13 ms·

Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Tell me one reason this shouldn

Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Tell me one reason this shouldn't be the case. By then, the studios will have taken a profit (or been a commercial failure but that's not on us) and so will have the artist. After the artist dies, there's no reason to "support the artist" anymore and while there is the effect of post-mortem sales spike, a celebration of now freely available music for all to enjoy would be a much better hommage. As for the family, there really isn't any reason they should obtain that copyright. If they wanna earn money with art, they have to create art on their own. What the current laws create in most cases are lazy rich children who spend the rest of their lives managing the copyright legacy of their parent. That doesn't benefit society in any way. Either they work like normal people or they make their own art but they're not entitled to the copyright of their parents. If the parents don't want to leave them in poverty, they can still leave the money they earned with this copyright over the years for their children. Also, with the minimum 50 years duration, they could still inherit the copyright if their parent dies at an early age. However, a term of life PLUS a ludicrous amount of years is a really bad idea for the cultural development of our society.

jpttsn 8y ago
A longer exclusivity term makes it possible to recoup more investment costs, for those who invest in artists. This theoretically enables larger investments that can support the artist further up front.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  if we're talking about the music industry, sure, more investment enables the machine to make bigger stars and more money. but if we're talking about music as a cultural good, how much money is really needed to make a top notch studio album? no more than a million dollars in most cases. maybe you need to multiply that by a small integer to make a really good music video for a couple of the singles. is the purpose of copyright law to enable billion dollar stars, or million dollar albums?
- Arnt 8y ago
  This would be a good point, if either a) if were backed up by data or b) data weren't available yet. I wish people would stop posting these "could be" arguments when real data is already available and either supports an "is" or doesn't.
- mcny 8y ago
  The main argument I can accept for copy right is that it allows for people to pool their tiny amount of money to vote for the kind of music they like so it is more democratic than a patron-focused model where authors and musicians would need to cater to a few patrons' tastes. However, even though most of the money remains concentrated at the top, we no longer have this problem. It is fairly easy to support your favorite artist with a few dollars every month and indeed there was a big discussion here when Patreon said they could no longer support adult entertainers. None of them makes a big payout but historically not many do anyways. I'd argue nobody deserves the huge payout that artists get. What we need is a sustainable way to fund a universal basic income so those who want to pursue the arts can do so without a fear of starving. I'd even argue that we can afford to take copyright down to five or ten years and eventually eliminate it. Imagine the innovation at Spotify if there were no copyright! Copyright holds business down.
  - Mindwipe 8y ago
    > Imagine the innovation at Spotify if there were no copyright! None, because Spotify would go out of business overnight as people stole their source code.
    - mcny 8y ago
      The value of Spotify isn't in the source code just like the value of Google cloud or AWS isn't. Someone still needs to offer it as a service.
    - JetSpiegel 8y ago
      Why? Icecast is open source and it does the same thing. Spotify's value is not running many Icecast servers.
- kartan 8y ago
  > A longer exclusivity term makes it possible to recoup more investment costs I go to the bank. I ask for a loan. I tell them that I will small marginal profits after 75 years. I do not get the loan. Even if in some cases this was actually possible. Still, we need to evaluate if it is worth it. All the stories, movies, characters that are part of your formation and your culture will be privately owned and restricted until way after you are dead. Characters, music, and other cultural assets only become free when nobody cares anymore about them. We are evaluating the possibility of the creation of some cultural assets against the reality of other cultural assets that are not created because the government sets monopolistic restrictions on them. There is a sweet spot where creators can live out of their creations. And were citizens can make their own vision of characters that personally meant a lot to them.
  - jpttsn 8y ago
    What if record companies finance artists in ways that banks wouldn’t?
clon 8y ago
Lazy rich child A's dad built a house, which he and his children can benefit from for marginal costs (maintenance, taxes). Lazy rich child B's dad wrote some music, which he and his children can benefit from for marginal costs (publishing, taxes). I know - in one case it is a physical object, and in the other - immaterial. But both houses and music can offer enjoyment and can be benefited from financially, and thus have inherent value. I am not sure if the notion of private property should depend on the continued existence of the original creator. When do we start requisitioning houses for the hommage of the original owner?
- dmitriid 8y ago
  1. Immaterial rights are not material rights 2. Private property is a false analogy 3. Copyright was established for two reasons: a) to let the author (and only the author) to profit from their immaterial work. b) to facilitate the free exchange of ideas
  - clon 8y ago
