Table of Contents

Welcome From The Chief Editor

PCLinuxOS Recipe Corner: Cajun Mac & Cheese

Repo Review: OnlyOffice Desktop Editors

January 1, 2025 is Public Domain Day In The U.S.

ICYMI: Could KDE & Gnome Have Their Own Distro?

New Email Scam Includes Pictures Of Your House. Don't Fall For It.

GIMP Tutorial: Create A Wave Effect

Amazon & Google Must Keep Their Promises On Project Nimbus

EFF Tells Appeals Court To Keep Copyright's Fair Use Rules Broad & Flexible

PCLinuxOS Recipe Corner Bonus: Cinnamon Roll Caramel Popcorn

Tip Top Tips: Is Your Handbrake Too Hot to Handle? Try cpulimit

PCLinuxOS Puzzled Partitions

Screenshot Showcase

From The Chief Editor's Desk...

Boy, am I glad that’s over!

I’m referring to the holidays. I’m definitely NOT a proverbial Scrooge, but certain things just start to wear a bit “thin” during the holidays.

As the holidays approach, I’m all gung-ho about them. We decorate the house (inside and out). We put up a Christmas tree. We wrap presents to put under that tree. We make fudge, Christmas cookies, and all of those other high-calorie holiday treats. I especially love seeing the joy visibly increase in my kids as Christmas draws nearer and nearer.

And, we watch holiday-themed movies.

There are more “holiday-themed” movies than you can shake a stick at. But, for whatever reason, most of the broadcasters in the U.S. focus on replaying and reshowing just a small handful of those movies during the holiday season. There is even a Hallmark Channel that is devoted to showing ONLY holiday movies … all year round.

This year, I may have discovered my limits on how many times I can watch (and re-watch, and re-re-watch) certain holiday “classics,” such as Home Alone, Home Alone 2, National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, Elf, Christmas With The Kranks, etc. On any given day during the month of December, you can count on being able to watch any of the aforementioned movies, again and again and again.

Meanwhile, other holiday classics, such as White Christmas, Miracle on 34th Street (the original with Edwin Gwynn), It’s A Wonderful Life, Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer, Frosty The Snowman, and A Charlie Brown Christmas are aired, but a LOT less frequently. And don’t even try finding Holiday Inn being aired, because it’s considered offensive due to the black-face scene. No one airs it. Period. It has been “canceled” by the PC crowd.

Never fear, though. I *did* watch Holiday Inn this year. Granted, it was via my HTPC that’s hooked to my main TV in the living room, but I did watch it. I also watched It’s A Wonderful Life twice (once in the original black and white as it was aired, and the other time the “colorized” version from my HTPC). I watched Miracle on 34th Street on the one day of the month that another cable broadcaster aired the movie back-to-back-to-back. We also watched White Christmas a couple of times. Once was when we happened to catch it during one of its rare airings, and the other time from my HTPC.

Another holiday classic, the 1951 version of A Christmas Carol starring Alastair Sim, was notably absent from any channel lineup I was able to see. Never fear, I also watched that one from my HTPC, too.

Why, oh why, do these broadcasters think we want/need to watch the same holiday movies over and over and over and over and over and over again? One broadcaster so badly edits the original movie that we often opt to re-watch it from the HTPC, where the original movie exists without all of the unnecessary edits (and without the annoying commercials!). This same network has no problem airing unedited dialogue from other shows it airs, so it’s pretty unclear why they feel the need to edit the dialogue of this holiday classic.

But, finally, the deluge of “holiday classics” (albeit a SERIOUSLY limited number of them) is ending as another holiday season comes to a close. It’ll definitely be a welcome relief from the constant playing of the same movies played on repeat, re-repeat, re-re-repeat, ad nauseam.

I guess if you are in charge of programming for a broadcast network, there’s no limit to how many nauseating times you can play a movie. They seem to have a real knack for taking a movie that most people love, and turning it into something you hate, avoid, and just abhor.

********************

This month’s cover image celebrates the New Year. It was created by Temel, an artist whose work is hosted on Pixabay.

********************

Until next month, I bid you peace, happiness, serenity, prosperity, and continued good health!

Cajun Mac & Cheese

Serves: 8

INGREDIENTS:

4 qts. Water
2 1/2 tsp. Kosher salt, divided
1 (16-oz.) pkg. Large elbow pasta
1/2 Tbsp. Canola oil
1/2 (16-oz.) pkg. German sausage or Smoked Sausage, chopped
1/2 cup chopped yellow onion (from 1 small onion)
1 tsp. Minced garlic (1 medium garlic clove)
6 Tbsp. (3 oz.) salted butter
6 Tbsp. (about 1 1/2-oz.) all-purpose flour
4 cups whole milk
2 tsp. Cajun seasoning (such as Slap Ya Mama)
1 (8-oz.) block medium Cheddar cheese, shredded (about 2 cups)
1 (8-oz.) block pepper Jack cheese or Monterey Jack cheese, shredded (about 2 cups)

DIRECTIONS:

Cook the pasta:
Preheat the oven to 400°F. Bring water and 2 teaspoons of the salt to a boil in a Dutch oven over medium-high. Add pasta; cook for 8 minutes. Drain and set aside.

Cook the sausage, garlic & onions
Heat oil in a 12-inch cast-iron skillet over medium-high; add sausage, onion. Cook, stirring often, until sausage has begun to brown and onion are tender, about 8 minutes. Add garlic, and cook, stirring constantly, 1 minute. Transfer sausage mixture to a plate; wipe skillet clean.

Make the cheese sauce:
Melt butter in a skillet over medium-low; whisk in flour, and cook, whisking constantly, 2 minutes. Gradually whisk in milk. Increase heat to medium, and cook, whisking occasionally, until mixture thickens slightly and comes to a simmer, 14 to 16 minutes.
Continue to cook, whisking constantly, 5 minutes. Whisk in Cajun seasoning and remaining 1/2 teaspoon salt; whisk in cheeses until smooth, and remove from heat. Gently stir in cooked pasta and sausage mixture.

Bake the macaroni and cheese:
Transfer to a preheated oven with an oven rack 4 to 6 inches from heat. Bake until golden and bubbly, 20 to 25 minutes. Increase oven temperature to broil; broil until top is browned and crisp, 3 to 5 minutes.

TIP:

To round out the meal, serve with additional protein in the form of grilled or blackened chicken, shrimp, crab cakes, or additional German or smoked sausage. Pair with green beans, Brussels sprouts, asparagus, a salad, or other favorite veggies, as well as cornbread or garlic bread for a hearty addition.

Shred your own cheese: Pre-shredded varieties have anti-caking agents in the mix that keep them from melting properly.

NUTRITION:

Calories: 213    Carbs: 32g    Sodium: 1253mg    Fiber: 0g    Protein:8g

Repo Review: OnlyOffice Desktop Editors

by David Pardue (kalwisti)

I am a fan of LibreOffice and have relied on it at home since its initial release in 2011. However, we know that Microsoft Office predominates in most organizations and that office tasks are handled by the triumvirate of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint.

LibreOffice’s compatibility with Office Open XML file format (informally known as OOXML) has greatly improved over the years, but sometimes I must deal with an MS Office file that stymies LibreOffice. The formatting might have gone awry — with paragraphs aligned incorrectly, page breaks in odd places, etc. When this happens, there is an open-source program that can help: OnlyOffice Desktop Editors. OnlyOffice is fully compatible with OOXML formats — .docx, .xlsx, .pptx — and can (usually) render these files “natively,” i.e., identically to Microsoft Office.

OnlyOffice Desktop Editors is the offline version of OnlyOffice Docs, a cloud-based office suite created by Ascensio System SIA. Although most of Ascensio’s products are targeted at business customers, the Desktop Editors app is geared to home users.

OnlyOffice Desktop includes a document, spreadsheet, and presentation editor bundled into a single application. It does not require an Internet connection to work; however, if you connect to a cloud portal — such as OnlyOffice’s free portal — the desktop program supports collaborative editing features. OnlyOffice Desktop is offered free of cost for personal use.

History

The company was founded in Russia by Lev Bannov (2009); its product was initially called TeamLab. TeamLab began as a program for internal team collaboration. Following a positive reception, the program’s functionality was enhanced, and the company made efforts to expand its market. In July 2014, TeamLab Office was officially rebranded to “OnlyOffice” and the product’s source code was published on GitHub under the terms of the GNU AGPL (Affero General Public License).

Installation

OnlyOffice Desktop is cross-platform; it is available for Windows, macOS, and Linux. For Linux, there are .deb and .rpm packages available, as well as an AppImage and Flatpak.

OnlyOffice is available in the PCLinuxOS repositories (ver. 8.2.2.22, with the package name “onlyoffice-desktopeditors”) and may be installed via Synaptic. During my tests, I used the package from the repository on my KDE Darkstar system and the AppImage on my Xfce machine. Both versions ran fine, and I did not notice any differences in performance between them.

Program Strengths

By combining editors similar to Word, Excel and PowerPoint, OnlyOffice Desktop provides most of the functionality needed for daily office tasks. The interface closely resembles the MS Office ribbon interface, and the tabbed toolbars are uniform across all three editors:

The screenshot above shows three different documents open in the app: a résumé template; a PowerPoint template; and a spreadsheet. I liked being able to have a document and spreadsheet open next to each other, making it easy to toggle between the files.

Users already familiar with MS Office will immediately feel at home. A gentler learning curve means that they can become productive more quickly. (You might notice that the editors’ ribbons use the same color scheme as their Microsoft counterparts: blue for documents [Word]; green for spreadsheets [Excel]; orange for presentations [PowerPoint].)

In addition to the appealing interface, OnlyOffice Desktop has excellent compatibility with Microsoft’s OOXML file format. The app’s native file format is OOXML; therefore it uses .docx, .xlsx and .pptx as the default. (If you wish, you can save in other file formats: .odt, .rtf, .txt, .pdf, .html, .epub [for documents]; .ods, .csv [for spreadsheets]; .odp [for presentations]).

I experimented with opening a variety of MS Office-generated files: document templates from Microsoft’s Create gallery; spreadsheets from data.gov (a fascinating portal that provides access to open datasets from over 100 US Government agencies); as well as Word documents and PowerPoint presentations from my pre-retirement job. I did not experience any problems; all three editors were able to faithfully reproduce the Office-formatted documents.

To enhance document compatibility, I recommend that you install the Microsoft core fonts on your system (Arial, Times New Roman, etc. via the “webcore-fonts” package in PCLinuxOS) as well as Calibri, Cambria and the new Aptos fonts (which can be downloaded from here). This reduces the chance of minor differences when exchanging documents.

Files can be password-protected with AES 256-bit encryption if you have security concerns. You can also add a digital signature to a file.

The editors’ capabilities can be extended with an assortment of plugins, such as the AI helper, LanguageTool (spelling/grammar checker), DeepL (language translator) and OCR (recognize text from pictures and screenshots).

The PDF Form [Creator] is an interesting component of the program. It enables you to create customizable forms to use for orders, invoices, applications, and the like. The video tutorial by Adrian Reddix walks through the steps of creating a fillable PDF. (I did not know until now that LibreOffice has a similar feature.)

The ability to collaborate is one of OnlyOffice’s promotional points. I registered for the free version/account of OnlyOffice DocSpace which provides 2 GB of storage space. For real-time collaboration, your document must be hosted on a cloud service connected to the editor(s). The “room”-based concept of OnlyOffice DocSpace is its unique feature. You invite other people to your rooms and collaborate with them. In the screenshot below, you can see that my invited collaborator not only left a comment but also modified the document’s text (because I had given him Editing privileges).

OnlyOffice can integrate with Nextcloud, acting as a self-hosted alternative to Google Drive; commercial licenses are available for users who need support or proprietary features. Instead of Nextcloud, you can also connect with ownCloud, Seafile, Moodle, kDrive or Liferay.

Program Weaknesses

I read some reports that OnlyOffice Desktop has difficulty importing .csv files (although I did not encounter this in my testing). Somewhat ironically, OnlyOffice has less compatibility with Open Document Format (.odt, .ods, .odp) than might be expected from an open-source program. I did not have any trouble opening my straightforward LibreOffice Writer files (.ods) but YouTuber Thomas Murosky (Switched to Linux) demonstrated that highly styled LO Writer documents are not rendered 100% accurately in OnlyOffice.

If your Excel usage relies heavily on macros, OnlyOffice Desktop may not be your best option. That is not OnlyOffice’s fault, as none of the competing office suites are compatible in regard to macros. LibreOffice and Microsoft Office use incompatible dialects of BASIC, while OnlyOffice uses a macro language based on JavaScript.

