3 ms·

It is sad that Copyright, working closer to how it was originally intended, gets spun as 'a quirk'. Copyright is supposed to expire after a period of time rath

by blihp 7y ago

It is sad that Copyright, working closer to how it was originally intended, gets spun as 'a quirk'. Copyright is supposed to expire after a period of time rather than exist in perpetuity for the sole benefit of Copyright holders.

lukifer 7y ago
> for the sole benefit of Copyright holders One can debate the moral and philosophical issues of property rights until the cows come home, but in the case of copyrights, the legal construct is unambiguously not intended exclusively to protect natural rights or incomes for creators, but instead "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". The real challenge is that there's no inherent bright line or Schelling focus[0] that defines where that balance lies, between fair compensation to creators, and unlocking that artificial monopoly for We The People. Death of the author comes closest, but that could also leave families stranded after an untimely passing of a creative breadwinner. Death of the author + 18-25 (protecting income for dependents), might be the least worst. I'd be interested in hearing arguments for other durations; I don't see an obvious answer. (It's also curious that copyrights use the language of rights, which are typically thought to be inalienable, yet are transferrable as economic assets in ways that most other rights are not. Not saying that's good or bad, just noteworthy.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory)
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  You're arguing rationale, blihp is arguing effect. You're both correct, FWIW. The bright line has been researched by economists, based on present-value theory, and at time of publication there's little reason for duration to exceed the 14-28 years under original US copyright law. The problem is for popular works in the catalogue, a minuscule fraction of the total, for which copyright perpetuities are highly lucrative. As well as the general publishing industry incentive for creating a vast and potentially legally catastrophic level of FUD around virtually all stale works, regardless of actual copyright status.
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  > It's also curious that copyrights use the language of rights, which are typically thought to be inalienable, yet are transferrable as economic assets in ways that most other rights are not. As far as I understand it, the word “right” used to simply mean permission granted from some higher authority— “The duke has granted me the right to hunt in his forest”. The idea of inalienable rights came about much later (the Enlightenment?), as permissions granted from some authority higher than all earthly governments.
- imtringued 7y ago
  The reason why the death of the author was chosen is because it's convenient. People write their names on their books and their families declare their deaths when they die. The problems start with how long copyright lasts the older you get. If you write a book with 20 then you probably don't care what happens after your death but when you write it in your 70s the copyright will last a much shorter duration. The easy hack is obviously to add the average human lifespan on top of the date of death. In reality every copyrighted work should be dated and then each work can expire individually after a reasonable number of years, lets say 14 years with periodic renewals (in exchange for money).

by blihp 7y ago

lukifer 7y ago

> for the sole benefit of Copyright holders One can debate the moral and philosophical issues of property rights until the cows come home, but in the case of copyrights, the legal construct is unambiguously not intended exclusively to protect natural rights or incomes for creators, but instead "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". The real challenge is that there's no inherent bright line or Schelling focus[0] that defines where that balance lies, between fair compensation to creators, and unlocking that artificial monopoly for We The People. Death of the author comes closest, but that could also leave families stranded after an untimely passing of a creative breadwinner. Death of the author + 18-25 (protecting income for dependents), might be the least worst. I'd be interested in hearing arguments for other durations; I don't see an obvious answer. (It's also curious that copyrights use the language of rights, which are typically thought to be inalienable, yet are transferrable as economic assets in ways that most other rights are not. Not saying that's good or bad, just noteworthy.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory)

dredmorbius 7y ago
You're arguing rationale, blihp is arguing effect. You're both correct, FWIW. The bright line has been researched by economists, based on present-value theory, and at time of publication there's little reason for duration to exceed the 14-28 years under original US copyright law. The problem is for popular works in the catalogue, a minuscule fraction of the total, for which copyright perpetuities are highly lucrative. As well as the general publishing industry incentive for creating a vast and potentially legally catastrophic level of FUD around virtually all stale works, regardless of actual copyright status.
kd5bjo 7y ago
> It's also curious that copyrights use the language of rights, which are typically thought to be inalienable, yet are transferrable as economic assets in ways that most other rights are not. As far as I understand it, the word “right” used to simply mean permission granted from some higher authority— “The duke has granted me the right to hunt in his forest”. The idea of inalienable rights came about much later (the Enlightenment?), as permissions granted from some authority higher than all earthly governments.
imtringued 7y ago
The reason why the death of the author was chosen is because it's convenient. People write their names on their books and their families declare their deaths when they die. The problems start with how long copyright lasts the older you get. If you write a book with 20 then you probably don't care what happens after your death but when you write it in your 70s the copyright will last a much shorter duration. The easy hack is obviously to add the average human lifespan on top of the date of death. In reality every copyrighted work should be dated and then each work can expire individually after a reasonable number of years, lets say 14 years with periodic renewals (in exchange for money).