    That is kind of the point - why is the dad who wields a pencil going to have to leave his children in a worse position than a dad who wielded a hammer.
    - xamuel 8y ago
      The dad who wields a pencil is paid for his art, and he can use that money to buy a house.
    - clon 8y ago
      Nothing stopping from renting out the house in your lifetime, only to leave it for your children once you cease to be.
    - dmitriid 8y ago
      Let's say "a dad who wielded a hammer" is a dad who builds and sells furniture. Are his children entitled to every piece of furniture this "dad who wielded a hammer" ever built? As it was already mentioned "The dad who wields a pencil" can just as easily buy a house and leave it to his children. The problem with immaterial things is that they can be trivially copied. In this sense copyright law is more akin to patents: you get protection and possiblity to profit off of your immaterial work.
indigochill 8y ago
I agree with the gist of this, but I'm actually leaning towards a shorter copyright lifespan. Maybe 20? The reason being that I feel this better balances the need to benefit from your work (20 years is quite a while to be exclusively entitled to something) with the need for society to build on your work without threat of litigation. I feel 50 years benefits the former a bit too much at the expense of the latter. Just look at what a huge divide there was (in some ways) between life in 1950 and life in 2000. Less so between 1980 and 2000, or 1990 to 2010.
- graeme 8y ago
  What about business. Any business writing is copyright protected too. I've been on business for eight years, and it would be very weird it the stuff I wrote and still use on my site expires in 12 years. It potentially will still be just as valid in that time. I know the tech world changes fast but there are some niches where something written or recorded in 1998 is still valid today.
  - thatcat 8y ago
    That's the point of copyright, so that the public eventually benefits from giving you protection for the term of the copyright. It's suppose to still be valid.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - graeme 8y ago
      It seems a bit short for investment horizons was my point. And also, you’re perhaps thinking of patents, where the public eventually benefits from using an invention - lack of patent would mean more inventions are kept secret. Copyright is meant to be an incentive for the creation of works that otherwise would not be made. The public benefits by the fact that they’re created. They eventually get to use them too, but it’s less crucial than it is for patents.
plopilop 8y ago
The best example about this I know is Moulinsart, which holds the rights of Tintin. Moulinsart is managed by Nick Rodwell, the husband of Hergé's former wife. He takes a very strict stance on copyright law, and does not give a shit about parody, art or even hommages. Moulinsart will take every opportunity to strike down your Tintin webpage, even DMCA takedowns even though you're French and Moulinsart is Belgian (see what happened to [0], an explanation is available in French in [1]). Rodwell also wanted to publish a new Tintin episode, just to prevent the license to fall into public domain. The guy has all powers on Tintin, because he married the author's widow. And that's it. [0]: https://lepetitvingtetunieme.tumblr.com/ https://lepetitvingtetunieme.tumblr.com/ [1]: https://www.lesinrocks.com/2014/03/26/actualite/tintin-la-maison-deditions-bloque-blog-tenu-par-des-journalistes-11491716/ https://www.lesinrocks.com/2014/03/26/actualite/tintin-la-ma...
dotancohen 8y ago
How about works for hire? When should the copyright on The Lion King expire when people of all ages had worked on it?
- gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
  50 years.
- danaris 8y ago
  Presumably, based on the GP's proposal, 50 years after its creation.
jillesvangurp 8y ago
The laws differ per country, which makes this super complicated. One of the complexities is that you cannot actually opt out of copyright in many countries and semi private institutions exist that by default will start demanding fees for other people's works based on vague notion of them being the designated organization to do so. The legalities around this are super complicated but it boils down to private institutions having the right to charge fees for copyrighted work by default. In Germany, this organization is called Gema and they send takedown notices and demand to be payed for work to which they do not own the copyright which they then distribute among their members. This happens even when this goes against the will of the legal copyright holder and you get absolutely nothing unless you are member. Becoming a member is very long process and is not free. So you have to pay to eventually get the right to get payed. It is effectively the bigger Gema members that grab most of the cash that it collects. Effectively organizations like Gema are legalized extortion schemes. They get to play judge, prosecutor, and police. Real judges routinely and blindly rule in their favor. Lawmakers are lobbied into submission, etc. Wikipedia has a nice overview of how artists are getting ripped off, misc fraudulent schemes involving Gema, and how money rolls to their exclusive members rather than the artists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEMA_(German_organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEMA_(German_organization). What happened in this case is that the recordings are in the Gema database which parties like Youtube are required to use to check for potential violations. Of course Gema has no interest whatsoever to prune this database of stuff that shouldn't be there (like public domain stuff) and good luck convincing them to remove stuff from that db. More entries basically means more money for them and the burden is on the payer to prove otherwise. Their strategy is to make this as hard and tedious as possible so they can maximize their profits.
- tauntz 8y ago
