than Britney. And if copyright hadn't been extended repeatedly, they would (I believe) be in the public domain.
The purpose of copyright was to encourage artists to produce, not to protect their right (or their grandchildren's rights) to make money off their work. It's just that the best way to encourage them to produce was to give them a way to make money off their work. On could argue that the Beatles made more than enough money during the 14 year or so window after each of their album releases to have made their music quite profitable, and worth their while. Yet now it will not be public domain until halfway through this century. THAT is the problem.
There is no reason that an artist's grandchildren need to still be recieving royalties. An artist like 50 Cent makes more than enough money to provide for his children, his grandchildren, and possibly their children, if only he would stop spending money on bottles of champagne he intends only to smash, just to prove how rich he is. And artists that don't make much money now aren't likely to be making much in 50 or 90 years anyway, so what's the difference? Sometimes I think the extensions serve the sole purpose of keeping Mickey Mouse out of the public domain, and the rest is just a negative side-effect.
It's supposed to be a trade. The government allows the use of its courts for artists to defend their copyrights, and in exchange at some point the artists give the material over to the public domain, for everybody to use freely. But I think it was just assumed that that would be within a reasonable amount of time, whether or not it still had commercial value...which many people would argue should be -less- than a century. The point was that material would enter the public domain while it still had an audience, not to prevent it from doing so.
But maybe I'm just silly.
Re:Going to die? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course. Copyleft means that the author still retains some power to specify how it's used (although they have to declare such intentions upfront, typically that they don't want it incorporated into non-free projects)
Declaring something public-domain makes it "more free" than declaring it copyleft.
However, the big point of the public domain is that it applies to everything (after a certain grace period) even if the author or his publisher is a paraniod nasty bastard who wants to keep it.
Of course, if an author wants to be nice during that grace period when they're granted copyright, then they have the choice of copyleft, public domain, etc. that you refer to.
But as Lessig notes, all that is for nothing if the encryption won't let you copy, regardless of your legal rights. It's happening already -- I know a load of teachers who can't copy DVDs for use in class, even though they're specifically permitted to do so under copyright law.
Re:Incentive Needed to Release works into the PD (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want copyright protection, you MUST submit your work to the library of congress or the national archives.
When your copyright term is up, the public is free to acquire information from this resource.
There you go. The compensation they get is that they are granted a temporary monopoly on the reproduction of their work. The public is guaranteed their rights to it under public domain.
Its analogous to the way that patents are supposed to work. Of course, that system is also broken...
Re:Such a short article but so wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
I've seen this sentiment quite a bit. However, I don't really understand it. Unless people start boycotting non-public domain material, how will this help? I only see this as helping to ensure the status que remains. Those who make millions off the public domain will continue to have new material without having to contribute back.