Additional Resources

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZPkVCDUblw

Reddix, Adrian. Tech Dad Journey. “How to Create a Fillable PDF Using OnlyOffice Form.” YouTube, 22 Apr. 2022. (12 min., 3 sec.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1EM50iQJno

Reddix, Adrian. Tech Dad Journey. “I Used This Microsoft Office Alternative at Work and No One Noticed.” YouTube, 14 Jan. 2022. (9 min., 24 sec.)

Conclusion

LibreOffice will continue to be my “daily driver” office suite. However, it was interesting to explore OnlyOffice Desktop Editors and I plan to keep it installed on my computer for compatibility reasons (because I use Microsoft 365 only as a last resort). I wrote this article with OnlyOffice Desktop; it was a pleasant experience.

OnlyOffice Desktop is a viable option if you prefer a program with an MS Office-like interface and behavior, if you need to exchange documents with Office users, or maybe if you have a child (or grandchild) who is required to submit school assignments in MS Office format, and you want to be reasonably sure that the formatting will be correct.

January 1, 2025 is Public Domain Day In The U.S.

by Jennifer Jenkins and James Boyle
Directors, Duke Center for the Study of the Public Domain
Reprinted under Creative Commons 4.0 license
Original article

Works From 1929 Are Open To All, As Are Sound Recordings From 1924!

Please note that this article is only about US law; the copyright terms in other countries are different.[1]

On January 1, 2025, thousands of copyrighted works from 1929 will enter the US public domain, along with sound recordings from 1924. They will be free for all to copy, share, and build upon.[2] 2025 marks a milestone: all of the books, films, songs, and art published in the 1920s will now be public domain. The literary highlights from 1929 include The Sound and the Fury) by William Faulkner, A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway, and A Room of One’s Own) by Virginia Woolf. In film, Mickey Mouse speaks his first words, the Marx Brothers star in their first feature film, and legendary directors from Alfred Hitchcock to John Ford made their first sound films. From comic strips, the original Popeye and Tintin characters will enter the public domain. Among the newly public domain compositions are Gershwin’s An American in Paris, Ravel’s Bolero, Fats Waller’s Ain’t Misbehavin’, and the musical number Singin’ in the Rain. Below is just a handful of the works that will be in the US public domain in 2025.[3] To find more material from 1929, you can visit the Catalogue of Copyright Entries.

The title of Faulkner’s novel was itself taken from a public domain work, Shakespeare’s Macbeth, and its lament over the seeming meaningless of life. “Life…is a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing.” The Sound and the Fury was published on October 7, 1929, on the eve of the Great Depression. Faulkner won the 1949 Nobel Prize in Literature. During those intervening twenty years, the world had witnessed unspeakable horrors: economic crises had fueled the rise of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Then came World War II, the Holocaust, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the beginnings of the Cold War. In August of 1949, the Soviet Union tested its first atomic weapon. A book written in the shadow of economic disaster was being celebrated after worldwide catastrophe and in the shadow of the mushroom cloud. Despite all of that, Faulkner’s 1950 Nobel acceptance speech sounded a note of defiant optimism, and an uncompromising defense of role of art in helping us understand ourselves and our time:

I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet’s, the writer’s, duty is to write about these things…The poet’s voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.

“Not merely the record of man, but one of the pillars that helps him prevail.” Words written by the author of a timeless work that took from the public domain and now gives back to it. In an historical moment when many are inclined to despair, to believe that the problems and divisions of our society are too intractable, too complex for hope, Faulkner speaks to us of “the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed – love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice.” But Faulkner’s work was neither ephemeral nor doomed. To use his words again, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” Why care about the public domain? That is why.

Books and Plays

• William Faulkner, The Sound and the Fury

• Ernest Hemingway, A Farewell to Arms

• Virginia Woolf, A Room of One's Own

• Dashiell Hammett, Red Harvest and The Maltese Falcon (as serialized in Black Mask magazine)[4]

• John Steinbeck, Cup of Gold (Steinbeck's first novel)

• Richard Hughes, A High Wind in Jamaica

• Oliver La Farge, Laughing Boy: A Navajo Love Story

• Patrick Hamilton, Rope

• Arthur Wesley Wheen, the first English translation of All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque

• Agatha Christie, Seven Dials Mystery

• Robert Graves, Good-bye to All That

• E. B. White and James Thurber, Is Sex Necessary? Or, Why You Feel the Way You Do

• Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet (only the original German version, Briefe an einen jungen Dichter)

• Walter Lippmann, A Preface to Morals

• Ellery Queen (Frederic Dannay and Manfred Bennington Lee), The Roman Hat Mystery

This is just a small selection from the thousands of books and plays entering the public domain in 2025. There are literary masterpieces, detective stories, and a “sidesplitting spoof of men, women, and psychologists.” Among the works from 1929 are two acclaimed books about World War I –>A Farewell to Arms and the first English translation of All Quiet on the Western Front – written by authors who served in the war and witnessed its traumas of firsthand. From Virginia Woolf comes a feminist classic about how a woman needed “a room of her own if she is to write fiction,” something that her imagined character Judith Shakespeare lacked, depriving her of the opportunity – despite her talents – to become another Shakespeare.

Films

• A dozen more Mickey Mouse animations (including Mickey’s first talking appearance in The Karnival Kid)

• The Cocoanuts, directed by Robert Florey and Joseph Santley (the first Marx Brothers feature film)

• The Broadway Melody, directed by Harry Beaumont (winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture)

• The Hollywood Revue of 1929, directed by Charles Reisner (featuring the song “Singin’ in the Rain”)

• The Skeleton Dance, directed by Walt Disney and animated by Ub Iwerks (the first Silly Symphony short from Disney)

• Blackmail, directed by Alfred Hitchcock (Hitchcock’s first sound film)

• Hallelujah, directed by King Vidor (the first film from a major studio with an all African-American cast)

• The Wild Party, directed by Dorothy Arzner (Clara Bow’s first “talkie”)

• Welcome Danger, directed by Clyde Bruckman and Malcolm St. Clair (the first full-sound comedy starring Harold Lloyd)

• On With the Show, directed by Alan Crosland (the first all-talking, all-color, feature-length film)

• Pandora's Box (Die Büchse der Pandora), directed by G.W. Pabst

• Show Boat, directed by Harry A. Pollard (adaptation of the novel and musical)

• The Black Watch, directed by John Ford (Ford’s first sound film)

• Spite Marriage, directed by Edward Sedgwick and Buster Keaton (Keaton’s final silent feature)

• Say It with Songs, directed by Lloyd Bacon (follow-up to The Jazz Singer and The Singing Fool)

• Dynamite, directed by Cecil B. DeMille (DeMille's first sound film)

• Gold Diggers of Broadway, directed Roy Del Ruth

Last year we celebrated the long-awaited arrival of Mickey and Minnie Mouse into the public domain. In 2025, we welcome a dozen new Mickey Mouse films from 1929. Mickey speaks his first words – “Hot dogs! Hot dogs!” – and debuts his familiar white gloves. That version of Mickey is now officially in the public domain. The same year Disney released the first five cartoons in its Silly Symphonies series, beginning with “The Skeleton Dance.” The films from 1929 are important not just for their content, but also for understanding developments in the art form itself. The year marked a turning point in film, with sound films rapidly replacing silent cinema. Alfred Hitchcock, Cecil B. DeMille, John Ford, and Harold Lloyd all released their first sound films, while Buster Keaton starred in his final silent feature. Our list includes movie versions of musicals and revues that capitalized on the enthusiasm for synchronized sound and yielded some of the compositions featured below. (Please note that later versions of the films above that added new material or sound might still be copyrighted.)

Characters

• E. C. Segar, Popeye (in “Gobs of Work” from the Thimble Theatre comic strip)

• Hergé (Georges Remi), Tintin (in “Les Aventures de Tintin” from the magazine Le Petit Vingtième)

In past years we have celebrated an exciting cast of public domain characters: the original Mickey Mouse and Winnie-the-Pooh, and the final iterations of Sherlock Holmes from Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories. In 2025 copyright expires over more aspects of Mickey from his 1929 incarnations, along with the initial versions of Popeye and Tintin. As with Pooh and Mickey, it is the original versions of Popeye and Tintin that are public domain. While Popeye 1.0 had superhuman capabilities, he did not derive his strength from eating spinach until 1932. Conversely, Olive Oyl dates from 1919 and has long been in the public domain. (Before Popeye, her boyfriend was named Ham Gravy).

The character Buck Rogers first appeared in 1929 and is public domain in 2025, but technically the futuristic space hero has already been copyright-free for decades, despite claims that he was still copyrighted. This is because the copyright registration for the Buck Rogers comic strip was not renewed, so that its copyright expired after 28 years. Also, the original version of the character was actually introduced in a novella as “Anthony Rogers” in 1928; that character has long been public domain as well.

Musical Compositions

• Singin’ in the Rain, lyrics by Arthur Freed, music by Nacio Herb Brown

• Ain’t Misbehavin’, lyrics by Andy Paul Razaf, music by Thomas W. (“Fats”) Waller & Harry Brooks (from the musical Hot Chocolates)

• An American in Paris, George Gershwin

• Bolero, Maurice Ravel

• (What Did I Do to Be So) Black and Blue, lyrics by Andy Paul Razaf, music by Thomas W. “Fats” Waller & Harry Brooks (a song about racial injustice from the musical Hot Chocolates)

• Tiptoe Through the Tulips, lyrics by Alfred Dubin, music by Joseph Burke

• Happy Days Are Here Again, lyrics by Jack Yellen, music by Milton Ager (the theme song for Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1932 presidential campaign)

• What Is This Thing Called Love?, by Cole Porter (from Porter’s musical Wake Up and Dream)

• Am I Blue?, lyrics by Grant Clarke, music by Harry Akst

• You Were Meant for Me, lyrics by Arthur Freed, music by Nacio Herb Brown

• Honey, lyrics and music by Seymour Simons, Haven Gillespie, and Richard A. Whiting

• Waiting for a Train, lyrics and music by Jimmie Rodgers

This year’s music includes songs by the great Fats Waller, music from movies and musicals, famous classical compositions, jazz standards, and popular music.[5] Only the musical compositions—the music and lyrics that you might see on a piece of sheet music—are entering the public domain, not the recordings of those songs, which are covered by a separate copyright with a different term of protection. The lyrics and music to Tiptoe Through the Tulips were published in 1929 and will be free for anyone to copy, perform, record, adapt, or interpolate into their own song.[6] But the 1968 recording by Tiny Tim is still copyrighted. Note, however, that sound recording rights are more limited than composition rights—you can legally imitate a sound recording (should you be able to channel Tiny Tim’s signature falsetto) even if your imitation sounds exactly the same, you just cannot copy from the actual recording.

Sound Recordings from 1924

• Nobody Knows the Trouble I’ve Seen, recorded by Marian Anderson

• Rhapsody in Blue, recorded by George Gershwin

• Shreveport Stomp, recorded by Jelly Roll Morton

• Lazy, recorded by The Georgians

• Everybody Loves My Baby (But My Baby Don’t Love Nobody But Me), recorded by Louis Armstrong and Clarence Williams' Blue Five

• Deep Blue Sea Blues, recorded by Clara Smith

• The Gouge of Armour Avenue, recorded by Fletcher Henderson and his Orchestra featuring Big Charlie Green

• Mama’s Gone, Good Bye, recorded by Ray Miller and his Orchestra

• It Had To Be You, recorded by the Isham Jones Orchestra and by Marion Harris

• California Here I Come, recorded by Al Jolson

Under a law called the Music Modernization Act, recordings from 1924 will be open for legal reuse, after the conclusion of a 100-year term. There are some incredible performances: George Gershwin performing Rhapsody in Blue, Jelly Roll Morton playing Shreveport Stomp, and an early recording from contralto and civil rights icon Marian Anderson, who is famous for her 1939 performance to an integrated audience of over 75,000 people at the Lincoln Memorial. Anderson’s 1924 recording is of the spiritual Nobody Knows the Trouble I’ve Seen.

As you look through the list above, note that only the 1924 recordings made by these artists are entering the public domain, not their later recordings. Note also that songs first published as part of a movie are treated differently from separate sound recordings because copyright law’s definition of “sound recording” specifically excludes “sounds accompanying a motion picture.” So the 1929 recording of Singin’ in the Rain from the film The Hollywood Revue of 1929 has the same copyright term as the movie and is public domain in 2025, while regular sound recordings from 1929 have the 100-year term and their copyrights won’t expire until 2030. To listen to old recordings, go to the Library of Congress National Jukebox—in 2025 the Library of Congress will make all of the 1924 recordings in its collection available for download, while recordings from 1925 forward will be streaming-only until they are in the public domain.

Art

Copyright will also expire in 2025 over works of art that were published or registered in 1929, including drawings, paintings, and photography. 1929 was when Salvador Dalí moved to Paris and became a key part of the Surrealist art movement, and his Illumined Pleasures, The Accommodations of Desire, and The Great Masturbator will be public domain. While we were able to locate information indicating that those works were published in La Révolution surréaliste or as part of the Dalí exhibition at Goemans, we have not yet found definitive historical information for other artworks, notably René Magritte’s The Treachery of Images.

