3 ms·

I've long considered the copyright duration question to be a red herring. If we legalize noncommercial infringement, who cares how long copyright terms are? The

I've long considered the copyright duration question to be a red herring. If we legalize noncommercial infringement, who cares how long copyright terms are? They could be infinite for all I care and I don't see any harm to society so long as noncommercial sharing is legal.

zozbot234 7y ago
"Noncommercial use" can be very hard to pin down in many cases. Of course it would be good to legalize noncommercial infringement especially for "orphan" works, but this is not enough. At some point, rights should expire wrt. all uses of the work.
- beerandt 7y ago
  Even well defined, non-commercial use exemptions would only lead to the same systematic abuses that so called non-profits (or not-for-profits) exploit today for tax purposes. I'm not sure what the right answer is for copyright, but I think going back to a 10,12, or even 20 year time frame for protection is a better starting point. Let's get the definition of "limited (time) period" fixed before subjecting another term to misuse.
krapp 7y ago
It's not a red herring, so much as a different philosophical question. Why should a copyright owner have exclusive, perpetual ownership over an intellectual property?
- kethinov 7y ago
  Why shouldn't they? What gives someone a moral right to produce a derivative work of something I create and make money doing it? (I think people seem to forget that legalizing noncommercial infringement also legalizes noncommercial derivative works.)
  - fjeifisjf 7y ago
    it's a natural right. Or it isn't. There's no rationale either way, it's a chosen axiom.
nitrogen 7y ago
I take the opposite stance. Term lengths are way more important than restrictions during the term. This is a question of consumer culture versus cultural participation. Allowing noncommercial infringent just perpetuates the big producer/small conser dichotomy. Begging for access proves the high worth of whatever the producers make. Instead if copyright terms are reduced to 14 or 28 years, then if you want to watch something for free you just wait a bit, as long as there are provisions ensuring non-DRM access when terms expire. But then after that time, you can remix, remake, fanfic, etc. to your heart's content. Thus the culture becomes free for everyone, not just the content.
- kethinov 7y ago
  I don't want to wait. Nor does anyone else. That's just a recipe for perpetuating widespread, inevitable illicit file sharing. We need to legitimize this activity and bring it into the fold. Also keep in mind that legalizing noncommercial infringement also legalizes noncommercial derivative works. Remix all you want. Just don't make money on it.
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    Also keep in mind that legalizing noncommercial infringement also legalizes noncommercial derivative works. I think it's important to point out derivative works specifically because that doesn't necessarily follow. However, making money is also part of the point after terms expire.

zozbot234 7y ago

"Noncommercial use" can be very hard to pin down in many cases. Of course it would be good to legalize noncommercial infringement especially for "orphan" works, but this is not enough. At some point, rights should expire wrt. all uses of the work.

beerandt 7y ago
Even well defined, non-commercial use exemptions would only lead to the same systematic abuses that so called non-profits (or not-for-profits) exploit today for tax purposes. I'm not sure what the right answer is for copyright, but I think going back to a 10,12, or even 20 year time frame for protection is a better starting point. Let's get the definition of "limited (time) period" fixed before subjecting another term to misuse.

krapp 7y ago

It's not a red herring, so much as a different philosophical question. Why should a copyright owner have exclusive, perpetual ownership over an intellectual property?

kethinov 7y ago
Why shouldn't they? What gives someone a moral right to produce a derivative work of something I create and make money doing it? (I think people seem to forget that legalizing noncommercial infringement also legalizes noncommercial derivative works.)
- fjeifisjf 7y ago
  it's a natural right. Or it isn't. There's no rationale either way, it's a chosen axiom.

nitrogen 7y ago

I take the opposite stance. Term lengths are way more important than restrictions during the term. This is a question of consumer culture versus cultural participation. Allowing noncommercial infringent just perpetuates the big producer/small conser dichotomy. Begging for access proves the high worth of whatever the producers make. Instead if copyright terms are reduced to 14 or 28 years, then if you want to watch something for free you just wait a bit, as long as there are provisions ensuring non-DRM access when terms expire. But then after that time, you can remix, remake, fanfic, etc. to your heart's content. Thus the culture becomes free for everyone, not just the content.

kethinov 7y ago
I don't want to wait. Nor does anyone else. That's just a recipe for perpetuating widespread, inevitable illicit file sharing. We need to legitimize this activity and bring it into the fold. Also keep in mind that legalizing noncommercial infringement also legalizes noncommercial derivative works. Remix all you want. Just don't make money on it.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  Also keep in mind that legalizing noncommercial infringement also legalizes noncommercial derivative works. I think it's important to point out derivative works specifically because that doesn't necessarily follow. However, making money is also part of the point after terms expire.