  The same is true in Estonia. Legally any artist can form an organization that is entitled to collect royalties for other artist's work. In practice there is only one such organization (Eesti Autorite Ühing) because nobody bothers to set up their own shop.. and if you're an artist and NOT a member of EAÜ they'll still happily collect money for your work and distribute it amongst their own members and own salaries/real estate etc. It's absurd.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
>>As for the family, there really isn't any reason they should obtain that copyright. If they wanna earn money with art, they have to create art on their own. OK, should you benefit from your father's or grandfather's talent in, say, business? Let's treat them equally.
jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
> Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Boy you are generous, if it was up to me copyrights would have a life of 10 years, no extensions/renewals. Ten years ought to be enough to squeeze a healthy chuck of profits out of your material. If after 10 years you can't/haven't come up with anything new, then you better find a new job.
- FreakyT 8y ago
  Agreed -- in addition, a shorter term like this fixes a major issue with using "life" specifically, which ends up unintentionally creating an incentive to murder the creator.
  - maze-le 8y ago
    Wow, never thought about it this way. Its probably a nice plot for a crime novel.
  - EADGBE 8y ago
    It'd be better to be able to by stock in an artist, and continue to let them live and create, while profiting yourself off those dividends.
- hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
  I don't understand why HN seems to want everyone to be a wage slave. If I create original work, I want to profit off it for my life. Anything else is just punishing people who are creators rather than property owners.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    Because: a) Almost all artists sign deals with publishers to "get their foot in the door" which end up giving all of the rights to the publisher, and so the artist ends up being a "wage slave" because they don't profit off the rights of the work they made. b) Locking away works for entire generations means that cultural artistic development is stifled. Shakespeare's works were based on previous works and stories, and under the copyright system of today he would have been sued for his plays (and we probably wouldn't have them today). It is insanely short-sighted for corporations to lobby for longer copyright terms to have monopolies, at the expense of eradicating future generations' Shakespeares. c) The original purpose of copyright (under the Statute of Anne in 1710) was to provide a very limited monopoly by the authors (not publishers) so that they are incentivised to create new works. By your own admission, having lifetime copyright protections does not incentivise the creation of new works (you could argue that it actually is a counter-incentive if you wrote one work that became very popular early in your career). A return to that system would be a significant improvement.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ptero 8y ago
> Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. There are, to me, two broad classes of copyright. One is for the "works of art", that is for things that people can enjoy (e.g., music). I suspect whatever choice we make the society would not be affected too much. I think your lifetime / 50 years is a bit too generous, but whatever. IMO way more important is finding the right balance for the technology / know how. That is something that people want to replicate to learn, produce or improve things. The original idea of copyright makes sense, but with modern communication and prototyping speed, 5 years of exclusive use is the max we should give. I think the society should focus on the technology part first; sadly, most of the discussion is about the royalties to noise generators :).
- hectorr1 8y ago
  I don't think that the distinction between art and technology stands up to scrutiny. Both are iterative creative processes, and we want to empower future generations of both artists and technologists to build their ideas in a way that advances the current stack. Allowing art to be balkanized with excessive copyright hurts cultural development. And we depend on culture to shape everything, including our current environment that fosters technical innovation.
  - ptero 8y ago
    I am not arguing for balkanizing art. I think it might deserve more generous copyright terms because it can take longer to get appreciated and generate revenue for the author. But I do not feel strongly about it either way.
- JFFalcon 8y ago
  I believe that copyright only refers to creative works. Technology would be covered by patents. See also trademarks as the third kind of intellectual property.
0xcde4c3db 8y ago
> Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Tell me one reason this shouldn't be the case. I'll give you three: 1) Even if it's unlikely for anyone to act on it (which I don't think can be taken for granted), it's perverse to have a law making it possible to terminate a copyright by murdering the author. 2) The term is too long. At 50 years since first publication, the vast majority of works have been out of print for 40+ years. Roughly half of people who experienced the contemporary zeitgeist are dead, and by this time surviving copies of the work might be difficult to find or in long-obsolete formats that are difficult to work with. 3) For works older than 50 years, it requires would-be public domain users to find out whether the author is still alive. This wouldn't be difficult for a famous author, but many authors don't enjoy such fame later in life, particularly if their creative careers are short. I'd support making it a 20-year fixed term with no renewals, although I think it can still be argued that that's too long.

