3 ms·

The bigger problem in my mind is all the orphaned works that will never be read, seen or enjoyed again because they are still locked behind the wall of copyrigh

by Aloha 10y ago

The bigger problem in my mind is all the orphaned works that will never be read, seen or enjoyed again because they are still locked behind the wall of copyright for owners who no longer care about them.

chimeracoder 10y ago
Or worse, works which could be used, but for which the process of actually figuring out who the holders are and tracking them down is prohibitively complicated and expensive.
- vanderZwan 10y ago
  See also: the mess that was Sita Sings the Blues. EDIT: I mean the copyright issues, not the movie itself obviously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sita_Sings_the_Blues#Copyright_problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sita_Sings_the_Blues#Copyright... http://sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html http://sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html
  - pcmaffey 10y ago
    Excellent movie, btw, for anyone interested in animation/myth/music and intersection thereof.
- Aloha 10y ago
  Exactly. Personally, I don't mind the idea so much of a perpetual copyright - provided it requires the rights owner to frequently and actively participate in the process to keep the protections active after the initial period. (and perhaps a fee schedule to reflect the supposed value of the piece) I think its possible for a copyright bill to exist that both the EFF and Disney can both support.
  - convolvatron 10y ago
    this is the problem. the law dept at Disney never has any interest in weakening copyright law in any way. no matter how reasonable. lawyers only see degrees of risk
  - Freak_NL 10y ago
    > Personally, I don't mind the idea so much of a perpetual copyright […] Most people would find it unimaginable to consider Gulliver's Travels or Robinson Crusoe as copyrighted works — who should own them? The great-great-great-grandchildren of the authors? Some copyright acquisition firm? Shouldn't all incorporeal cultural output be returned to the public at some point?
jpalomaki 10y ago
Doesn't DCMA kind of help here? If you distribute the content and the rights owner does not care, there's nobody to file the takedown notice. Of course even if it worked this way, this only solves some distribution issues. You still couldn't use the content for other purposes.

by Aloha 10y ago

chimeracoder 10y ago

Or worse, works which could be used, but for which the process of actually figuring out who the holders are and tracking them down is prohibitively complicated and expensive.

vanderZwan 10y ago
See also: the mess that was Sita Sings the Blues. EDIT: I mean the copyright issues, not the movie itself obviously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sita_Sings_the_Blues#Copyright_problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sita_Sings_the_Blues#Copyright... http://sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html http://sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html
- pcmaffey 10y ago
  Excellent movie, btw, for anyone interested in animation/myth/music and intersection thereof.
Aloha 10y ago
Exactly. Personally, I don't mind the idea so much of a perpetual copyright - provided it requires the rights owner to frequently and actively participate in the process to keep the protections active after the initial period. (and perhaps a fee schedule to reflect the supposed value of the piece) I think its possible for a copyright bill to exist that both the EFF and Disney can both support.
- convolvatron 10y ago
  this is the problem. the law dept at Disney never has any interest in weakening copyright law in any way. no matter how reasonable. lawyers only see degrees of risk
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  > Personally, I don't mind the idea so much of a perpetual copyright […] Most people would find it unimaginable to consider Gulliver's Travels or Robinson Crusoe as copyrighted works — who should own them? The great-great-great-grandchildren of the authors? Some copyright acquisition firm? Shouldn't all incorporeal cultural output be returned to the public at some point?

jpalomaki 10y ago

Doesn't DCMA kind of help here? If you distribute the content and the rights owner does not care, there's nobody to file the takedown notice. Of course even if it worked this way, this only solves some distribution issues. You still couldn't use the content for other purposes.