Magritte’s painting is actually a useful illustration of the intense difficulties in determining the copyright status of many works from long ago. It is only public domain in 2025 if it was “published,” as defined by copyright law, in 1929. If its first publication was not until later, for example at the Palais des Beaux-Arts exhibition in 1933, then the copyright lasts for 95 years after that year. (For never-published, never-registered works, the term is life + 70 years.) Publication status can be more challenging to determine for art than it is for books, songs, or films, which were published when they were officially put on sale or released. Generally, the law looks at whether the art was genuinely released to the public. If it was created but remained only in the artist’s studio, this did not count. But the rules are murky, and “published” is a term of art in copyright law that was not well-defined. Early court cases suggest that artworks were considered published if they were exhibited without restrictions (sometimes there were measures preventing people from copying works on display), circulated in a magazine, catalogue, or other media with authorization, or offered for sale to the public.

Did any of these things occur in 1929 with The Treachery of Images? We are trying to find out. With the help of art historians and librarians, we have combed through catalogues and magazines from the era and biographies of Magritte. We discovered that another version of the image with the pipe reversed appeared in Variétés magazine—that image is public domain in 2025. But out of an abundance of caution, we are still looking into the historical records for information about the famous painting before heralding its official entry into the public domain.

Why Celebrate the Public Domain?

When works go into the public domain, they can legally be shared, without permission or fee. Community theaters can screen the films. Youth orchestras can perform the music publicly, without paying licensing fees. Online repositories such as the Internet Archive, HathiTrust, Google Books, and the New York Public Library can make works fully available online. This helps enable both access to and preservation of cultural materials that might otherwise be lost to history. 1929 was a long time ago, and the vast majority of works from that year are not commercially available. You couldn’t buy them, or even find them, if you wanted. When they enter the public domain in 2025, anyone can rescue them from obscurity and make them available, where we can all discover, enjoy, and breathe new life into them.

The public domain is also a wellspring for creativity. You could think of it as the yin to copyright’s yang. Copyright law gives authors important rights that encourage creativity and distribution—this is a very good thing. But the United States Constitution requires that those rights last only for a “limited time,” so that when they expire, works go into the public domain, where future authors can legally build on the past—reimagining the books, making them into films, adapting the songs and movies. That’s a good thing, too! It is part of copyright’s ecosystem. The point of copyright is to promote creativity, and the public domain plays a central role in doing so.

How does the public domain feed creativity? Here are just two examples from 2024. You may have enjoyed the film Wicked in 2024. Like many of its predecessors, it is based on L. Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz books, and it offers origin stories for the Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda the Good. From the literary realm, Percival Everett’s 2024 novel James reimagines Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from the perspective of Jim, Huckleberry’s friend who is an escaped slave. The novel won the 2024 National Book Award and Kirkus Prize, and was a finalist for the Booker Prize. As summed up by a New York Times review: “‘Huck Finn’ Is a Masterpiece. This Retelling Just Might Be, Too.” Mark Twain famously wanted copyright to last forever—if he had his wish, would his heirs have sued Everett? Thankfully, we did not have to find out, and Everett could publish James without such litigation.

James continues a tradition of retelling iconic works from new character perspectives. When author Alice Randall sought to revisit Gone With the Wind from the slaves’ perspective in The Wind Done Gone (2001), she was sued for copyright infringement. Gone With the Wind is copyrighted until 2032, and Randall only won the right to publish her work after a stressful and expensive lawsuit. (Full disclosure: I know it was stressful because I was one of her lawyers. Remarkably, the book was initially banned by a district court decision before the ban was lifted by the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.)

The works we are celebrating from 1929 also illustrate how the public domain nurtures creativity. Once again, one of the best exemplars is Disney itself, whose beloved works have consistently built upon the public domain. The Mickey cartoons from 1929 are no exception. One of the things that made them so popular was their ingenious reuse of music. At the time, synchronizing moving images with sound was still new, and Walt Disney (correctly) predicted that sound films were the future. Steamboat Willie pioneered a technique that would even become known as “mickey mousing”—synchronizing music with what was occurring on screen. Here is only a partial list of public domain music that could be freely used in the 1929 cartoons. All of these compositions date from before 1880, when the maximum copyright term was 42 years: Blue Danube, Pop Goes the Weasel, Yankee Doodle, Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush, Ach Du Lieber Augustin, Listen to the Mocking Bird, A-Hunting We Will Go, Dixie, The Girl I Left Behind Me, a tune known as the snake charmer song, Coming Thru the Rye, Mary Had a Little Lamb, Auld Lang Syne, Aloha ‘Oe, Turkey in the Straw, My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean, Habanera and Toreador Song from Carmen, Lizst’s Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, and Goodnight, Ladies.

This is the promise of the public domain. Who knows what this year’s newly public domain works might inspire? Yes, inevitably there will be slasher films, trying to trade on the shock of putting a familiar character in an unfamiliar genre. They may even generate a lot of buzz—their creators certainly hope so. But the ability freely to revisit public domain works spurs a much wider range of creativity, likely to have more lasting impact. Think of all the films, cartoons, books, plays, musicals, video games, songs, and other works based on Greek mythology, the works of Shakespeare, Jane Austen’s novels, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, or Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. What remakes stand the test of time? With Shakespeare, some of the works that come to mind range from The Lion King to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (from Hamlet), and from West Side Story (from Romeo and Juliet) to 10 Things I Hate About You and Kiss Me Kate (from The Taming of the Shrew). From the serious to the whimsical, these are public domain reuses with more enduring appeal. Far from dimming the luster of the original works, they have allowed their legacy to live on.

Note that the public domain extends beyond works whose copyrights have expired. Some material is born in the public domain. Ideas, facts, and raw data can never be copyrighted. The public domain also includes official works of the US government such as legislation, legal opinions, and even NASA images. The images from the James Webb telescope, the NASA collections NASA on The Commons (flickr) and NASA image and video library, the famous “Earthrise” photograph taken by astronaut William Anders, and the Farm Security Administration - Office of War Information Photograph Collection (a pictorial record of American life from 1935-1944) are all copyright-free. Another category of public domain material consists of works that creators choose to dedicate to the public domain, and many have done so using Creative Commons’ CC0 tool.

How do copyright and trademark law apply to characters?

When Mickey Mouse 1.0 went into the public domain last year, he joined a host of other public domain characters—Winnie-the-Pooh, Sherlock Holmes, Snow White, Cinderella, Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, Robin Hood, Santa Claus, and the Wonderful Wizard of Oz characters, to name a few. This year, we get new iterations of Mickey and Minnie, and the first versions of Popeye and Tintin (plus the dog Snowy). Looking ahead, an exciting new cast of characters will become public domain in the coming years: Betty Boop and Pluto (originally named Rover) in 2026, Goofy in 2028 (originally named Dippy Dawg), Mary Poppins and Donald Duck in 2030, Superman in 2034, Batman in 2035, Tom and Jerry and Bugs Bunny in 2036, and Wonder Woman in 2037.

When the copyright expires over a creative work, the characters within that work enter the public domain, and you can use them in new works without permission or fee. What if those characters also appear in more recent works that remain copyrighted? You can still use the public domain version of the character, as well as uncopyrightable elements from later iterations. But you cannot use new, still-copyrighted versions of the character until those rights expire (unless your use qualifies as “fair use”). Here are the basic rules.

First, under US copyright law, anyone is free to use characters as they appeared in public domain works. If those characters recur in later works that are still under copyright, the rights only extend to the newly added material in those works, not the underlying material from the public domain works—that content remains freely available.

Second, with newer versions of characters, copyright only extends to their features that qualify for protection. It is not enough for the new material to be different. The features must be “original, creative expression,” meaning that they were independently created (as opposed to copied from somewhere else) and possess at least a modicum of creativity. Mere “ideas” such as generic character traits are not copyrightable. Nor are “merely trivial” or “miniscule” variations added to the original characters. In addition, using commonplace elements that have become standard or indispensable (copyright law calls these “scènes à faire”) is not infringement.[7]

Not all characters will be copyrightable independently of the stories in which they appear. In a famous case from 1930, a judge explained why two lovers from a play were uncopyrightable: “The lovers are so faintly indicated as to be no more than stage properties. They are loving and fertile; that is really all that can be said of them, and anyone else is quite within his rights if he puts loving and fertile lovers in a play of his own, wherever he gets the cue.” Another famous case actually involved a work that is featured in this year’s celebration, The Maltese Falcon. You might reasonably assume that the hard-boiled, tough-guy detective Sam Spade just become copyright-free in 2025. Intriguingly, no. In 1954, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that he was never copyrightable to begin with. It explained that a character was only copyrightable if it “really constitutes the story being told, but if the character is only the chessman in the game of telling the story, he is not within the area of the protection afforded by the copyright.” If characters were merely “vehicles for the story told,” they were not themselves copyrightable.[8]

Later cases have retreated from this stringent standard, however. Mickey Mouse, the characters from Sylvester Stallone’s Rocky movies, and even the Batmobile (even though it was a car that “lacks sentient attributes and does not speak”) were all held to be copyrightable characters. On the other hand, “The Moodsters” – five color-coded characters that represented human emotions – were deemed uncopyrightable. The creator of The Moodsters had claimed that Disney infringed her copyright in these characters with its first Inside Out movie. Among other things, the court explained that “using a color to represent a mood or emotion” was an uncopyrightable idea, and found that The Moodsters lacked “consistent, identifiable character traits and attributes.”

What if the character is no longer copyrighted, but its name or image is still subject to trademark rights? Copyrights and trademarks are different. Copyrights cover creative works and prevent people from copying and adapting them without permission, with the goal of providing economic incentives to create and distribute cultural material. Trademarks cover words, logos, images, and other signifiers that serve as brands identifying the source of a product. Nike can prevent other producers of athletic apparel from putting “Nike” or a swoosh on their merchandise so that when purchasers see those indicators, they know they are getting a Nike product.

Trademark law is all about preventing consumer confusion, and not about getting in the way of creativity. You can use a character's name or image in a new creative work, so long as consumers are not likely to be misled into thinking that your work is produced or sponsored by the trademark holder. One way to help ensure that consumers are not confused is to make the actual source of the work – you or your company – clear on the title screen or cover, along with a prominent disclaimer indicating that your work was not produced, endorsed, licensed, or approved by the trademark owner.

Hearst Holdings owns the trademark rights to “Popeye” for products such as cartoon strips, "costumed figures" for musical plays and theatrical shows, amusement parks, advertising services, and clothing. These trademark rights are limited, and do not extend to unrelated products. “Popeyes” chicken and biscuits can coexist with Hearst's “Popeye” the sailor products, just as Dove soap and Dove chocolate, or Delta faucets and Delta airlines, can use the same brand name even though they are different companies.

Now that Popeye 1.0 is in the public domain, can you use “Popeye” in a new work featuring the public domain character? The answer should be yes, so long as people do not think Hearst is producing or sponsoring your work. In fact, trademark law has a number of speech-protecting limitations that safeguard such artistic uses. One defense allows “nominative use” of a trademark as a point of reference – for example, using “Popeye” accurately to refer to the character in your work. Another comes from a case called Rogers v. Grimaldi, which privileged the use of trademarks in titles of expressive works when the term has some artistic relevance to the new work and does not explicitly mislead as to the source of the work. While a disclaimer is not required to benefit from these limitations, it can nevertheless be useful to make abundantly clear that you are not providing an official Hearst production.

Hearst has recently sought to extend its rights beyond the “Popeye” name, and filed two applications for federal trademark registrations of graphical depictions of Popeye. One application seeks to trademark the image to the right for various “entertainment services” including films and television series, and the other deals with NFTs. The trademark office has not granted the applications because, at least as of November 2024, Hearst has not begun using the Popeye images as brand identifiers for the relevant products. Until it does so, it cannot own trademark rights in those images.

Even if Hearst does begin using the images in commerce and successfully obtains trademark rights, you can still legally put the 1929 Popeye character in a new creative work in a way that does not mislead purchasers into thinking they are getting a Hearst-branded product. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court said that trademarks cannot be used to make an end run around copyright law because this would “create a species of mutant copyright law that limits the public’s federal right to copy and to use expired copyrights.” In other words, trademark rights cannot be used to block the freedoms that the expiration of copyright allows, such as using a public domain character in a book or movie. As with the “Popeye” name, one way to help dispel potential confusion is to make it clear that you are responsible for the new work, and to add a disclaimer indicating that your work is not produced or sponsored by Hearst.

You can read a fuller analysis here about how all of these rules applied to Mickey Mouse when he entered the public domain.

