No One Is in Charge at the US Copyright Office
38 comments
·June 28, 2025ronsor
Copyright is finally being deprecated as it should be.
I'm still waiting for an update on the final removal timeline.
heavyset_go
> Copyright is finally being deprecated as it should be.
If you hide behind corporations and have millions of dollars, sure, but not for us normies it isn't.
kelnos
That's a dangerous assumption to make. Dropping staffing levels at the US copyright office doesn't change the law. The next administration (or even this one, given how fickle Trump can be) may ramp up enforcement again and go after people committing violations during the current period.
And it's not like copyright outside the US is a wild west; most national and international copyright regimes in the developed world are based on the US's system (often because the US has strong-armed other countries to comply).
analog31
How does the copyright office enforce the law?
__loam
Software engineers and tech workers will make their living off producing IP then say shit like this.
idle_zealot
> You criticize society and yet you participate in it. How curious.
gametorch
Yes. I am an anti-copyright extremist.
May the best implementation win.
Otherwise, everyone loses out so that one individual can artificially collect rent through a government-enforced monopoly.
Accelerate.
ordinaryradical
I write novels. What am I supposed to do to earn in this new, copyright-free regime where anyone is free to “implement” my novels?
idle_zealot
Attract an audience and ask for patronage or get a job writing on behalf of an employer.
gametorch
Why would someone buy the "stolen" version of your work if it was worse?
A fair amount of humanity finds value in reading the original author's work anyways. That's your value to have. Not the better distribution nor the better, augmented story.
I understand my view is unorthodox and extreme. Not trying to be incendiary or argumentative. Just presenting my side. I respect your side, too.
martin-t
Ever since I learned that my open source work was stolen and is being resold to me (laundered through statistical algorithms) without any credit or compensation, I stopped writing open source.
Any copy-left code is basically free to be used in closed source software, as long as it's not a verbatim copy? Count me out.
LLMs are used to subvert the spirit of GPL, if not the letter.
hatthew
Downwards acceleration is free
rurp
It's being deprecated for billionaires. IP laws are one of the most blatant cases I've seen in this country of wealthy connected people being immune from laws that affect everyone else. I know it happens in many other areas, but usually it's much quieter and less in the public's face.
mslansn
Isn’t this what this website has always wanted?
kelnos
"This website" is a diverse bunch of people with diverse goals and policy positions. Please don't make generalizations.
Copyright in its current form is ridiculous, but I support some (much-pared-back) version of copyright that limits rights further, expands fair use, repeals the DMCA, and reduces the copyright term to something on the order of 15-20 years (perhaps with a renewal option as with patents).
I've released a lot of software under the GPL, and the GPL in its current form couldn't exist without copyright.
bruce511
Simplistically yes, because many see copyright as the thing that protects corporate interest from the social hacker.
The reality of course is more complicated. Without copyright there's no GPL. Which I guess is fine if you're in the OSS camp more than the FSF camp. MIT and BSD licenses basically (functionally) give up copyright.
Copyright is also what allows for hybrids like the BSL which protect "little guys" from large cloud providers like AWS etc.
Copyright allows VC startups to at least start out life as Open Source (before pivoting later.)
Of course thus is all in the context of software copyright. Other copyrights (music, books etc) are equally nuanced.
And there are other forms of IP protections as well (patents, trademarks) which are distinct from the copyright concept.
So no, I don't think most people here are against copyright (patents are a different story.)
tokai
GPL was always about fighting the system with its own tools. The end goal is not good licenses but free software as a baseline.
kelnos
How else would you enforce Free Software, though? Without copyright, I cannot release the source to my software and require anything of any recipient.
It would be nice of FOSS was the baseline, but I don't see that ever happening, especially in a world without an enforcement mechanism.
ronsor
1. I'm OK with no GPL if there's no copyright, because then proprietary programs can be copied and reverse engineered without restrictions from law or EULAs.
2. I generally don't like the BSL.
3. No comment. I think OSS projects that exist incidentally versus being the company's main product have always been more reliable (and less susceptible to the company pivoting to closed-only offerings).
4. Copyright has perhaps been the most evil in the music industry; books, less so. I'd rather not even talk about movies or TV right now. Nonetheless, I'd tolerate an extremely limited duration copyright, if no copyright at all isn't an option.
5. Trademarks are mostly fine, because they're primarily supposed to serve customers, not the companies. I'd like to get rid of patents now, however.
latexr
No? Copyright reform, sure, copyright abolished, maybe, but an uncertain future which may result in worse laws overall? Not really.
redwall_hp
Also consider that Thomas and Alito dissented in the Google/Oracle ruling, and wrote something inflammatory, to the effect of it being unreasonable that Google was being allowed to infringe upon Oracle's copyrighted code (by implementing a compatible API). And that was before the Supreme Court was stacked with more like-minded people.
Not having sensible people steering copyright in a direction toward winding down its scope is being paired with a court that's likely to make it far more draconian, and create some massive problems that will be a problem for software development.
standardUser
Reform comes through legislation, not through executive incompetence and malfeasance.
welder
You're confusing Copyright (implementation) with Patent (idea).
We don't like gatekeeping ideas because many people have the same ideas.
unsnap_biceps
There's a huge difference between "We don't want copyrights" and "We're just going to have no one enforcing laws for a random period of time and it's unknown if there will be historic enforcement activities if/when that changes"
qingcharles
"This website" is a sweeping statement for a group of people who have a wide range of views on this.
If I was to guess, I would imagine most on here believe in some copyright, and not total anarchy.
eikenberry
Reform would be best, abolishment would be better and status quo would be worst. Of course there's always making things even worse... but we're talking about what people want, not what might happen.
null
kgwxd
Don't need it anymore. President decides who owns what now, supreme court will confirm it sometime next week.
Spooky23
Exactly, what happened to the libertarian spirit of HN?
mouse_
The purpose of copyright has evolved from protecting creators to mass oppression.
AI is way better at mass oppression, however, and copyright is a threat to it, so it (copyright) will be dismantled.
eikenberry
Killing off copyrights, if it does, would be a big win for AI.
chisleu
Meh, AI doesn't have to kill copyrights. The two oppressive systems will find a way to unite into something worse than either of them alone.
https://archive.ph/MF378