jpttsn 8y ago

A longer exclusivity term makes it possible to recoup more investment costs, for those who invest in artists. This theoretically enables larger investments that can support the artist further up front.

leetcrew 8y ago
if we're talking about the music industry, sure, more investment enables the machine to make bigger stars and more money. but if we're talking about music as a cultural good, how much money is really needed to make a top notch studio album? no more than a million dollars in most cases. maybe you need to multiply that by a small integer to make a really good music video for a couple of the singles. is the purpose of copyright law to enable billion dollar stars, or million dollar albums?
Arnt 8y ago
This would be a good point, if either a) if were backed up by data or b) data weren't available yet. I wish people would stop posting these "could be" arguments when real data is already available and either supports an "is" or doesn't.
mcny 8y ago
The main argument I can accept for copy right is that it allows for people to pool their tiny amount of money to vote for the kind of music they like so it is more democratic than a patron-focused model where authors and musicians would need to cater to a few patrons' tastes. However, even though most of the money remains concentrated at the top, we no longer have this problem. It is fairly easy to support your favorite artist with a few dollars every month and indeed there was a big discussion here when Patreon said they could no longer support adult entertainers. None of them makes a big payout but historically not many do anyways. I'd argue nobody deserves the huge payout that artists get. What we need is a sustainable way to fund a universal basic income so those who want to pursue the arts can do so without a fear of starving. I'd even argue that we can afford to take copyright down to five or ten years and eventually eliminate it. Imagine the innovation at Spotify if there were no copyright! Copyright holds business down.
- Mindwipe 8y ago
  > Imagine the innovation at Spotify if there were no copyright! None, because Spotify would go out of business overnight as people stole their source code.
  - mcny 8y ago
    The value of Spotify isn't in the source code just like the value of Google cloud or AWS isn't. Someone still needs to offer it as a service.
  - JetSpiegel 8y ago
    Why? Icecast is open source and it does the same thing. Spotify's value is not running many Icecast servers.
kartan 8y ago
> A longer exclusivity term makes it possible to recoup more investment costs I go to the bank. I ask for a loan. I tell them that I will small marginal profits after 75 years. I do not get the loan. Even if in some cases this was actually possible. Still, we need to evaluate if it is worth it. All the stories, movies, characters that are part of your formation and your culture will be privately owned and restricted until way after you are dead. Characters, music, and other cultural assets only become free when nobody cares anymore about them. We are evaluating the possibility of the creation of some cultural assets against the reality of other cultural assets that are not created because the government sets monopolistic restrictions on them. There is a sweet spot where creators can live out of their creations. And were citizens can make their own vision of characters that personally meant a lot to them.
- jpttsn 8y ago
  What if record companies finance artists in ways that banks wouldn’t?

clon 8y ago

Lazy rich child A's dad built a house, which he and his children can benefit from for marginal costs (maintenance, taxes). Lazy rich child B's dad wrote some music, which he and his children can benefit from for marginal costs (publishing, taxes). I know - in one case it is a physical object, and in the other - immaterial. But both houses and music can offer enjoyment and can be benefited from financially, and thus have inherent value. I am not sure if the notion of private property should depend on the continued existence of the original creator. When do we start requisitioning houses for the hommage of the original owner?

dmitriid 8y ago
1. Immaterial rights are not material rights 2. Private property is a false analogy 3. Copyright was established for two reasons: a) to let the author (and only the author) to profit from their immaterial work. b) to facilitate the free exchange of ideas
- clon 8y ago
  That is kind of the point - why is the dad who wields a pencil going to have to leave his children in a worse position than a dad who wielded a hammer.
  - xamuel 8y ago
    The dad who wields a pencil is paid for his art, and he can use that money to buy a house.
  - clon 8y ago
    Nothing stopping from renting out the house in your lifetime, only to leave it for your children once you cease to be.
  - dmitriid 8y ago
    Let's say "a dad who wielded a hammer" is a dad who builds and sells furniture. Are his children entitled to every piece of furniture this "dad who wielded a hammer" ever built? As it was already mentioned "The dad who wields a pencil" can just as easily buy a house and leave it to his children. The problem with immaterial things is that they can be trivially copied. In this sense copyright law is more akin to patents: you get protection and possiblity to profit off of your immaterial work.

