Public Domain Enhancement Act Introduced
June 25, 2003

News from . . .

U.S. Representatives Zoe Lofgren
and John Doolittle

For Immediate Release:
June 25, 2003

CONTACT:
Christine Glunz (Lofgren) 202-225-3072
Richard Robinson (Doolittle) 202-225-2511

Reps. Lofgren and Doolittle Announce the Public Domain Enhancement Act to Address the Need for Copyright Reform
Allows Abandoned Works to Enter the Public Domain

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) and John Doolittle (R-Rocklin) today introduced the Public Domain Enhancement Act, addressing the need to reform copyright laws identified in the recent Supreme Court decision of Eldred v. Ashcroft.

The Public Domain Enhancement Act offers American copyright owners with continuing interest in works an easy way to maintain their copyrights while allowing abandoned works to enter the public domain. It requires that American copyright owners pay a simple $1 fee to maintain their copyrights 50 years after publication. If the owner fails to pay the $1 fee, the copyright expires and the work enters the public domain. In addition, copyright owners are required to submit a form identifying the copyright holder to facilitate proper licensing of copyrighted works.

“Our Founding Fathers recognized that society has an interest in the free flow of ideas, information and commerce,” said Lofgren. “That is why copyright protection does not last forever. This bill will breathe life into older works whose long-forgotten stories, songs, pictures and movies are no longer published, read, heard or seen. It is time to give these treasures back to the public.”

"Opening access to historical works for restoration and rehabilitation is essential toward ensuring that classics will be appreciated and cherished for future generations to come,” said Doolittle. “I am proud to join my colleague Zoe Lofgren in sponsoring this common-sense legislation and greatly appreciate the broad base of support it has received."

When a copyright ends, the works they protect enter the public domain, where they can be freely copied or used to create derivative works. Commercial and noncommercial creators depend on a healthy public domain as a source of raw material for new productions, such as a movie based on an old book or a theme song based on old musical arrangements. Schools, museums and libraries also use works in the public domain to create pictorial and textual materials for educational and cultural purposes. Archivists depend on the public domain to restore and preserve historical works and book publishers rely on the public domain to print titles and make them available to the public at reduced prices.

In 1998, Congress passed the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), extending the term of copyright laws by 20 years for works copyrighted after the year 1923. In his dissent in the Eldred v. Ashcroft case upholding CTEA, Supreme Court Justice Breyer found that only about 2% of copyrights between 55 and 75 years old retain commercial value. Yet under the CTEA, these works will not enter the public domain for many years. This prevents commercial entities and the public from building upon, cultivating and preserving these works.

###

THE RIAA HAS JUST ATTEMPTED TO COMMIT SUICIDE

We knew it was comming, we have been waiting for this, let's hope they
don't chicken out or be stupid and drag the razor blade across the wrist
instead of up and downwise in paralel to the forarm.

If they want to take this drastic action, lets let them! We will be thier
Kevorkian!

YES, use the Home Recording Act as a defense if they come after you!
(The very reason FOR the Home Recording Act is to keep this kind of
oligopolistic bully tactic from taking place!) BY ALL MEANS, if YOU are
a target of the RIAA lawsuits, DO NOT settle! Let it go to the Supreme
Court. Keep appealing! Get better and better lawyers! WE WILL BACK
YOU as best we can! I think Jessie has already gained back
enough from supporters to pay his fine. (I am so tempted to log on and
share everything I can find with the HOPE that RIAA sues me so that I
myself can battle them in court, and more importantly, in the court of
public opinion!)


xaostica said above:
"Well guess what- you will never know the ectasy I feel when I look on a
P2P network and see one of my own songs on other people's computers."

I agree %100. I hope they try to sue me over MY music that I share using
p2p. Just like with the Usher issue, they will be embarrassed if they do.

Downloading or sharing music is NOT THEFT! Making $$$ against the
copyright holders wishes by using that holder's copyright IS THEFT!
It is that simple. The RIAA members are more guilty of this than the
general public. Just look at history! The RIAA claims to be against piracy,
and yes, they do have/should have the right to cause the bust of the guy
selling bootleg cd's on the street corner. But what the hell gave them the
right to spy on the p2p user and bust them? I will tell you... OUR OWN
INATTENTION to govenment. The reps in our own govenments are in the
industry pockets. We need to change this or we will have nothing to fear
unless we have done "something wrong" just as the nazi's said.

When I buy a CD/album/tape (VHS/DVD/etc. for that matter) I am NOT
buying the SONG! The SONG is FREE! I am buying the blank item and
packaging and most importantly the CONVIENIENCE of accsessing the
"content" of the CD or whatever. ALSO, I am rewarding the creator of
the intellectual "content." I already have sampled/heard the SONG and
it is already mine. If Fred gives Barney an apple, then Barney has the
apple, and Fred no longer does. If Fred TELLS Barney about an orange,
they now BOTH know about the orange. Now change the verbs to include
words like "sells" and "takes/steals" and think about it.

We do NOT buy the SONGS, we buy the physical media and the
service that put the SONG on that media. Any artist who thinks otherwise
is being greedy or misunderstands what is happening. A song is an
idea. Ideas are free unless you don't voice that idea and never share it.

If there is such a thing as intellectual "property" then I must let it be known
that I own the patent to oxegen. (I expect your check in the mail any day
now!)

