3 ms·

I kind of wonder if a forced licensing scheme would be a solution. Anyone would be able to create derivative works but 10-20 percent of any profits would have t

I kind of wonder if a forced licensing scheme would be a solution. Anyone would be able to create derivative works but 10-20 percent of any profits would have to go to the original copyright owner. A shorter "copright" with an extended "profitright".

gus_massa 9y ago
The problem with profits is that it is very easy to just lie. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting > Hollywood accounting (also known as Hollywood bookkeeping) refers to the opaque or creative accounting methods used by the film, video, and television industry to budget and record profits for film projects. Expenditures can be inflated to reduce or eliminate the reported profit of the project, thereby reducing the amount which the corporation must pay in taxes and royalties or other profit-sharing agreements, as these are based on the net profit.
JoshTriplett 9y ago
Why should we settle for that, rather than demanding public domain? What makes that tradeoff worthwhile? The critically important question: how many works would be created with a perpetual copyright (under whatever terms) that would not also have been created with a 14-year or 28-year copyright? The answer seems likely to be "not many", and certainly not enough to be worth trading away the the opportunities created by the public domain to get it. The public domain also tends to inspire the creation of many works. In talking about copyright, we're talking about trading off between two things people want: a useful and vibrant public domain with plenty of works in it, and the authorship of more works (that will eventually end up in that public domain). Trading off the former completely to get an extremely marginal increase in the number of works does not seem like a trade we should make. Now, that said, I would be in favor of the concept of having a shorter period of exclusivity, and a somewhat longer period of exclusive commercial use, such that non-commercial derived works become permitted after that shorter period. But even the latter shouldn't be perpetual, and both should be far shorter.
rocqua 9y ago
There'd still be trademark issues. If anyone can make e.g. a Marvel movie, the franchise will be judged by those movies. It makes perfect sense to defend that.
Finnucane 9y ago
Sort of like the way the recording industry handles covers. But that works in part because it’s relatively easy to work out a generic rate for a single recording. It would be harder for more general cases.

gus_massa 9y ago

The problem with profits is that it is very easy to just lie. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting > Hollywood accounting (also known as Hollywood bookkeeping) refers to the opaque or creative accounting methods used by the film, video, and television industry to budget and record profits for film projects. Expenditures can be inflated to reduce or eliminate the reported profit of the project, thereby reducing the amount which the corporation must pay in taxes and royalties or other profit-sharing agreements, as these are based on the net profit.

JoshTriplett 9y ago

Why should we settle for that, rather than demanding public domain? What makes that tradeoff worthwhile? The critically important question: how many works would be created with a perpetual copyright (under whatever terms) that would not also have been created with a 14-year or 28-year copyright? The answer seems likely to be "not many", and certainly not enough to be worth trading away the the opportunities created by the public domain to get it. The public domain also tends to inspire the creation of many works. In talking about copyright, we're talking about trading off between two things people want: a useful and vibrant public domain with plenty of works in it, and the authorship of more works (that will eventually end up in that public domain). Trading off the former completely to get an extremely marginal increase in the number of works does not seem like a trade we should make. Now, that said, I would be in favor of the concept of having a shorter period of exclusivity, and a somewhat longer period of exclusive commercial use, such that non-commercial derived works become permitted after that shorter period. But even the latter shouldn't be perpetual, and both should be far shorter.

rocqua 9y ago

There'd still be trademark issues. If anyone can make e.g. a Marvel movie, the franchise will be judged by those movies. It makes perfect sense to defend that.

Finnucane 9y ago

Sort of like the way the recording industry handles covers. But that works in part because it’s relatively easy to work out a generic rate for a single recording. It would be harder for more general cases.