What is the impact of the long copyright term?

For copyrighted culture, the public domain arrives only after a long wait. Works from 1929 were first set to go into the public domain after a 56-year term in 1985, but a term extension pushed that date to 2005. They were then supposed to go into the public domain in 2005, after being copyrighted for 75 years. But before this could happen, Congress hit another 20-year pause button and extended their copyright term to 95 years. Now the wait is over.

Many of the works featured above are famous; that is why we included them. Their copyright holders benefitted from 20 more years of copyright because the works were still earning royalties. But they are just the tip of the iceberg. When Congress extended the copyright term for these works, it also did so for all of the works whose commercial viability had long lapsed. For the vast majority—probably 99%—of works from 1929, no copyright holder financially benefited from continued copyright. Yet they remained off limits, for no good reason. A Congressional Research Service report indicated that only around 2% of copyrights between 55 and 75 years old retain commercial value. After 75 years, that percentage is even lower. Most older works are “orphan works,” where the copyright owner cannot be found at all.

This is why a former head of our Copyright Office concluded that adding an extra 20 years to the US copyright term was a “big mistake.” Indeed, there is a consensus among policymakers, economists, and academics that lengthy copyright extensions impose costs that far outweigh their benefits. Why? The benefits are minuscule—economists (including five Nobel laureates) have shown that term extension does not spur additional creativity. At the same time, it causes enormous harm, locking away millions of older works that are no longer generating any revenue for the copyright holders. Films have disintegrated because preservationists can’t digitize them. The works of historians and journalists are incomplete. Artists find their cultural heritage off limits.

The public domain enables the rediscovery and reuse of works that might otherwise be forgotten. Empirical studies have shown that public domain books are less expensive, available in more editions and formats, and more likely to be in print—see here, here, and here. The works highlighted above are just a tiny snapshot of what will be copyright-free. Many more are waiting to be found and appreciated.

While the arrival of works into the public domain is cause for celebration, the length of the copyright term means that even though works from 1929 are legally available, this does always not mean they are actually available. Many films from the era have been lost forever. Even the successful films we have highlighted here are incomplete—footage is missing from The Broadway Melody, Gold Diggers of Broadway, Show Boat, and Say It With Songs.

The fact that works from 1929 are legally available also does not mean that rights holders won't continue to claim copyright over them. In 2023, we covered the Sherlock Holmes saga. The ingenious detective and his faithful sidekick Dr. Watson had been in the public domain for a long time. But that did not stop Conan Doyle Estate Ltd. from demanding licensing fees. Most people simply paid up. But when Leslie Klinger, a lawyer and Sherlock Holmes scholar, fought back, a court decisively confirmed that all of the elements in the out-of-copyright Sherlock Holmes stories are “free for public use.”

The estate appealed, in a move that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals described as bordering on the “frivolous” and “quixotic.” The appeals court affirmed Klinger’s right to use the Holmes and Watson characters and awarded him attorney’s fees. Judge Richard Posner called out the estate’s “unlawful business strategy”:

The Doyle estate’s business strategy is plain: charge a modest license fee for which there is no legal basis, in the hope that the "rational" writer or publisher asked for the fee will pay it rather than incur a greater cost, in legal expenses, in challenging the legality of the demand…only Klinger (so far as we know) resisted. In effect, he was a private attorney general, combating a disreputable business practice — a form of extortion…It’s time the estate, in its own self-interest, changed its business model. Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate (7th Cir. 2014)

Such court decisions have not deterred other rights holders from claiming copyright over public domain properties. To take one example, the owners of the rights to Charlie Chaplin’s films have been sending aggressive letters to small community theaters telling them that they cannot screen Chaplin films that are legally in the public domain. The letters contain assertions about US copyright law that are, to use the technical term, bogus. To be sure, Chaplin was a genius and his successors have legitimate rights over his still-copyrighted films. But they do not have the right to squelch activities that are entirely legal.

The Chaplin Office nevertheless claims that the 1925 film The Gold Rush cannot be screened because the copyright in the underlying screenplay does not expire until 70 years after Chaplin’s death, or the end of 2047, because Chaplin was British, and his copyright was restored under special rules for works by foreign authors. (They focus on the screenplay because the film entered the public domain in 1953 due to non-renewal of its copyright.) Even if this restoration met copyright’s requirements (it does not appear to) there is a more basic mistake in their calculation: they cite to the wrong provision of US copyright law, §303, for the life + 70 term, ignoring that it is only for works that were “created but not published or copyrighted before January 1, 1978.” The Copyright Office records show that the screenplay was copyrighted in 1925, and for such works the law states that the copyright lasts for “the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted in the United States,” which is 95 years under §304 of the Copyright Act, making the work public domain in 2021. Case closed.

What are the basic rules for determining whether something is public domain?

How long does copyright last in the United States? The 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act gave works published or registered before 1978 a 95-year term, expiring on January 1 after the conclusion of the 95th year. Doing the math, you add 96 years to the publication date. Works from 1929 were copyrighted for 95 years—through 2024—and are in the public domain January 1, 2025. This year's featured works are in the public domain because of either a 1929 registration or publication with a 1929 copyright notice. We were also able to track down the renewal data indicating that they are still in-copyright through the end of 2024 and entering the public domain in 2025.

Works published before 1978 had to meet certain requirements to be eligible for the full 95-year term—they had to be published with a copyright notice, and works from before 1964 also had to have their copyrights renewed after an initial 28-year term. Works published from 1978 through 3/1/1989 without a notice had to register their copyrights within five years to fix the lack of copyright notice. This means that many works published after 1929 might technically be in the public domain. However, as a practical matter, users sometimes have to assume they’re still copyrighted (or risk a lawsuit) because the relevant copyright information is difficult to find. We do not have clear and comprehensive records of copyright ownership and older records can be fragmentary, confused, or lost. In addition, as mentioned earlier, the concept of "publication" is important and has a special meaning under copyright law. It refers to when the work was sold or distributed to the general public with the authority of the copyright owner. Determining whether and when publication occurred can be complicated and vary depending on the kind of work—with music from before 1978, for example, only distribution in written form counted as a publication.

For pre-1978 works that were never published or registered, the term is different: life-plus-70 years for works by natural persons, and 120 years from creation for works of corporate authorship. In this category, works created by people who died in 1954 are in the public domain in 2025. Newer works created since 1978 are also treated differently from those published before 1978. Works by natural persons from 1978 forward have a life-plus-70 term, while works of corporate authorship are copyrighted for 95 years after publication. This is the copyright term for works created today, and there are no longer notice or renewal requirements.

What about foreign works? Some countries have a life-plus-50 term and many others, including EU countries, have a life-plus-70-year term, even for the older works that have the 95-year term in the US. This means that works might be copyrighted in one country and copyright-free in another. For example, Tintin enters the US public domain in 2025 but is still copyrighted in the EU until 2054, because the author died in 1983. In life-plus-70 jurisdictions, works from authors who died in 1954 are public domain this year, so they are celebrating a different set of works on Public Domain Day. How do you know which law applies to you? As a general matter, courts have said that users are governed by the law in the jurisdiction where they are using the creative work. But this inquiry can be more complicated and depend on the circumstances surrounding the use.

In the US, many foreign works from 1929 are copyrighted until 2025 because of a provision that, in 1996, restored copyright over certain foreign works that had fallen into the US public domain because of non-compliance with notice or renewal requirements. This restored term applies to many of the foreign works we are highlighting. You can learn more about how this functions from the Copyright Office's circular Copyright Restoration Under the URAA. If the owners of copyright in foreign works filed a Notice of Intent to Enforce their restored copyright, you can find that information here. You can also find copyright restoration records in the Copyright Office records or the Copyright Office’s search portal here.

What is the copyright term for sound recordings? The Music Modernization Act’s “Classics Protection and Access Act” established a timeline for old recordings to enter the public domain. Recordings first published between 1923–1946 are public domain in January 2024–2047 (the year after a 100-year term). Then there is a ten-year pause from 2048–2058. After that, recordings first published between 1947–1956 are public domain in January 2058–2067, after a 110-year term. The term for all remaining recordings first fixed from 1957 until February 15, 1972 ends on February 15, 2067. Note that the term of protection for sound recordings in other countries is different from the one in the US: in the EU it is 70 years, and elsewhere it is 50 years.

Want to learn more about the public domain? Here is the legal background on how we got our current copyright terms (including summaries of court cases), why the public domain matters, and answers to Frequently Asked Questions. You can also read James Boyle’s book The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind (Yale University Press, 2008)—naturally, you can read the full text of The Public Domain online at no cost, and you are free to copy and redistribute it for non-commercial purposes.

More information on the copyright term can be found on this excellent chart on Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States. For additional guidance from the Copyright Office, see its circulars on Duration of Copyright, How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work, and Copyright Restoration Under the URAA. For a detailed guide to identifying public domain material, you can purchase Stephen Fishman’s The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More. You can also read “In Ambiguous Battle: The Promise (and Pathos) of Public Domain Day,” an article by Center Director Jennifer Jenkins revealing the promise and the limits of various attempts to reverse the erosion of the public domain, referring to a previous Public Domain Day.

[1] Our featured works are only entering the public domain under US copyright law. The copyright term for older works is different in other countries. In the EU, works from authors who died in 1954 are going into the public domain in 2025 after a life-plus-70 year term. As a general matter, under the principle of lex loci delicti, users are governed by the law in the jurisdiction where they are using the creative work. See Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1998). But this inquiry can be more complicated and fact-specific.

[2] Even though a work is still in-copyright, you may legally use it in certain ways if your activity qualifies for copyright’s “fair use” exception.

[3] In the US, only the author’s works from 1929 and earlier are in the public domain, not all of the other work published by that author. With regard to newly copyright-free works, only the original versions published in 1929 are entering the US public domain. Later versions of them—adaptations, movies, or translations—may still be copyrighted. However, the later copyright only covers newly added creative material. The original content from the 1929 work remains free. If a film has been restored or reconstructed, only original and creative additions are eligible for copyright; if a restoration faithfully mimics the preexisting film, it does not contain newly copyrightable material. Putting skill, labor, and money into a project is not enough to qualify it for copyright. The Supreme Court has made clear that “the sine qua non of copyright is originality.”

As you look through these works from 1929, please note that they offer a temporal cross section of our cultural past, capturing the era in its complexity. Unfortunately, many of the works from 1929 contain racist and sexist stereotypes and demeaning language. When such works enter the public domain, anyone is free to critique and remake them, even if doing so goes beyond what would be allowed under copyright’s fair use doctrine.

[4] The Maltese Falcon initially appeared as a series of five installments in Black Mask magazine. Even though the final installment was published in January 1930, it was copyrighted in December 1929, making the full story public domain in 2025. The book version of The Maltese Falcon was then published in 1930—while it made textual edits to the serialized version, the plot and events are the same as the public domain story.

[5] Both An American in Paris and Bolero were written and performed in 1928, but the copyright records show a date of 1929. Under copyright law at the time, musical compositions were not copyrighted until a manuscript was published with a copyright notice, and we did not find sheet music with a 1928 copyright notice. Therefore, in an abundance of caution, we did not highlight them until 2025.

[6] Note that US copyright law allows you to cover a song without permission while it is still copyrighted under the “compulsory license” in §115, so long as you do not “change the basic melody or fundamental character” of the original song and pay a pre-set royalty rate. When a song is in the public domain, you can make covers without complying with this provision, and you can also make other adaptations, performances, and interpolations.

[7] See the Copyright Office Compendium. Courts have held that being “nice,” having a “cocky attitude,” and being “young, attractive, and sarcastic” are not independently copyrightable character traits. See Shame on You Prods. v. Banks (C.D. Cal. 2015, aff’d 9th Cir. 2017); Campbell v. Walt Disney Co. (N.D. Cal. 2010); Gable v. Nat’l Broad. Co. (C.D. Cal. 2010).

[8] This decision was driven in part by the unusual circumstances of the case. Dashiell Hammett, author of The Maltese Falcon, had sold his rights to Warner Brothers, who was then trying to stop Hammett from using the characters he originally created in new stories.

Written by Jennifer Jenkins. Special thanks to Sean Dudley for researching works and images from 1929 and creating video content, and to Michael Wright and Isaiah Cooper for building this site.

This article (and the website it originates from) is not official legal advice. Instead, it is a summary of United States law relevant to the public domain and a guide to some of the works entering the public domain in 2025.

ICYMI: Could KDE & Gnome Have Their Own Distro?

by Paul Arnote (parnote)

Having spent the better part of a decade being infamous for its RAM usage, Chrome is now on a bit of an apology tour, according to an article from Lifehacker. Recently, the browser has added many performance features to help curb its memory usage, but Google's efforts to improve Chrome's performance go beyond that. Some features are there purely to save RAM usage and increase speed, but some will also limit resources to increase your battery life, and then there are features that help make the browser feel faster. With the new features in Chrome, you can keep an eye on tab memory load, suspend inactive tabs to help save memory, use energy saver on your laptop, leverage the use of extended preloading, and provide performance issue alerts.