indigochill 8y ago

I agree with the gist of this, but I'm actually leaning towards a shorter copyright lifespan. Maybe 20? The reason being that I feel this better balances the need to benefit from your work (20 years is quite a while to be exclusively entitled to something) with the need for society to build on your work without threat of litigation. I feel 50 years benefits the former a bit too much at the expense of the latter. Just look at what a huge divide there was (in some ways) between life in 1950 and life in 2000. Less so between 1980 and 2000, or 1990 to 2010.

graeme 8y ago
What about business. Any business writing is copyright protected too. I've been on business for eight years, and it would be very weird it the stuff I wrote and still use on my site expires in 12 years. It potentially will still be just as valid in that time. I know the tech world changes fast but there are some niches where something written or recorded in 1998 is still valid today.
- thatcat 8y ago
  That's the point of copyright, so that the public eventually benefits from giving you protection for the term of the copyright. It's suppose to still be valid.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - graeme 8y ago
    It seems a bit short for investment horizons was my point. And also, you’re perhaps thinking of patents, where the public eventually benefits from using an invention - lack of patent would mean more inventions are kept secret. Copyright is meant to be an incentive for the creation of works that otherwise would not be made. The public benefits by the fact that they’re created. They eventually get to use them too, but it’s less crucial than it is for patents.

plopilop 8y ago

The best example about this I know is Moulinsart, which holds the rights of Tintin. Moulinsart is managed by Nick Rodwell, the husband of Hergé's former wife. He takes a very strict stance on copyright law, and does not give a shit about parody, art or even hommages. Moulinsart will take every opportunity to strike down your Tintin webpage, even DMCA takedowns even though you're French and Moulinsart is Belgian (see what happened to [0], an explanation is available in French in [1]). Rodwell also wanted to publish a new Tintin episode, just to prevent the license to fall into public domain. The guy has all powers on Tintin, because he married the author's widow. And that's it. [0]: https://lepetitvingtetunieme.tumblr.com/ https://lepetitvingtetunieme.tumblr.com/ [1]: https://www.lesinrocks.com/2014/03/26/actualite/tintin-la-maison-deditions-bloque-blog-tenu-par-des-journalistes-11491716/ https://www.lesinrocks.com/2014/03/26/actualite/tintin-la-ma...

dotancohen 8y ago

How about works for hire? When should the copyright on The Lion King expire when people of all ages had worked on it?

gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
50 years.
danaris 8y ago
Presumably, based on the GP's proposal, 50 years after its creation.

jillesvangurp 8y ago

The laws differ per country, which makes this super complicated. One of the complexities is that you cannot actually opt out of copyright in many countries and semi private institutions exist that by default will start demanding fees for other people's works based on vague notion of them being the designated organization to do so. The legalities around this are super complicated but it boils down to private institutions having the right to charge fees for copyrighted work by default. In Germany, this organization is called Gema and they send takedown notices and demand to be payed for work to which they do not own the copyright which they then distribute among their members. This happens even when this goes against the will of the legal copyright holder and you get absolutely nothing unless you are member. Becoming a member is very long process and is not free. So you have to pay to eventually get the right to get payed. It is effectively the bigger Gema members that grab most of the cash that it collects. Effectively organizations like Gema are legalized extortion schemes. They get to play judge, prosecutor, and police. Real judges routinely and blindly rule in their favor. Lawmakers are lobbied into submission, etc. Wikipedia has a nice overview of how artists are getting ripped off, misc fraudulent schemes involving Gema, and how money rolls to their exclusive members rather than the artists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEMA_(German_organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEMA_(German_organization). What happened in this case is that the recordings are in the Gema database which parties like Youtube are required to use to check for potential violations. Of course Gema has no interest whatsoever to prune this database of stuff that shouldn't be there (like public domain stuff) and good luck convincing them to remove stuff from that db. More entries basically means more money for them and the burden is on the payer to prove otherwise. Their strategy is to make this as hard and tedious as possible so they can maximize their profits.

