Comments on: Paul Heald’s free data about free culture Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: yaledpbb Wed, 06 Mar 2013 05:07:15 +0000 apU3DO , [url=]atilicllhgqv[/url], [link=]fosilmtjukke[/link],

By: dlicjt Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:01:00 +0000 YbkfEf rscawsmckiyn

By: wgrxjjeoic Sun, 03 Mar 2013 04:10:00 +0000 5E0JLB , [url=]dofxdpnzpbmw[/url], [link=]mepfebketsdj[/link],

By: Ricardo Fri, 01 Mar 2013 07:55:41 +0000 Hello there,It is the best time to make some plans for the future and it is time to be happy. I’ve read this post and if I could I wish to suggset to you some interesting things or maybe tips. Perhaps you can write the next articles referring to this article. I desire to read even more things about the subject! Thank you and good luck to you.

By: three blind mice Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:15:39 +0000 Although the data alone cannot dispel worries of
over-exploitation (the assertion that the public domain “commons” is being over-grazed), several
arguments are offered to suggest why congestion is unlikely to be a problem with works of
fiction. Most importantly, it is clear that congestion theorists have not borne their burden of
proving that central planning and control for important creative goods are necessary to prevent

um, the problem is not “overgrazing” of “the commons”, rather the problem is that as copyright expires the “commons” becomes infested with weeds of past works that choke out the incentive for NEW works to take root.

in other words, removing the copyright on bambi will ONLY result in more bambi.

and one more thing: TO HELL WITH GEORGIA!

By: Neal Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:24:15 +0000 I advocate the following change to copyright law. You get an initial period of automatic protection, 10 years, for creating a work. The protection could be extended beyond this period, in 5-10 year increments, if and only if you keep the work in production* and available to the public at a reasonable* market price.

In other words, and this is the important part, if it’s not worth production then it’s not worth protection and into the public domain in goes.

That should provide reasonable protection for everyone, including Disney, and not harm the greater good. If a work stays in demand enough for a creator to keep reproducing en-mass, at least once every 10 years, then it’s under their control for a longer period of time. On the other hand, if they don’t find it worth their time, trouble, or risk (financial or other) to keep the work available to the public at large then it defaults to becoming the property of the public at large.

Honestly, I could care less about Disney’s entertainment and what they do with it. What pisses me is that they deprive society of material of real value by buying legislation which also keeps books out of our hands for many, many, decades after the creator/publisher decides that all commercial value is gone. Sell it to us or give it to us, your choice, but you shouldn’t be able to keep it from us just because you’re too lazy, too selfish, too scared, or too comfortable to bother with keeping it in production.

*”In production” and “reasonable market price” would have to be defined so as not to allow loopholes that extend protection without realistically keep the work available. An item in active production in quantity would allow for greater than the inflation adjusted original price since lower volume would be likely and a real attempt at commericalization was being made. For one-off or on-demand works price restrictions would be put in place to qualify for the extension: no more than twice the original price (adjusted for inflation), no more than twice the price of comparable items on the market, etc.