ESET researchers have uncovered Bootkitty, the first-ever UEFI bootkit designed to target Linux systems, according to an article from Cyber Insider. This malware marks a significant evolution in the UEFI threat landscape, previously dominated by Windows-focused bootkits. While Bootkitty appears to be a proof-of-concept and has not yet been observed in active attacks, its existence signals a concerning shift for Linux-based platforms.

Blue Yonder, a prominent supply chain software provider, has been targeted in a ransomware attack, leading to disruption at major retail outlets, according to an article from TechRepublic. Starbucks and several major U.K. supermarkets experienced disruption due to a ransomware attack on the prominent supply chain software provider Blue Yonder. The company disclosed the incident on Thursday, Nov. 21, and it was still working to restore services the following Monday. The disruption to the Blue Yonder platform prevented Starbucks from paying its baristas and managing their schedules, according to the Wall Street Journal. As a result, café managers had to manually calculate their employees’ pay using their scheduled shifts, leaving a larger margin for error as actual hours worked may not line up. Sainsbury’s and Morrisons, two of the largest supermarket chains in the U.K., were also impacted, according to trade magazine The Grocer. Sainsbury’s said it had contingencies in place to mitigate any disruption and had restored all operations.

KDE and GNOME have decided that because they're not big and complicated enough already, they might work better if they have their own custom distributions underneath, according to an article from The Register. What's the worst that could happen? A talk from this year's KDE conference, Akademy 2024, looks like it's going to become real. The talk, by KDE developer Harald Sitter, was titled An Operating System of Our Own, and the idea sounds simple enough: Sitter proposed an official KDE Linux distribution. Now the proposal is gathering steam and a plan is coming together for an official KDE Linux – codenamed “Project Banana.”

Windows 11 24H2 doesn't work well with cache-less WD SSDs, Ubisoft games, Asus devices, fingerprint sensors, and much more. We can now add USB scanners and devices using the eSCL scan protocol to the troublesome issues, according to an article from TechSpot. Microsoft recently confirmed the problem through its ever-growing list of known Windows 11 24H2 problems. Microsoft notes that after installing Windows 11 version 24H2, USB devices supporting eSCL tech may not be discoverable anymore. The eSCL protocol provides support for USB peripherals with no need for specific system drivers. The protocol is the default communication method in MacOS, Linux, and Windows – usually. Thanks to eSCL, networked scanners can be reliably used over Ethernet, Wi-Fi networks, and USB connections. This new issue is caused by a device becoming unable to switch from eSCL mode to USB mode, thus preventing Windows from matching the most suitable system driver with the connected device.

Doctors have long taken for granted a devil’s bargain: Relieving intense pain, such as that caused by surgery and traumatic injury, risks inducing the sort of pleasure that could leave patients addicted, says an article from The Atlantic. Opioids are among the most powerful, if not the most powerful, pain medications ever known, but for many years they have been a source of staggering morbidity and mortality. New research, published in Science Advances, suggests that using opioids to relieve physical suffering without risking addiction is in fact possible. In the study, a team of researchers led by the neuroscientists Francis Lee at Weill Cornell Medicine and Anjali Rajadhyaksha at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University blocked the rewarding properties of opioids in mice while preserving the drugs’ analgesic effects.

Image by HoAnneLo from Pixabay

Researchers have made a discovery that could make quantum computing more compact, potentially shrinking essential components 1,000 times while also requiring less equipment, according to an article from SciTechDaily. A class of quantum computers being developed now relies on light particles, or photons, created in pairs linked or “entangled” in quantum physics parlance. One way to produce these photons is to shine a laser on millimeter-thick crystals and use optical equipment to ensure the photons become linked. A drawback to this approach is that it is too big to integrate into a computer chip. Now, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NTU Singapore) scientists have found a way to address this approach’s problem by producing linked pairs of photons using much thinner materials that are just 1.2 micrometers thick, or about 80 times thinner than a strand of hair. And they did so without needing additional optical gear to maintain the link between the photon pairs, making the overall setup simpler.

The U.K.’s competition regulator has raised concerns about Apple’s dominance in the mobile browser market, according to an article from TechRepublic. The Competition and Markets Authority said (PDF) on Nov. 22 that Apple restricts competition by limiting the use of rival browsers on its iOS devices and effectively requiring developers to use its WebKit browser engine. This could stifle innovation among competitors, leading to reduced choice for consumers. Currently, any browser available for iOS must use WebKit. The CMA report says WebKit limits the ways browser providers can differentiate from one another. It also claims that third-party browsers built with WebKit do not have the same level of access and functionality as Safari.

Now we know who “took down” the Internet Archive site with a DDoS attack. According to an article on Gizmodo, a pro-Palestinian hacktivist group called SN_BLACKMETA has taken responsibility for the hack on X and Telegram. “They are under attack because the archive belongs to the USA, and as we all know, this horrendous and hypocritical government supports the genocide that is being carried out by the terrorist state of ‘Israel,’” the group said on X when someone asked them why they’d gone after the Archive. The group elaborated on its reasoning in a now-deleted post on X. Jason Scott, an archivist at the Archive, screenshotted it and shared it. “Everyone calls this organization ‘non-profit’, but if its roots are truly in the United States, as we believe, then every ‘free’ service they offer bleeds millions of lives. Foreign nations are not carrying their values beyond their borders. Many petty children are crying in the comments and most of those comments are from a group of Zionist bots and fake accounts,” the post said.

Image by Wolfgang Eckert from Pixabay

Quantum computers have the potential to revolutionize drug discovery, material design and fundamental physics — that is, if we can get them to work reliably, says a Google blog post. Certain problems, which would take a conventional computer billions of years to solve, would take a quantum computer just hours. However, these new processors are more prone to noise than conventional ones. If we want to make quantum computers more reliable, especially at scale, we need to accurately identify and correct these errors. In a paper published today in Nature, we introduce AlphaQubit, an AI-based decoder that identifies quantum computing errors with state-of-the-art accuracy. This collaborative work brought together Google DeepMind’s machine learning knowledge and Google Quantum AI’s error correction expertise to accelerate progress on building a reliable quantum computer. Accurately identifying errors is a critical step towards making quantum computers capable of performing long computations at scale, opening the doors to scientific breakthroughs and many new areas of discovery.

An international team of researchers has observed a rare and unusual supernova, identifying it as the most metal-poor stellar explosion ever recorded, according to an article from SciTechDaily. Named 2023ufx, this supernova resulted from the core collapse of a red supergiant star and occurred on the outskirts of a nearby dwarf galaxy. Both the supernova and the host galaxy were found to have extremely low metallicity, meaning they contain very few elements heavier than hydrogen or helium.

Do you want to see ChatGPT literally “choke?” According to an article from ArsTechnica, typing any one of at least five names into ChatGPT will cause it to respond with “I am unable to produce a response,” or “There was an error in generating a response,” and it will terminate the chat session. These five names (who knows … there may be more) are people who have threatened to sue OpenAI, so their names have been added as hard-coded filters, causing ChatGPT to end the chat session(s). Those names? Well, so far that list includes Brian Hood, Jonathan Turley, Jonathan Zittrain, David Faber, and Guido Scorza.

NASA/Webb/ESA/CSA

The James Webb Space Telescope just keeps on shattering its own records, especially when it comes to just how far “into the past” it can see. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has discovered a handful of possible galaxies that could be among the earliest to ever exist, says an article from LiveScience. Located 13.6 billion light-years away and just 200 million years after the Big Bang, the five galaxy candidates are the earliest ever detected, and likely some of the first to have formed in the ancient universe. If confirmed by follow-up observations, the ancient galaxies will offer astronomers a test of their best theories of galaxy formation, along with unique insights into how matter first coalesced across the cosmos. The researchers published their findings Nov. 26 on the preprint database arXiv, so they have not yet been peer-reviewed.

In late November, 2024, NASA released its “Astronomy Picture of the Day” — actually a combo of two pictures, taken two decades apart, reports an article from Newser. The first is a 20-year-old photo taken by the Hubble Space Telescope of the so-called Sombrero Galaxy, a galaxy nearly 30 million light-years away whose oval brim and hazy, glowing, bulging center made it look like a piece of signature Mexican headwear. However, based on a new image taken by the James Webb Space Telescope, “astronomers may have to rename it the visor galaxy,” reports Mashable. That's because the latest photo looks “more like a bull's-eye than a hat,” per Live Science, showing a “more elegant, subtle structure with a smooth inner disk,” a more detailed outer ring, and none of the signature haze in the middle that made the galaxy resemble a sombrero. The discrepancy can be attributed to the fact that the Webb Space Telescope shows the galaxy as seen through mid-infrared wavelengths, which pierces through the cloudy bands of dust and gas that hover around the galaxy. The Hubble Space Telescope's photo was taken in visible light. The clearer picture now offered can shed some light on what the Sombrero Galaxy, aka Messier 104, is made of, and on the fact that it appears to harbor what LiveScience calls a “secret star factory,” as shown by the clumps in its outer ring that are believed to churn out new stars.

Open source Wi-Fi router project OpenWrt and the Software Freedom Conservancy have delivered their first jointly developed hardware platform – the OpenWrt One – and are trumpeting it as a triumph of the right to repair movement, according to an article from The Register. OpenWrt is widely used by commercial router-makers, who take advantage of its GNU General Public License Version 2 to accelerate development of mostly consumer- and SOHO-grade hardware. In January 2024, contributors revealed they had contemplated celebrating the project's 20th anniversary by creating its own hardware. Existing informal efforts to build a device using Banana Pi hardware were felt to demonstrate the task was not immense, and the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) – of which OpenWrt is a member project – was willing to help. Fast-forward to November 29 and the device debuted – just in time for Black Friday sales (and probable delivery before Christmas, at least at the time of publication). Known as the OpenWrt One, the box boasts a dual-core MediaTek MT7981B processor, and a MT7697 Wi-Fi 6 chip from the same vendor. You can currently purchase the open source router from AliExpress.

An unknown disease killed 143 people in Democratic Republic of the Congo's southwestern province in November, local authorities told Reuters, according to an article from U.S. News & World Report. Infected people had flu-like symptoms, including high fever and severe headaches, Remy Saki, deputy governor of Kwango province, and Apollinaire Yumba, provincial minister of health, said on Monday. A medical team has been sent to the Panzi health zone to collect samples and carry out an analysis in order to identify the disease.

Amid an unprecedented cyberattack on telecommunications companies such as AT&T and Verizon, U.S. officials have recommended that Americans use encrypted messaging apps to ensure their communications stay hidden from foreign hackers, reports an article from NBC News. The hacking campaign, nicknamed Salt Typhoon by Microsoft, is one of the largest intelligence compromises in U.S. history, and it has not yet been fully remediated. Officials on a news call Tuesday refused to set a timetable for declaring the country’s telecommunications systems free of interlopers. Officials had told NBC News that China hacked AT&T, Verizon and Lumen Technologies to spy on customers.

Candela, the Swedish electric boat maker known for its hydrofoil recreational boats and commercial ferries, is grabbing headlines yet again, according to an article from Electrek. This time the company is announcing a new C-series funding round and the first P-12 electric ferry headed to the US. Specifically, it is slated to be introduced at Lake Tahoe. The P-12 is the company’s first operational hydrofoil electric ferry, and it builds upon the success of the C-7 and C-8 recreational speed boats. All three employ Candela’s sophisticated computer-controlled hydrofoil technology that allows the boats to quite literally fly several feet above the water. Traveling at 25 knots (30 mph), the P-12 is the fastest electric ferry in operation, all while using a fraction of the same energy.

In a stroke of irony, the Chinese government is investigating U.S. chipmaker NVIDIA for allegedly violating its anti-monopoly law by acquiring interconnect provider Mellanox, according to an article from TechRepublic. On Monday, the State Administration for Market Regulation made a statement via China Central Television announcing the investigation, but it does not discuss the specifics of NVIDIA’s suspected violations. The authority approved NVIDIA’s $6.9 billion acquisition of Mellanox, an Israeli company, in 2020 with certain conditions. These aimed to prevent the tech giant from restricting competition in the markets of GPU acceleration, private internetworking devices, and high-speed Ethernet adapters.

A new proof has brought mathematicians one step closer to understanding the hidden order of those “atoms of arithmetic,” the prime numbers, according to an article from Quanta Magazine. The primes — numbers that are only divisible by themselves and 1 — are the most fundamental building blocks in math. They’re also the most mysterious. At first glance, they seem to be scattered at random across the number line. But of course, the primes aren’t random. They’re completely determined, and a closer look at them reveals all sorts of strange patterns, which mathematicians have spent centuries trying to unravel. A better understanding of how the primes are distributed would illuminate vast swaths of the mathematical universe.

