4 ms·

In my eyes, copyright should be limited to 50 years after the first publication or the death of the author. This would still allow for proper commercial use of

by _ph_ 8y ago

In my eyes, copyright should be limited to 50 years after the first publication or the death of the author. This would still allow for proper commercial use of the works by the author, yet put realistic limits on how long a copyright holder can block access to copyrighted work. Because beyond direct usage of the copyrighted work, it always creates a risk for genuine new creators that their creations are percieved as infringing on some random copyrighted piece. For figures like Mickey, which are actively used, rather trademark law applies. While the early cartoons might expire in copyright, that only gives the public the right to use those cartoons, not to create random "Mickey Mouse" products. That is a reasonable differentiation in my eyes.

Noos 8y ago
That's a pretty fair compromise.
benj111 8y ago
Why 50? To my way of thinking, copyright should be set to the minimum required to induce/allow creators to create. I can't think of any creative medium/industry that would look more than 10 years out (except maybe Disney with their Marvel and Star wars factories, but I think that supports my point). Copyright is a government granted monopoly. We have pretty beefy laws regarding virtually every other kind of monopoly because its generally against the public interest. The only reason to offer the monopoly in this case is to encourage content creation. So the period of monopoly should be no longer than necessary.
- _ph_ 8y ago
  As a resonable compromise. Between 0 and the current 95 years, it is at a good middle. Also resonates well with the natural life spans. If your are creating works between 20 and 40, you have them under copyright for most of your life. The protection span should be long enough, that individual creators are not disincentivized to not publish creations early.
  - benj111 8y ago
    Lets (broadly) split creators into 2 groups. Individuals and companies. Individuals tend to produce smaller works because theres only one of them, concentrate on less capital intensive forms of creation, and I would contend tend to create regardless of copyright. Therefore the focus should be on allowing them enough money to create. Does 50 years allow them to do that? The majority of a works financial success in general comes in the first few years. I don't think the long tail of income dripping in is going to meaningfully allow them to carry on creating, and the cost to society isn't worth it either. Companies are more likely to work on larger, more capital intensive works. And are less likely to be intrinsically motivated to create. Creation is about what money they can make. Therefore the focus should be on arranging it, so that it is worth their time to create new works. Companies do not think long term in general. 10 years out is about the maximum. They aren't going to make investment decisions based on year 11. It will be based on years 1 - 10. Will that film not get filmed because copyright is only 10 years? Will that book not get written? I don't think those decisions will change, whether copyright is 10 years or 100 years. The only difference is society loses derivative works. What about that high successful fan fiction writer that never was? Or that director that (never) got their start remixing films? The status quo isn't some Neutral where nobody loses out. Subsidies we give to current and past creators have to be paid by some one.
- _ph_ 8y ago
  Another thought just crossed my mind: if the copyright period would be a mere 10 years, then the Linux kernel up to 2.6.24 would be out of protection and close-sourced forks would be possible. So 10 years would defeat a lot of software licenses.
  - benj111 8y ago
    Why would that be a bad thing? The only real difference I can think it would make is that set top box that you cant modify anyway no longer has a link to a 10 year out of date kernel.
- mikro2nd 8y ago
  10 years might be good enough for software, maybe movies and TV, but 50 is certainly a lot more appropriate for a book. I know of one case where a guy wrote a book -- a gardening book -- which was quite popular for its territory and niche. Then the author died. Fortunately for his widow the copyright protects her now primary source of income. But for copyright existing beyond the author's life she'd be destitute. Books are a writer's pension plan.
  - benj111 8y ago
    Pensions should be a writers pension plan. Replace the Author with someone with a normal job. Do their widows have some right to ongoing payment based on their partners work? It just seems bizarre reasoning to me, that doesn't seem to be applied elsewhere. And it doesn't even work that well. The Paul McCartneys of the world are rolling in more money than they and their relatives will ever need. Mean while there are actual creators that need paying jobs to continue doing their creating. Why does one creators widow/child/grand/great grand child have more of a right to a living than another actual creator? If we want a paternalistic system where we look after creators, then fine, do it fairly. If you want a somewhat free market where we attempt to maximise value for all parties then fine do it fairly. Edit to add: Copyright should allow/encourage creators to create. I'm not saying writers should have to churn out pulp fiction to make ends meet. I also don't think there should be an expectation that you can retire after one gardening book. The writer that retires after one book is a loss to society.

