...access to affected authors has been disabled.

August 5, 2004 9:37 AM

The recent Australia/US free trade deal,among many other things, extended copyright from fifty years after an authors death to seventy years. As a result stuff like this happening. via Making Light
posted by thatwhichfalls (12 comments total)

That should be "stuff like this is happening" of course ...
posted by thatwhichfalls at 9:39 AM on August 5, 2004

The 20 year extension was actually enforced in the U.S. to honor our trade contracts. We are quite happy with the 50 year P.D. rules, but must adhere to other countries extensions.

It wasn't the United State's fault, but still, it blows. We can at least blame another country this time, though.
posted by remlapm at 9:50 AM on August 5, 2004

It does blow...i've read that Project Gutenberg and others like it used a lot of Australian editions bec of the lesser copyright time...that'll end.

Thus, PG Australia is able to produce and host e-texts that otherwise would be illegal for Project Gutenberg in the United States to host, due to different copyright laws, while some texts from the US project cannot be hosted there. PG Australia also focuses on digitizing Australian material. However, due to the negotiation of a renewed free trade agreement between Australia and the United States, the availability of these texts may not be continued, because of copyright changes included in the agreement.
posted by amberglow at 10:56 AM on August 5, 2004

*hits Congress in the face with shovel*
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:11 PM on August 5, 2004

is anyone else utterly confused as to how 'free trade' has come to mean trade but with more stipulations and regulations?
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 4:33 PM on August 5, 2004

Once again I'll put forward an idea whose time has come.

In US mining law, going back to the 19th Century, you can stake a claim to mine land, even on someone else's property, but you *must* improve that mine to the tune of $500 every year, or lose your stake.

The same should roughly apply to copyrighted content.

If you own copyright, let's say you have 10 years to do with it what you want. But after that, you *must* retail (not auction) sale at least $500 worth of it to the PUBLIC, EVERY YEAR, or lose your copyright.

The immense libraries of copyrighted material would then be in a "use it or lose it" domain. Either its owners MARKET it to the public, or let someone else MARKET it. This would not only open up HUGE amounts of material that have been vaulted for decades, but would be a fine incentive to create new material.

Think of it as legalizing P2P, but with vast numbers of people making a profit from it. Sure, it's public domain, but lots of people will pay handsomely for a quality product, packaged in an attractive way. A production DVD is a LOT better than a "screener." A quality musical album is a LOT better than a bunch of individual mp3s of various qualities stitched together on an un-normalized CD.
posted by kablam at 4:34 PM on August 5, 2004

Interesting! I find myself in a thread where I agree with the libertarians.

Exactly, T5 - as far as I'm concerned, liberalisation of trade is fine - in terms of removing tarrifs, subsidies, import restrictions and so forth.

However, the largest affront to democracy that's currently going on is the use of "free trade" to meddle with other nations social, health, environmental, labor and cultural laws. These are the issues that people elect governments for. These are the issues that differentiate countries, and the current "race to the bottom" that results from putting these sorts of things on the table in trade negotiations cannot be good for free societies.

Kablam's suggestion sounds very interesting way to ensure our cultural heritage remains accessible to the public.
posted by Jimbob at 5:55 PM on August 5, 2004

I could see that use it or lose it thing easily keeping many works in copyright forever. If you're investing in it, whether it's repackaging or just ad campaigns, you'll never want to let it lapse. It's not worth what you've put into it, even if it's shitty.
posted by amberglow at 6:01 PM on August 5, 2004

Hasn't happend yet. The Free Trade deal may have been signed by Bush, but enabling legislation is still tangled up in the Australian Senate. I sent a letter to all the senators from my state telling them to not rush the bill through and let more public discussion occur (among other things)
posted by krisjohn at 6:26 PM on August 5, 2004

krisjohn: my prediction - the FTA and enabling legislation will be passed, with the only likely amendments to be the PBS-patent and local content ones. The government is unlikely to budge on any issue, including copyright extensions, as they've already indicated they are happy with the 20 year extension. The Labor party seems interested only in tackling the two amendments put forward last week. They only party likely to listen to the cause are the Greens, and they'll be opposing the FTA anyway.
posted by Jimbob at 6:50 PM on August 5, 2004

"Use it or lose it", or alternatively Lawrence Lessig's modest proposal of a $1 annual renewal fee, would keep some works in copyright forever, and so it should: those works that are continuously produced by their creators (or heirs or whatever) and stay in use for a hundred years should be copyright for a hundred years. But those that aren't, shouldn't, so that they can come back into use and production without the hassles of licensing fees.

These systems let a market sort out which is which, and simultaneously sort out the licensing fee hassles, because the copyright renewal process would require the licensing arrangement to be set out: who to pay, how much, and what conditions to be set on the use of the work.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:58 PM on August 5, 2004

Jimbob: I'm interested to know what happens if the agreement is changed by Labor's demands. The Shrub has already signed something, but if Australia makes changes does the negotiation start all over again?

Oh, and I joined the Greens this week because of their stance on this issue. I'd been liking their stance on a lot of issues, but I have been particularly impressed with their understanding of the "F"TA.
posted by krisjohn at 12:45 AM on August 6, 2004