Photobucket was sued on December 11, 2024, after a recent privacy policy update revealed plans to sell users' photos — including biometric identifiers like face and iris scans — to companies training generative AI models, according to an article from ArsTechnica. The proposed class action seeks to stop Photobucket from selling users' data without first obtaining written consent, alleging that Photobucket either intentionally or negligently failed to comply with strict privacy laws in states like Illinois, New York, and California by claiming it can't reliably determine users' geolocation. Two separate classes could be protected by the litigation. The first includes anyone who ever uploaded a photo between 2003—when Photobucket was founded—and May 1, 2024. Another potentially even larger class includes any non-users depicted in photographs uploaded to Photobucket, whose biometric data has also allegedly been sold without consent.

Most web browsers currently have a feature called “Do Not Track” hidden in settings. In the case of Mozilla’s Firefox browser, Windows Report has spotted a change in the upcoming version — the setting is gone, according to an article from TechCrunch. But this doesn’t mean what you think it means. As the name suggests, if you have “Do Not Track” enabled when you load a web page, it sends a request to the website stating that you don’t want to be tracked. However, websites have no reason to respect the signal — meaning the setting is useless (and misleading). Even worse, “Do Not Track” isn’t just ignored, it had the opposite effect as it provided a signal to websites that could be used to identify users and track them better. That’s exactly why Apple removed “Do Not Track” from Safari in 2019.

New research found that the protein MANF helps cells manage toxic protein clumps, improving cellular health and potentially aiding treatments for age-related diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, according to an article from SciTechDaily. Researchers at McMaster University have uncovered a previously unidentified cell-protective role of a protein, potentially paving the way for new treatments for age-related diseases and promoting healthier aging. The team has found that a class of protective proteins known as MANF plays a role in the process that keeps cells efficient and working well. The findings appear in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Researchers cracked a Microsoft Azure method for multifactor authentication (MFA) in about an hour, due to a critical vulnerability that allowed them unauthorized access to a user's account, including Outlook emails, OneDrive files, Teams chats, Azure Cloud, and more, according to an article from Dark Reading. Researchers at Oasis Security discovered the flaw, which was present due to a lack of rate limit for the amount of times someone could attempt to sign in with MFA and fail when trying to access an account, they revealed in a blog post on Dec. 11. The flaw exposed the more than 400 million paid Microsoft 365 seats to potential account takeover, they said. When signing into a Microsoft account, a user supplies their email and password and then selects a pre-configured MFA method. In the case used by the researchers, they are given a code by Microsoft via another form of communication to facilitate sign-in.

Image by James from Pixabay

According to an article from BC News (Boston College), researchers have paired a specialized diet and a tumor-fighting drug and found the non-toxic combination helps to destroy the two major cells found in an aggressive form of brain cancer, the team reports in the online edition of the Nature group journal Communications Biology. The international team combined a calorie-restricted diet high in fat and low in carbohydrates with a tumor-inhibiting antibiotic and found the combination destroys cancer stem cells and mesenchymal cells, the two major cells found in glioblastoma, a fast-moving brain cancer that resists traditional treatment protocols.

According to an article from Lifehacker, Google doesn't have the best track record when it comes to user privacy, but it's getting better. The company's messaging app, Google Messages, now comes pre-installed on most new Android devices and advertises its conversations as end-to-end encrypted. Based on the way Google publicizes its app, you might think using it means all your chats with friends, family, and colleagues are protected. But they're not. Check out the article to discover when Google Messages does not employ end-to-end encryption.

Three men died when their car veered off an unfinished bridge and fell onto a riverbed in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, in India, according to an article from the BBC. Police are still investigating the incident, which took place on Sunday, but they believe that Google Maps led the group to take that route. A part of the bridge had reportedly collapsed earlier this year because of floods and while locals knew this and avoided the bridge, the three men were not aware of this and were from outside the area. There were no barricades or sign boards indicating that the bridge was unfinished. Authorities have named four engineers from the state's road department and an unnamed official from Google Maps in a police complaint on charges of culpable homicide.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

ChatGPT search has been out now for about a month and a half, following a Halloween announcement from OpenAI, according to an article from Lifehacker. With this new feature, the company finally rolled out an official competitor to AI search engines like Perplexity, Google's AI Overviews, and Microsoft Bing (powered by Copilot). OpenAI originally announced its search plans back in July, with a service called SearchGPT. While SearchGPT was a prototype and launched with a waitlist to try it, ChatGPT search took its place, with OpenAI rolling SearchGPT's main features into its new search feature. The feature originally launched to paid subscribers only, but now, all users can access it.

Google faces a £7 billion legal claim over search engine advertising. A £7 billion legal claim against Google which accuses the tech giant of exploiting its dominant position in the search engine market can proceed to trial, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has ruled, according to an article from Yahoo! News. The multi-billion claim, brought by consumer rights campaigner Nikki Stopford, claims the US giant exploited its dominance in the search market to increase advertising costs, which were ultimately passed on to consumers. Ms. Stopford will represent all UK-domiciled consumers aged 16 and over who purchased goods or services from a business selling in the UK which used search advertising services provided by Google. The action is being brought as an opt-out collective action, meaning that everyone in the UK affected is automatically included as a claimant in the case unless they opt out.

The “Asian Murder Hornet” was discovered in a corner of Washington State. Five years later, a massive mobilization has eliminated the invasive species, at least for now, according to an article from the New York Times. The hunt for the “murder hornet” in the northwest corner of Washington State began like a criminal investigation, with bee carcasses creating a crime scene and the public being asked to send tips about the potential culprit’s whereabouts. Search grids were created. Traps were set. Soon, state entomologists were able to capture some of the wayward hornets, affixing tiny tracking devices on the insects to trace them back to their lairs. Crews wearing otherworldly protective equipment moved in to eliminate the nests with vacuums and carbon dioxide. Officials believe it all worked. On Wednesday, five years after the invasive hornets were sighted for the first time in Washington State, state and federal agencies announced that they had successfully eradicated the species from that hot spot and the nation. That dispelled their initial fears that the hornet might spread rapidly enough to establish itself in the United States for good.

Image by Pete Linforth from Pixabay

TP-Link routers may be banned in the US in the next year, claims an article from CNET and multiple other news outlets. The Shenzhen-based router manufacturer is allegedly under investigation by the Commerce, Defense and Justice Departments over security concerns and ties to Chinese cyberattacks. Sources told the Journal that TP-Link routers are routinely shipped with security flaws, and that the company has resisted engaging with security researchers when those flaws are identified. In October, Microsoft released its own analysis that found that TP-Link routers made up most of the compromised devices in a Chinese “password spraying” hack, referring to the attack as “nation-state threat actor activity.”

Scientists have suggested we could create housing on Mars for future settlers using an Ancient Roman technique of making concrete, according to an article from IFL Science. If humans ever want to set up a home elsewhere in the Solar System, Mars seems like the most viable bet, beating off the competition by not being a hell world, having a surface we could actually stand on, and being at the edge of the habitable zone where liquid water can exist. But it isn't exactly ideal. It lacks a lot of the key materials we need for survival on the planet, such as those to build homes, and breathable air. While the latter may require terraforming, a new paper suggests for the former, we may already have part of the solution pumping through our veins. “Ancient Romans utilized organic additives, including animal blood, primarily to improve the durability and workability of their mortar. However, it is possible to create high-performance concrete using blood as a primary component,” the team explains in their paper. “Although it is a bit strange, blood can be utilized to create strong concrete or bricks for onsite construction on Mars.”

Earlier this year, scientists stumbled upon a potential new treatment for hereditary-patterned baldness, the most common cause of hair loss in both men and women worldwide, according to an article from ScienceAlert. It all started with research on a sugar that naturally occurs in the body and helps form DNA: the 'deoxyribose' part of deoxyribonucleic acid. While studying how these sugars heal the wounds of mice when applied topically, scientists at the University of Sheffield and COMSATS University in Pakistan noticed that the fur around the lesions was growing back faster than in untreated mice.

New Email Scam Includes Pictures Of Your House. Don't Fall For It.

by Cooper Quintin
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Reprinted under Creative Commons license

You may have arrived at this post because you received an email with an attached PDF from a purported hacker who is demanding payment or else they will send compromising information—such as pictures sexual in nature—to all your friends and family. You’re searching for what to do in this frightening situation, and how to respond to an apparently personalized threat that even includes your actual “LastNameFirstName.pdf” and a picture of your house.

Don’t panic. Contrary to the claims in your email, you probably haven't been hacked (or at least, that's not what prompted that email). This is merely a new variation on an old scam —actually, a whole category of scams called “sextortion.” This is a type of online phishing that is targeting people around the world and preying on digital-age fears. It generally uses publicly available information or information from data breaches, not information obtained from hacking the recipients of the emails specifically, and therefore it is very unlikely the sender has any “incriminating” photos or has actually hacked your accounts or devices.

We’ll talk about a few steps to take to protect yourself, but the first and foremost piece of advice we have: do not pay the ransom.

We have pasted an example of this email scam at the bottom of this post. The general gist is that a hacker claims to have compromised your computer and says they will release embarrassing information—such as images of you captured through your web camera or your pornographic browsing history—to your friends, family, and co-workers. The hacker promises to go away if you send them thousands of dollars, usually with bitcoin. This is different from a separate sextortion scam in which a stranger befriends and convinces a user to exchange sexual content then demands payment for secrecy; a much more perilous situation which requires a more careful response.

What makes the email especially alarming is that, to prove their authenticity, they begin the emails showing you your address, full name, and possibly a picture of your house.

Again, this still doesn't mean you've been hacked. The scammers in this case likely found a data breach which contained a list of names, emails, and home addresses and are sending this email out to potentially millions of people, hoping that some of them would be worried enough and pay out that the scam would become profitable.

Here are some quick answers to the questions many people ask after receiving these emails.

They Have My Address and Phone Number! How Did They Get a Picture of My House?

Rest assured that the scammers were not in fact outside your house taking pictures. For better or worse, pictures of our houses are all over the internet. From Google Street View to real estate websites, finding a picture of someone’s house is trivial if you have their address. While public data on your home may be nerve-wracking, similar data about government property can have transparency benefits.

Unfortunately, in the modern age, data breaches are common, and massive sets of peoples’ personal information often make their way to the criminal corners of the Internet. Scammers likely obtained such a list or multiple lists including email addresses, names, phone numbers, and addresses for the express purpose of including a kernel of truth in an otherwise boilerplate mass email. It’s harder to change your address and phone number than it is to change your password. The best thing you can do here is be aware that your information is out there and be careful of future scams using this information. Since this information (along with other leaked info such as your social security number) can be used for identity theft, it's a good idea to freeze your credit.

And of course, you should always change your password when you’re alerted that your information has been leaked in a breach. You can also use a service like Have I Been Pwned to check whether you have been part of one of the more well-known password dumps.

Should I Respond to the Email?

Absolutely not. With this type of scam, the perpetrator relies on the likelihood that a small number of people will respond out of a batch of potentially millions. Fundamentally, this isn't that much different from the old Nigerian prince scam, just with a different hook. By default they expect most people will not even open the email, let alone read it. But once they get a response—and a conversation is initiated—they will likely move into a more advanced stage of the scam. It’s better to not respond at all.

So, I Shouldn’t Pay the Ransom?

You should not pay the ransom. If you pay the ransom, you’re not only losing money, but you’re encouraging the scammers to continue phishing other people. If you do pay, then the scammers may also use that as a pressure point to continue to blackmail you, knowing that you’re susceptible.

What Should I Do Instead?

Unfortunately, there isn’t much you can do. But there are a few basic security hygiene steps you can take that are always a good idea. Use a password manager to keep your passwords strong and unique. Moving forward, you should make sure to enable two-factor authentication whenever that is an option on your online accounts. You can also check out our Surveillance Self-Defense guide for more tips on how to protect your security and privacy online.

One other thing to do to protect yourself is apply a cover over your computer’s camera. We offer some through our store, but a small strip of electrical tape will do. This can help ease your mind if you're worried that a rogue app may be turning your camera on, or that you left it on yourself—unlikely, but possible scenarios.

We know this experience isn't fun, but it's also not the end of the world. Just ignore the scammers' empty threats and practice good security hygiene going forward!

Overall, this isn’t an issue that is up to consumers to fix. The root of the problem is that data brokers and nearly every other company have been allowed to store too much information about us for too long. Inevitably, this data gets breached and makes its way into criminal markets, where it is sold and traded and used for scams like this one. The most effective way to combat this would be with comprehensive federal privacy laws. Because, if the data doesn’t exist, it can’t be leaked. The best thing for you to do is advocate for such a law in Congress, or at the state level.