by _ph_ 8y ago

Noos 8y ago

That's a pretty fair compromise.

benj111 8y ago

Why 50? To my way of thinking, copyright should be set to the minimum required to induce/allow creators to create. I can't think of any creative medium/industry that would look more than 10 years out (except maybe Disney with their Marvel and Star wars factories, but I think that supports my point). Copyright is a government granted monopoly. We have pretty beefy laws regarding virtually every other kind of monopoly because its generally against the public interest. The only reason to offer the monopoly in this case is to encourage content creation. So the period of monopoly should be no longer than necessary.

_ph_ 8y ago
As a resonable compromise. Between 0 and the current 95 years, it is at a good middle. Also resonates well with the natural life spans. If your are creating works between 20 and 40, you have them under copyright for most of your life. The protection span should be long enough, that individual creators are not disincentivized to not publish creations early.
- benj111 8y ago
  Lets (broadly) split creators into 2 groups. Individuals and companies. Individuals tend to produce smaller works because theres only one of them, concentrate on less capital intensive forms of creation, and I would contend tend to create regardless of copyright. Therefore the focus should be on allowing them enough money to create. Does 50 years allow them to do that? The majority of a works financial success in general comes in the first few years. I don't think the long tail of income dripping in is going to meaningfully allow them to carry on creating, and the cost to society isn't worth it either. Companies are more likely to work on larger, more capital intensive works. And are less likely to be intrinsically motivated to create. Creation is about what money they can make. Therefore the focus should be on arranging it, so that it is worth their time to create new works. Companies do not think long term in general. 10 years out is about the maximum. They aren't going to make investment decisions based on year 11. It will be based on years 1 - 10. Will that film not get filmed because copyright is only 10 years? Will that book not get written? I don't think those decisions will change, whether copyright is 10 years or 100 years. The only difference is society loses derivative works. What about that high successful fan fiction writer that never was? Or that director that (never) got their start remixing films? The status quo isn't some Neutral where nobody loses out. Subsidies we give to current and past creators have to be paid by some one.
_ph_ 8y ago
Another thought just crossed my mind: if the copyright period would be a mere 10 years, then the Linux kernel up to 2.6.24 would be out of protection and close-sourced forks would be possible. So 10 years would defeat a lot of software licenses.
- benj111 8y ago
  Why would that be a bad thing? The only real difference I can think it would make is that set top box that you cant modify anyway no longer has a link to a 10 year out of date kernel.
mikro2nd 8y ago
10 years might be good enough for software, maybe movies and TV, but 50 is certainly a lot more appropriate for a book. I know of one case where a guy wrote a book -- a gardening book -- which was quite popular for its territory and niche. Then the author died. Fortunately for his widow the copyright protects her now primary source of income. But for copyright existing beyond the author's life she'd be destitute. Books are a writer's pension plan.
- benj111 8y ago
  Pensions should be a writers pension plan. Replace the Author with someone with a normal job. Do their widows have some right to ongoing payment based on their partners work? It just seems bizarre reasoning to me, that doesn't seem to be applied elsewhere. And it doesn't even work that well. The Paul McCartneys of the world are rolling in more money than they and their relatives will ever need. Mean while there are actual creators that need paying jobs to continue doing their creating. Why does one creators widow/child/grand/great grand child have more of a right to a living than another actual creator? If we want a paternalistic system where we look after creators, then fine, do it fairly. If you want a somewhat free market where we attempt to maximise value for all parties then fine do it fairly. Edit to add: Copyright should allow/encourage creators to create. I'm not saying writers should have to churn out pulp fiction to make ends meet. I also don't think there should be an expectation that you can retire after one gardening book. The writer that retires after one book is a loss to society.