All this silly crap should have ended a long time ago, but it is just getting
started. The public is waking up. Look at the outcry and response to the
FCC's misguided ruling on June 2nd and how the Senate heard our
outcry! (But we can't stop now! Congress is next! Hit em hard with your
e-mails/calls/snailmails!)

The internet is the ONLY media method we have left. TV, Radio, etc. were
all SUPPOSED to be in the public domain, but ask yourself who really
owns those pipelines of communication in practice. (Yep, the oligopolated
corporate conglomerates!) We MUST NOT let the internet be stolen from
us to. We MUST fight for the final hope of human idea exchange. DO NOT
let the bad guys turn the internet into the next TV or radio!

Lawrence Lessig and Creative Commons in general have the right ideas.

FAIRFORSHARE is comming!

The RIAA is on the ropes. They are bleeding. SHOW NO MERCY!

SUPPORT LOCAL AND INDEPENDENT MUSIC! GET INVOLVED!
Boycott RIAA, Tell WAL-MART and BEST BUY/OTHERS that you will NOT
buy from them if they continue to sell the RIAA products that you not only
will not yourself buy.

To win, we have to hit them in the pocket, in the courts, and in the public
domain (which they seek to CONTROL!)

--Shmoo, of the band Electric Gypsy

50 years is TOO LITTLE! Stuff takes 10-30 years to become in the catagory of Abandonware (fancy software term for abandoned software programs that are next-to-impossible to find)

Don't you mean too much? Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean by too little. I think fifty years is still too much, but this is a step in the right direction at least.

I think this actually is great, once the RIAA cuts their own throat we will be celebrating, if only for the reason that they had it coming.

They're spying through our Computers like a group of KGB Russian Communists, they're trying to jail us for a "Crime" that isn't being commited like World War II Era Nazi's and just like the Gestopo, they're snooping around and killing/injuring their own kind!

The Arts makes ZERO on an RIAA Packaged CD in most cases, occasionally they may make $1 or $2 TOTAL, and that's even more aggrivating.

People who the RIAA can find as "Stupid" are prime candidates for rigged contracts, and the like.

If I made a tape for a classmate in school, off of my copy, for free is that piracy?

NO! Piracy is selling the tape or multiple tapes on the street and robbing the Arist and the RIAA.

The RIAA is "against" Piracy yet as someone else mentioned, they steal from the ARTIST that they claim to "Protect"!

Sending a file to a friend is no different than sending him or her a tape after school.

If the RIAA sues me, GOOD! I won't settle I will take it as far in court as I can, I will have angry Artists and P2P users alike backing me, and I urge anyone takent o court by the RIAA to do what I would do myself, COUTNERSUE!

That's right, COUNTERSUE THEM for INVASION OF PRIVACY, they are now in a catch 22 and public domain is BS in most cases, sadly however, If the music I want is being locked up and guarded by the RIAA who are unwilling to reissue it in ANY form, such as an LP on CD, then they honestly shouldn't be able to complain about someone using a P2P network to obtain it, I'm tempted to download as much MUsic as I can, burn it to CD delete it from my HDD and store it in a binder,and reformat, and when they come for me I'll present the binder which would have as many songs as possible in it, and tell them I'm willing to countersue for invasion of privacy.

The RIAA will lose any support they have elft from fans if they lock one up for sharing music, if an Artist is afraid of losing sales, they should do what the MPAA does with DVD's and extras.

Personally I try to buy everything I download on CD, UNLESS it's unavilable or I already own it, and if a friend sends it to me and it's unavailable in which case it's just like the afore mentioned tape scenario.

I have a stack of my parents 45's as well as 45's from my Uncle's and Grandmother, I can deal with the scratchy sound if it means that the 45's are froma time before the RIAA was corrupt and the music is good, sadly I am boycotting RIAA-Supported CD's, at least new purchases until they either PAY all thier artists and lower prices, OR they get a working P2P network adn PAY thier artists.

They say WE'RE bootlegging by using a P2P network? What do they call stealing from the Artist via rigged contracts that any other union would deem "Illegal" as a form of slavery to a company?

I'm curious, because unless it's an Independent label non-aligned with the RIAA, then the Artist has not recived anything for their work, and I don't need fancy packaging to enjoy music, I need a palce to store it and a way to obtain it, and until the RIAA provides, that and pays artists their royalites, I refuse to support them.

My Aunt is in the Music Industry and she would NEVER support the RiAA because she KNOWS how they rig contracts, she's on an independant label and I'm proud of her, because selling your soul to the RIAA is no different than becoming a slave!

independentm...

Although I share your enthusiasm at the thought of the RIAA committing "suicide," your cross-posting is borderline SPAM and just plain annoying.

What all due respect...cut it out.

I agree with the Public Domain Enhancement Act with one exception:

Instead of a 50 year copyright to start with, it should be 25 years with the ability to renew for another 25 years at no cost. It's almost the same thing, but at least it would require a little work to keep it going. If they fail to renew before the first 25 years is up, the work goes into the public domain and they lose that option.

This adjustment would allow a great many works to enter the public domain more quickly.

I also think they should build in protection for creators of "fan fiction" as long as no profit is sought from the works. Too many big media companies go after these creators without the slightest clue that these are their biggest fans! They should be kissing their butts, not suing them!

Oh, well. If, by some miracle, it passes, maybe we can amend it later to add these things.

That's a good idea musicwantsto, but as you said, one step at a time.