tauntz 8y ago
The same is true in Estonia. Legally any artist can form an organization that is entitled to collect royalties for other artist's work. In practice there is only one such organization (Eesti Autorite Ühing) because nobody bothers to set up their own shop.. and if you're an artist and NOT a member of EAÜ they'll still happily collect money for your work and distribute it amongst their own members and own salaries/real estate etc. It's absurd.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

>>As for the family, there really isn't any reason they should obtain that copyright. If they wanna earn money with art, they have to create art on their own. OK, should you benefit from your father's or grandfather's talent in, say, business? Let's treat them equally.

jaxtellerSoA 8y ago

> Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Boy you are generous, if it was up to me copyrights would have a life of 10 years, no extensions/renewals. Ten years ought to be enough to squeeze a healthy chuck of profits out of your material. If after 10 years you can't/haven't come up with anything new, then you better find a new job.

FreakyT 8y ago
Agreed -- in addition, a shorter term like this fixes a major issue with using "life" specifically, which ends up unintentionally creating an incentive to murder the creator.
- maze-le 8y ago
  Wow, never thought about it this way. Its probably a nice plot for a crime novel.
- EADGBE 8y ago
  It'd be better to be able to by stock in an artist, and continue to let them live and create, while profiting yourself off those dividends.
hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
I don't understand why HN seems to want everyone to be a wage slave. If I create original work, I want to profit off it for my life. Anything else is just punishing people who are creators rather than property owners.
- cyphar 8y ago
  Because: a) Almost all artists sign deals with publishers to "get their foot in the door" which end up giving all of the rights to the publisher, and so the artist ends up being a "wage slave" because they don't profit off the rights of the work they made. b) Locking away works for entire generations means that cultural artistic development is stifled. Shakespeare's works were based on previous works and stories, and under the copyright system of today he would have been sued for his plays (and we probably wouldn't have them today). It is insanely short-sighted for corporations to lobby for longer copyright terms to have monopolies, at the expense of eradicating future generations' Shakespeares. c) The original purpose of copyright (under the Statute of Anne in 1710) was to provide a very limited monopoly by the authors (not publishers) so that they are incentivised to create new works. By your own admission, having lifetime copyright protections does not incentivise the creation of new works (you could argue that it actually is a counter-incentive if you wrote one work that became very popular early in your career). A return to that system would be a significant improvement.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ptero 8y ago

> Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. There are, to me, two broad classes of copyright. One is for the "works of art", that is for things that people can enjoy (e.g., music). I suspect whatever choice we make the society would not be affected too much. I think your lifetime / 50 years is a bit too generous, but whatever. IMO way more important is finding the right balance for the technology / know how. That is something that people want to replicate to learn, produce or improve things. The original idea of copyright makes sense, but with modern communication and prototyping speed, 5 years of exclusive use is the max we should give. I think the society should focus on the technology part first; sadly, most of the discussion is about the royalties to noise generators :).

hectorr1 8y ago
I don't think that the distinction between art and technology stands up to scrutiny. Both are iterative creative processes, and we want to empower future generations of both artists and technologists to build their ideas in a way that advances the current stack. Allowing art to be balkanized with excessive copyright hurts cultural development. And we depend on culture to shape everything, including our current environment that fosters technical innovation.
- ptero 8y ago
  I am not arguing for balkanizing art. I think it might deserve more generous copyright terms because it can take longer to get appreciated and generate revenue for the author. But I do not feel strongly about it either way.
JFFalcon 8y ago
I believe that copyright only refers to creative works. Technology would be covered by patents. See also trademarks as the third kind of intellectual property.

0xcde4c3db 8y ago

> Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Tell me one reason this shouldn't be the case. I'll give you three: 1) Even if it's unlikely for anyone to act on it (which I don't think can be taken for granted), it's perverse to have a law making it possible to terminate a copyright by murdering the author. 2) The term is too long. At 50 years since first publication, the vast majority of works have been out of print for 40+ years. Roughly half of people who experienced the contemporary zeitgeist are dead, and by this time surviving copies of the work might be difficult to find or in long-obsolete formats that are difficult to work with. 3) For works older than 50 years, it requires would-be public domain users to find out whether the author is still alive. This wouldn't be difficult for a famous author, but many authors don't enjoy such fame later in life, particularly if their creative careers are short. I'd support making it a 20-year fixed term with no renewals, although I think it can still be argued that that's too long.