Below are real examples of the scam that were sent to EFF employees. The scam text is similar across many different victims.

Example 1

[Name],

I know that calling [Phone Number] or visiting [your address] would be a convenient way to contact you in case you don't act. Don't even try to escape from this. You've no idea what I'm capable of in [Your City].

I suggest you read this message carefully. Take a moment to chill, breathe, and analyze it thoroughly. 'Cause we're about to discuss a deal between you and me, and I don't play games. You do not know me but I know you very well and right now, you are wondering how, right? Well, you've been treading on thin ice with your browsing habits, scrolling through those videos and clicking on links, stumbling upon some not-so-safe sites. I placed a Malware on a porn website & you visited it to watch(you get my drift). While you were watching those videos, your smartphone began working as a RDP (Remote Control) which provided me complete control over your device. I can peep at everything on your display, flick on your camera and mic, and you wouldn't even suspect a thing. Oh, and I have got access to all your emails, contacts, and social media accounts too.

Been keeping tabs on your pathetic life for a while now. It's simply your bad luck that I accessed your misdemeanor. I gave in more time than I should have looking into your personal life. Extracted quite a bit of juicy info from your system. and I've seen it all. Yeah, Yeah, I've got footage of you doing filthy things in your room (nice setup, by the way). I then developed videos and screenshots where on one side of the screen, there's whatever garbage you were enjoying, and on the other half, its your vacant face. With simply a single click, I can send this video to every single of your contacts.

I see you are getting anxious, but let's get real. Actually, I want to wipe the slate clean, and allow you to get on with your daily life and wipe your slate clean. I will present you two alternatives. First Alternative is to disregard this email. Let us see what is going to happen if you take this path. Your video will get sent to all your contacts. The video was lit, and I can't even fathom the humiliation you'll endure when your colleagues, friends, and fam check it out. But hey, that's life, ain't it? Don't be playing the victim here.

Option 2 is to pay me, and be confidential about it. We will name it my “privacy charges”. let me tell you what will happen if you opt this option. Your secret remains private. I will destroy all the data and evidence once you come through with the payment. You'll transfer the payment via Bitcoin only.

Pay attention, I'm telling you straight: 'We gotta make a deal'. I want you to know I'm coming at you with good intentions. My word is my bond.

Required Amount: $1950

BITCOIN ADDRESS: [REDACTED]

Let me tell ya, it's peanuts for your tranquility.

Notice: You now have one day in order to make the payment and I will only accept Bitcoins (I have a special pixel within this message, and now I know that you have read through this message). My system will catch that Bitcoin payment and wipe out all the dirt I got on you. Don't even think about replying to this or negotiating, it's pointless. The email and wallet are custom-made for you, untraceable. If I suspect that you've shared or discussed this email with anyone else, the garbage will instantly start getting sent to your contacts. And don't even think about turning off your phone or resetting it to factory settings. It's pointless. I don't make mistakes, [Name].

Can you notice something here?

Honestly, those online tips about covering your camera aren't as useless as they seem. I am waiting for my payment…

Example 2

[NAME],

Is visiting [ADDRESS] a better way to contact in case you don't act

Beautiful neighborhood btw

It's important you pay attention to this message right now. Take a moment to chill, breathe, and analyze it thoroughly. We're talking about something serious here, and I ain't playing games. You do not know anything about me but I know you very well and right now, you are thinking how, correct?

Well, You've been treading on thin ice with your browsing habits, scrolling through those filthy videos and clicking on links, stumbling upon some not-so-safe sites. I installed a Spyware called “Pegasus” on a app you frequently use. Pegasus is a spyware that is designed to be covertly and remotely installed on mobile phones running iOS and Android. While you were busy watching videos, your device started out working as a RDP (Remote Protocol) which gave me total control over your device. I can peep at everything on your display, flick on your cam and mic, and you wouldn't even notice. Oh, and I've got access to all your emails, contacts, and social media accounts too.

What I want?

Been keeping tabs on your pathetic existence for a while now. It's just your hard luck that I accessed your misdemeanor. I invested in more time than I probably should've looking into your personal life. Extracted quite a bit of juicy info from your system. and I've seen it all. Yeah, Yeah, I've got footage of you doing embarrassing things in your room (nice setup, by the way). I then developed videos and screenshots where on one side of the screen, there's whatever garbage you were enjoying, and on the other part, it is your vacant face. With just a click, I can send this filth to all of your contacts.

What can you do?

I see you are getting anxious, but let's get real. Wholeheartedly, I am willing to wipe the slate clean, and let you move on with your regular life and wipe your slate clean. I am about to present you two alternatives. Either turn a blind eye to this warning (bad for you and your family) or pay me a small amount to finish this mattter forever. Let us understand those 2 options in details.

First Option is to ignore this email. Let us see what will happen if you select this path. I will send your video to your contacts. The video was straight fire, and I can't even fathom the embarrasement you'll endure when your colleagues, friends, and fam check it out. But hey, that's life, ain't it? Don't be playing the victim here.

Other Option is to pay me, and be confidential about it. We will name it my “privacy fee”. let me tell you what happens when you go with this choice. Your filthy secret will remain private. I will wipe everything clean once you send payment. You'll transfer the payment through Bitcoin only. I want you to know I'm aiming for a win-win here. I'm a person of integrity.

Transfer Amount: USD 2000

My Bitcoin Address: [BITCOIN ADDRESS]

Or, (Here is your Bitcoin QR code, you can scan it):

[IMAGE OF A QR CODE]

Once you pay up, you'll sleep like a baby. I keep my word.

Important: You now have one day to sort this out. (I've a special pixel in this message, and now I know that you've read through this mail). My system will catch that Bitcoin payment and wipe out all the dirt I got on you. Don't even think about replying to this, it's pointless. The email and wallet are custom-made for you, untraceable. I don't make mistakes, [NAME]. If I notice that you've shared or discussed this mail with anyone else, your garbage will instantly start getting sent to your contacts. And don't even think about turning off your phone or resetting it to factory settings. It's pointless.

Honestly, those online tips about covering your camera aren't as useless as they seem. Don't dwell on it. Take it as a little lesson and keep your guard up in the future.

Follow the enclosed link to view a redacted example of a PDF used in this style of scam.

GIMP Tutorial: Create A Wave Effect

by Meemaw

I watched another video by Davies Media Design about making a neat wave effect in GIMP. It seems like a lot of steps, but it’s still pretty easy. I generally do these at least twice to make sure I understand them. It’s also pretty fun.

After opening GIMP and creating a new file (File > New or just pressing <CTRL> + N), fill with whatever Background color you want. I used red the first time, but I’m using dark green now.

To keep everything straight, add a vertical guide, using Image > Guides > New guide (by percent) and make the guide vertical and the percent 50%. He added a horizontal one too, but I didn’t the second time because I never used it the first time.

Add a transparent layer from the Layers dialog, then choose the Paths Tool. On the transparent layer, draw a vertical line from top to bottom, using the guide to make it vertical. I used black, since it was already my foreground color. From Edit > Stroke Path or clicking on Stroke Path in the paths tool’s toolbox, make the stroke 50 px wide, and check the line style to make sure it’s set to Line. Click Stroke.

Now we’re going to do the wave. Choose Filters > Distorts > Waves. The wave will look weird. Go to Center Y and make it less than zero, and that should change it. Increase the Period, so the waves are more gentle (I made it around 250). Leave the Amplitude alone, or you can decrease it a little to make it the way you want. If there’s a gap at the top or bottom, decrease the Center Y a bit more and it will adjust.

Still on the line layer, lock the Alpha Channel (in the row above the layer list).

We’re doing this to make sure that we change ONLY the line color. Change the line color to the background color by dragging it over on top of the wavy line.

Yes, I know you can’t see it, but we’ll fix that in our next step.

Now we’ll do a drop shadow. Go to Filters > Light & Shadow > Drop Shadow. Unlock the Alpha Channel. Now you can see the shadow to edit. Play with the X & Y, Opacity & Blur Radius (mine is around 6). If the blur radius is too big, you’ll see a bit of shadow on the wrong side of the wave.

For the rest of the steps, we’ll have to resize the line layer. With it still chosen, select Layer > Crop to Content. In the second image, you can see the new size of the line layer.

Duplicate the line layer about 10 times, then select all line copies.

Using the Alignment tool (in the group with the move tool) with the shortcut key Q, select Relative to Image, then click Distribute Evenly Horizontally.

This makes the wave effect. Davies created the word GIMP, putting each letter on its own layer and rearranged the layers, so the letters look like they are between layers. Since it was before Christmas, I just put a snowman peeking out from between the layers. Since the waves are only 50 px wide, it will look like the snowman is just under a wavy line, but we can fix it with a layer mask.

Put your object (my snowman) on its own layer, then decide where you want it, and lower it under the wave that’s there using the down arrow in the layers dialog. On your object layer, draw a line around the part you don’t want visible (the free select / lasso tool works fine), and press ok to close the circle. At the bottom of the layers dialog, one of the icons is to Add a layer mask. Click that, and when the window comes up, choose Selection, and then check Invert, and click OK. The part you circled will now be invisible, and your object will look as it should.

If you add more than one object, and want to do it again, you can hold and click Add layer mask and the same settings will be applied. Go ahead and export your image. I have two now.

I also invite you to go watch Michael Davies’ video about the coming features of GIMP 3.0, which is hopefully coming out soon. The GIMP 3.0 Release Candidate 1 has been released and in the video, Davies describes a few new features in the release candidate that will be in version 3.0 when it’s released. Since we have GIMP 2.10.38 in the repo, I chose not to install the RC from outside the repo and, instead, wait for the final GIMP 3.0. Some of the new features look interesting! We’ll review GIMP 3.0 after it’s released.

Amazon & Google Must Keep Their Promises On Project Nimbus

by Betty Gedlu and Cindy Cohn
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Reprinted under Creative Commons license

When a company makes a promise, the public should be able to rely on it. Today, nearly every person in the U.S. is a customer of either Amazon or Google—and many of us are customers of both technology giants. Both of these companies have made public promises that they will ensure their technologies are not being used to facilitate human rights violations. These promises are not just corporate platitudes; they’re commitments to every customer and to society at large.

It’s a reasonable thing to ask if these promises are being kept. And it’s especially important since Amazon and Google have been increasingly implicated by reports that their technologies, specifically their joint cloud computing initiative called Project Nimbus, are being used to facilitate mass surveillance and human rights violations of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. This was the basis of our public call in August 2024 for the companies to come clean about their involvement.

But we didn’t just make a public call. We sent letters directly to the Global Head of Public Policy at Amazon and to Google’s Global Head of Human Rights in late September. We detailed what these companies have promised and asked them to tell us by November 1, 2024 how they were complying. We hoped that they could clear up the confusion, or at least explain where we, or the reporting we were relying on, were wrong.

But instead, they failed to respond. This is unfortunate, since it leads us to question how serious they were in their promises. And it should lead you to question that too.

Project Nimbus: Technology At The Expense Of Human Rights

Project Nimbus provides advanced cloud and AI capabilities to the Israeli government, tools that an increasing number of credible reports suggest are being used to target civilians under pervasive surveillance in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This is more than a technical collaboration—it’s a human rights crisis in the making as evidenced by data-driven targeting programs like Project Lavender and Where’s Daddy, which have reportedly led to detentions, killings, and the systematic oppression of journalists, healthcare workers, aid workers, and ordinary families.

The consequences are serious. Vulnerable communities in Gaza and the West Bank suffer violations of their human rights, including their rights to privacy, freedom of movement, and free association, all of which can be fostered and furthered by pervasive surveillance. These documented violations underscore the ethical responsibility of Amazon and Google, whose technologies are at the heart of this surveillance scheme.

Amazon & Google’s Promises

Amazon and Google have made public commitments to align with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and their own AI ethics frameworks. These frameworks are supposed to ensure that their technologies do not contribute to harm. But their silence on these pressing concerns speaks volumes, undermining trust in their supposed dedication to these principles and casting doubt on their sincerity.

Unanswered Letters, Unanswered Accountability

When we sent letters to Amazon and Google, it was with direct, actionable questions about their involvement in Project Nimbus. We asked for transparency about their contracts, clients, and risk assessments. We called for evidence that due diligence had been conducted and demanded explanations of the steps taken to prevent their technologies from facilitating abuse.

Our core demands were straightforward and tied directly to the company’s commitments:

Disclose the scope of their involvement in Project Nimbus

Provide evidence of risk assessments tied to this project

Explain how they are addressing credible reports of misuse

Despite these reasonable and urgent requests, which are tied directly to the companies’ stated legal and ethical commitments, both companies have remained silent, and their silence isn’t just an insufficient response—it’s an alarming one.

