5 ms·

The root cause is that 70+ years is laughably high for copyright to last. It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a high

The root cause is that 70+ years is laughably high for copyright to last. It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time. Of course, the MPAA/RIAA owns our government and has for a while. Not to mention the trade deals the US brokered in the last year made sure to taint the copyright duration of every other country too so this will probably never get fixed until we all decide to practice some Civil Disobedience.

kjakm 7y ago
>> The root cause is that 70+ years is laughably high for copyright to last. It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time. Sounds like this would just screw the little guy. Warner aren't going to have a problem paying an increasing fee every decade when their works are still bringing in large amounts of money. The people this would hurt are the smaller artists eeking out a living suddenly losing a large chuck of their income. Maybe the 70 years shouldn't be a fixed number but should vary based on 'sales' each year. Or you lose copyright after a certain 'sales' threshold. That way everyone gets to make a 'fair' amount of money from their works before losing copyright. Easier said than done though.
- larrik 7y ago
  On the other hand, having to explicitly re-up copyright means no more vaguery on who owns what.
  - kjakm 7y ago
    I agree that's a good idea, I just don't agree with the increasing financial cost each time you re-up.
    - jimbob45 7y ago
      The increasing cost is meant to appease entities like Disney, who can't let properties like Mickey Mouse escape their hands. Thus, there is a system for them to retain their copyright indefinitely, though at a cost.
  - zzo38computer 7y ago
    Yes, that would help with that problem. If it were up to me I would just abolish copyrights and patents. But, another idea I have seen is that copyright lasts 2 years for free, and then after that you have to pay a fee (of your choice) to the government to retain copyright; copyright expires in 14 years. However, anyone can make it public domain early if they pay the copyright holder 100 times the fee for retaining copyright.
- mmebane 7y ago
  Maybe make it an exponentially increasing cost, such that most people can afford 2-3 renewals, but the cost increases steeply after that. The first $X per renewal could go to the copyright office, and everything above that to the Library of Congress.
arminiusreturns 7y ago
No, the root cause is the DMCA. Copyright is good in most cases and while there is room for improvement, and room for discussion for how it might need to evolve in a different information industry, it is copyright that helps protect even FOSS copyleft for example. When DMCA was passed I remember the arguments being about this very sort of thing, and most of the hacktivist-types I knew at the time railed against it... but they obviously lost and weren't listened to. I think those who opposed DMCA are being vindicated... This is the problem when you have a "representative" government that actually doesn't represent you at all.
- NobodyNada 7y ago
  Note that the DMCA isn’t involved here. YouTube has their own system for copyright claims that allow 3rd parties to take down videos without filing a DMCA takedown. If the claimant filed a DMCA request, the video owner could file a counter-notice which would put the video back up unless the claimant decides to sue. Since YouTube allows copyright holders to take down a video without going through the DMCA, then the video owner loses the right to file a counter-notice, and the copyright holder gets the final word on whether the video is taken down.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    Note that this is dead wrong. Content ID claims can be disputed, and if the rights owner doesn't convert it to a DMCA claim then the content goes back up.
    - NobodyNada 7y ago
      TIL, thanks. Although, based on https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en, it looks like the rights owner can delay the appeal process for up to 60 days, keeping the video down (since you have to file a dispute which gives them 30 days to respond, and then an appeal which gives them another 30).
      - 7y ago
oliwarner 7y ago
> It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time So Disney, The Beatles, The Stones (etc) could all afford to stay copyrighted indefinitely, but all my content would enter into public domain (and exploitable by megacorps) after 10 years? I don't disagree that there are existing issues, but I think you'd just be introducing more.
- Something1234 7y ago
  The financial cost should be exponential in nature with no die off. Maybe the first couple would be affordable like 40 years worth. initial - $ 0 10 year renewal - $ 50 20 year renewal - $ 500 30 year renewal - $ 5,000 40 year renewal - $ 500,000 50 year renewal - $ 5,000,000 60 year renewal - $50,000,000 n year renewal - a_{n-1} * 10 Note all of those numbers should be inflation adjusted as needed. Especially considering that most money is made in the first couple of years. Maybe treat characters and franchises as trademarks instead too. Make it a use it or lose it after the copyright expires.