Why Transparency Cannot Wait

Transparency is not a luxury when human rights are at risk—it’s an ethical and legal obligation. For both of these companies, it’s an obligation they have promised to the rest of us. For global companies that wield immense power, silence in the face of abuse is inexcusable.

The Fight for Accountability

EFF is making these letters public to highlight the human rights obligations Amazon and Google have undertaken and to raise reasonable questions they should answer in light of public reports about the misuse of their technologies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We aren’t the first ones to raise concerns, but, having raised these questions publicly, and now having given the companies a chance to clarify, we are increasingly concerned about their complicity.

Google and Amazon have promised all of us—their customers and noncustomers alike—that they would take steps to ensure that their technologies support a future where technology empowers rather than oppresses. It’s increasingly clear that those promises are being ignored, if not entirely broken. EFF will continue to push for transparency and accountability.

EFF Tells Appeals Court To Keep Copyright's Fair Use Rules Broad & Flexible

by Joe Mullin
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Reprinted under Creative Commons license

It’s critical that copyright be balanced with limitations that support users’ rights, and perhaps no limitation is more important than fair use. Critics, humorists, artists, and activists all must have rights to reuse and repurpose source material, even when it’s copyrighted.

Recently, EFF weighed in on another case that could shape the future of our fair use rights. In Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, a Los Angeles tattoo artist created a tattoo based on a well-known photograph of Miles Davis taken by photographer Jeffrey Sedlik. A jury found that Von Drachenberg, the tattoo artist, did not infringe the photographer’s copyright because her version was different from the photo; it didn’t meet the legal threshold of “substantially similar.” After the trial, the judge in the case considered other arguments brought by Sedlik after the trial and upheld the jury’s findings.

On appeal, Sedlik has made arguments that, if upheld, could narrow fair use rights for everyone. The appeal brief suggests that only secondary users who make “targeted” use of a copyrighted work have strong fair use defenses, relying on an incorrect reading of the Supreme Court’s decision in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith.

Such a reading would upend decades of Supreme Court precedent that makes it clear that “targeted” fair uses don’t get any special treatment as opposed to “untargeted” uses. As made clear in Warhol, the copying done by fair users must simply be “reasonably necessary” to achieve a new purpose. The principle of protecting new artistic expressions and new innovations is what led the Supreme Court to protect video cassette recording as fair use in 1984. It also contributed to the 2021 decision in Oracle v. Google, which held that Google’s copying of computer programming conventions created for desktop computers, in order to make it easier to design for modern smartphones, was a type of fair use.

Sedlik argues that if a secondary user could have chosen another work, this means they did not “target” the original work, and thus the user should have a lessened fair use case. But that has never been the rule. As the Supreme Court explained, Warhol could have created art about a product other than Campbell’s Soup; but his choice to copy the famous Campbell’s logo was fully justified because it was “well known to the public, designed to be reproduced, and a symbol of an everyday item for mass consumption.”

Fair users always select among various alternatives, for both aesthetic and practical reasons. A film professor might know of several films that expertly demonstrate a technique, but will inevitably choose just one to show in class. A news program alerting viewers to developing events may have access to many recordings of the event from different sources, but will choose just one, or a few, based on editorial judgments. Software developers must make decisions about which existing software to analyze or to interoperate with in order to build on existing technology.

The idea of penalizing these non-“targeted” fair uses would lead to absurd results, and we urge the 9th Circuit to reject this argument.

Finally, Sedlik also argues that the tattoo artist’s social media posts are necessarily “commercial” acts, which would push the tattoo art further away from fair use. Artists’ use of social media to document their processes and work has become ubiquitous, and such an expansive view of commerciality would render the concept meaningless. That’s why multiple appellate courts have already rejected such a view; the 9th Circuit should do so as well.

In order for innovation and free expression to flourish in the digital age, fair use must remain a flexible rule that allows for diverse purposes and uses.

PCLinuxOS Recipe Corner Bonus: Cinnamon Roll Caramel Popcorn

Cinnamon Roll Caramel Popcorn

This cinnamon roll caramel popcorn is amazing: buttery, crunchy, caramel popcorn with a burst of cinnamon and a drizzle of white chocolate.

INGREDIENTS:

18 cups popped popcorn, about 3/4 cup kernels
1 1/2 sticks (170 g) salted butter
1 1/2 cups (318 g) lightly packed brown sugar
1/2 cup light corn syrup
1 1/2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
1 1/2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1 1/2 teaspoons baking soda
4 ounces (113 g) white chocolate, melted

DIRECTIONS:

Preheat the oven to 250 degrees. Grease two large rimmed baking sheets and set aside.

Place the popcorn in a really large bowl (or two separate large bowls if you don't have an extra big one).

In a large saucepan over medium heat, melt the butter. When melted, add the brown sugar, corn syrup, and cinnamon. Bring to a boil while stirring. Once the mixture starts boiling, reduce the heat to medium-low and simmer, stirring often, for 3 minutes. The mixture will be slightly thickened. Take the pot off the heat and stir in the vanilla and baking soda. The mixture will bubble, so be careful.

Pour the caramel over the popcorn and mix until the popcorn is evenly coated.

Turn the popcorn out onto the baking sheets, spreading into an even layer on each sheet. Bake the popcorn for one hour, stirring and tossing every 20 minutes. Move the bottom tray to the upper rack and vice versa each time you stir. The popcorn will deepen in color and harden a bit as the caramel bakes and sets.

When the popcorn comes out of the oven, scrape it onto an even layer of parchment or wax paper.

Drizzle the white chocolate over the top (using the tines of a fork to drizzle it across, or pour the melted chocolate into a freezer quart-size Ziploc bag and snip a corner to drizzle).

Let the popcorn sit until the white chocolate is set, 30 minutes or so. Break into pieces. Try not to eat the entire batch. I'm not kidding.

TIPS:

Baking Time: if you like a bit of chewiness to our toffee-like caramel popcorn, bake it for about 40 minutes instead of the full hour.

NUTRITION: (1 cup serving size)

Calories: 242    Carbs: 38g    Sodium: 176mg    Fiber: 2g    Protein: 2g

Tip Top Tips: Is Your Handbrake Too Hot to Handle? Try cpulimit

Editor's Note: Tip Top Tips is a semi-monthly column in The PCLinuxOS Magazine. Periodically, we will feature – and possibly even expand upon – one tip from the PCLinuxOS forum. The magazine will not accept independent tip submissions specifically intended for inclusion in the Tip Top Tips column. Rather, if you have a tip, share it in the PCLinuxOS forum's “Tips & Tricks” section. Occasionally, we may run a “tip” posted elsewhere in the PCLinuxOS forum. Either way, share your tip in the forum, and it just may be selected for publication in The PCLinuxOS Magazine.

This month's tip comes from horusfalcon – KG5WLH.

Image by talha khalil from Pixabay

Let's start with a statement of the problem. I use the Handbrake media transcription program (okay… it's a disk ripper) more than anyone really should. I back up my DVDs to Matroska video files and store them on my Media Center, an old Dell Precision T3500 (haven't cracked the code for Blu-Ray yet, but I do have a USB 3.2 BD-R drive).

Well, I tend to actually use Handbrake on my laptop, since it can rip a 90-minute movie in under 30 minutes (to a 720p .MKV with no restorative presets or filtering). The problem was that it would cause my CPU to approach/exceed 200 deg. F (just a fuzz over 93 deg. C).

In troubleshooting, I went through a whole bunch of changes: heatsink paste and pads, a new heatsink/fan assembly, you know, the usual suspects. Somewhere in my observations with Handbrake running, I noticed CPU Zero was the sensor reading highest, with all others in more normal temperature ranges. This made me think that Handbrake was not using all the CPUs, and only CPU Zero was “toting the load”. In hindsight, I can tell you this is not the case. Load is definitely not equal, but ALL the CPUs were (and still are) being utilized.

I started casting about for a solution, and nothing seemed promising until I tried cpulimit. For those unfamiliar, here's the description of the cpulimit package in Synaptic:

CPU Usage Limiter
cpulimit is a simple program that attempts to limit the cpu usage of a process (expressed in percentage, not in cpu time). This is useful to control batch jobs, when you don't want they eat too much cpu. It does not act on the nice value or other scheduling priority stuff, but on the real cpu usage. Also, it is able to adapt itself to the overall system load, dynamically and quickly.

/usr/share/doc/cpulimit/README has more info.

I did some reading and research about this, and it's just what it says on the tin. What it doesn't say (but should be obvious) is that cpulimit is a utility for use from the Linux shell prompt or in scripts.

Rather than remember all the switches and so on, I edited the Launcher on my Xfce desktop for Handbrake after I got through testing. It's easy enough on Plasma, and on Xfce — right-click on the Launcher (aka: “shortcut”) and select Edit Launcher. A small dialog opens up, showing in one field the Command being run. Mine, after editing, looked like this:

cpulimit -l 580 -b ghb

The -l 580 switch sets the maximum CPU load made available to the program it will call. (That is not -I. It's a “minus lowercase ell”.)

The -b switch puts the target program (ghb is Handbrake) in the background.

(I had previously appended %f at the end of this command string for some reason. parnote was kind enough to point out that %f is an Xfce parameter that means the launcher is expecting a source file name. Since Handbrake needs to scan the source, usually a DVD, and has a special mechanism for this, it's not really needed.)

A note about cpulimit's -l switch values. Each CPU is limited over a scale from 0 (don't use) to 100 (gimme all you've got). My machine is a quad-core Xeon with Hyperthreading enabled, so it presents as 4 real and 4 virtual cores (threads). That's a total of 8 cores as far as cpulimit is concerned.

Eight times 100 yields 800, which represents the total work output of all “cores”. So the value 580 means that cpulimit throttles Handbrake to 580/800 or 72.5% of the Xeon's total output. I determined this value by trial and error, after testing and observation, as the best compromise between thermal control and good performance. You, if you are going to use cpulimit, should get to know your hardware so you can set up reasonable values for the -l switch.

With this setup there is one drawback: If you do an “open with Handbrake” without using the Launcher shortcut, all your limits are no longer in play, Handbrake will be the greedy little CPU hog it is once more, and things may get hotter than you'd like.

{Mauro was kind enough to mention that making the ghb command that starts Handbrake into an alias can resolve this problem. I should have realized this: I've used aliases in the distant past. Thanks, man.}

To create the alias, I edited the file ~/.bashrc, adding this line and a carriage return to the end of the existing file, then saving:

alias ghb='cpulimit -l 580 -b ghb'

I encountered high temperatures this afternoon (06 Sep 2024) on a ripping job, and looking at what happened, I decided to undo this alias. Here's why:

The original alias line added to my ~/.bashrc was:

alias ghb='cpulimit -l 580 -b ghb'

What I believe may be taking place is a circular reference: the alias ghb refers to the program ghb. Until I can figure out what I'm doing incorrectly here, I have retreated to using the command:

cpulimit -l 580 -b ghb

from my Handbrake Launcher.

{For more on using aliases, see: Linux Alias Command . Note that the author of this article refers to single quotes as “inverted commas”, and may not be a native speaker of English, but the info there is good.}

How does cpulimit do all this? I could tell you what little I know (basically in the package description above), but that is not likely to be useful. I'm usually more interested in the results, and it does work. The best I can tell from what I've observed using it like this for about a month is that cpulimit acts in some way to make the load on the entire CPU a bit more balanced. CPU Zero is still the hottest of the lot, but is much better behaved, with peak temperatures running somewhere from 160 F to about 180 F with occasional spikes to 187 F [86 C] (highest observed so far). That little Xeon is tough — she can handle it.

The trade-off is that the ninety-minute movie rip I mentioned earlier that took about 30 minutes got about 4 to 6 minutes longer. Small tradeoff for extended system life, at least to me.

Here's hoping cpulimit works for you. Its manpage is not in the PCLinuxOS man-pages package. It may be found online here.

PCLinuxOS Puzzled Partitions

Sudoku

Download Puzzle Solutions Here

Scrappler

Download Puzzle Solutions Here

January 2025 Word Find
Snow Day Words

Download Puzzle Solutions Here

January 2025 Crossword
Snow Day Words

Download Puzzle Solutions Here

Mixed-Up-Meme Scrambler

Download Puzzle Solutions Here

Screenshot Showcase

Posted by astronaut on December 03, 2024, on Openbox

Posted by brisvegas on December 01, 2024, on Maté

Posted by francesco_bat on December 14, 2024, on Openbox

Posted by luikki on December 2, 2024, on KDE

Posted by Meemaw on December 1, 2024, on Xfce

Posted by mutse on December 14, 2024, on Maté

Posted by parnote on December 13, 2024, on Xfce

Posted by pyjujiop on December 5, 2024, on KDE

Posted by tbs on December 1, 2024, on KDE

Posted by The_CrankyZombie on November 30, 2024, on KDE

Table of Contents

Start

Table of Contents

Start

Table of Contents

Start