kjakm 7y ago

>> The root cause is that 70+ years is laughably high for copyright to last. It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time. Sounds like this would just screw the little guy. Warner aren't going to have a problem paying an increasing fee every decade when their works are still bringing in large amounts of money. The people this would hurt are the smaller artists eeking out a living suddenly losing a large chuck of their income. Maybe the 70 years shouldn't be a fixed number but should vary based on 'sales' each year. Or you lose copyright after a certain 'sales' threshold. That way everyone gets to make a 'fair' amount of money from their works before losing copyright. Easier said than done though.

larrik 7y ago
On the other hand, having to explicitly re-up copyright means no more vaguery on who owns what.
- kjakm 7y ago
  I agree that's a good idea, I just don't agree with the increasing financial cost each time you re-up.
  - jimbob45 7y ago
    The increasing cost is meant to appease entities like Disney, who can't let properties like Mickey Mouse escape their hands. Thus, there is a system for them to retain their copyright indefinitely, though at a cost.
- zzo38computer 7y ago
  Yes, that would help with that problem. If it were up to me I would just abolish copyrights and patents. But, another idea I have seen is that copyright lasts 2 years for free, and then after that you have to pay a fee (of your choice) to the government to retain copyright; copyright expires in 14 years. However, anyone can make it public domain early if they pay the copyright holder 100 times the fee for retaining copyright.
mmebane 7y ago
Maybe make it an exponentially increasing cost, such that most people can afford 2-3 renewals, but the cost increases steeply after that. The first $X per renewal could go to the copyright office, and everything above that to the Library of Congress.

arminiusreturns 7y ago

No, the root cause is the DMCA. Copyright is good in most cases and while there is room for improvement, and room for discussion for how it might need to evolve in a different information industry, it is copyright that helps protect even FOSS copyleft for example. When DMCA was passed I remember the arguments being about this very sort of thing, and most of the hacktivist-types I knew at the time railed against it... but they obviously lost and weren't listened to. I think those who opposed DMCA are being vindicated... This is the problem when you have a "representative" government that actually doesn't represent you at all.

NobodyNada 7y ago
Note that the DMCA isn’t involved here. YouTube has their own system for copyright claims that allow 3rd parties to take down videos without filing a DMCA takedown. If the claimant filed a DMCA request, the video owner could file a counter-notice which would put the video back up unless the claimant decides to sue. Since YouTube allows copyright holders to take down a video without going through the DMCA, then the video owner loses the right to file a counter-notice, and the copyright holder gets the final word on whether the video is taken down.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  Note that this is dead wrong. Content ID claims can be disputed, and if the rights owner doesn't convert it to a DMCA claim then the content goes back up.
  - NobodyNada 7y ago
    TIL, thanks. Although, based on https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en, it looks like the rights owner can delay the appeal process for up to 60 days, keeping the video down (since you have to file a dispute which gives them 30 days to respond, and then an appeal which gives them another 30).
    - 7y ago

oliwarner 7y ago

> It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time So Disney, The Beatles, The Stones (etc) could all afford to stay copyrighted indefinitely, but all my content would enter into public domain (and exploitable by megacorps) after 10 years? I don't disagree that there are existing issues, but I think you'd just be introducing more.

Something1234 7y ago
The financial cost should be exponential in nature with no die off. Maybe the first couple would be affordable like 40 years worth. initial - $ 0 10 year renewal - $ 50 20 year renewal - $ 500 30 year renewal - $ 5,000 40 year renewal - $ 500,000 50 year renewal - $ 5,000,000 60 year renewal - $50,000,000 n year renewal - a_{n-1} * 10 Note all of those numbers should be inflation adjusted as needed. Especially considering that most money is made in the first couple of years. Maybe treat characters and franchises as trademarks instead too. Make it a use it or lose it after the copyright expires.