6 ms·

This is why copyright should only last for 20 years or so. Possibly extendable one time and one time only. As an absolute maximum.

javert 6y ago
Longer copyright times would incentivize more investment in artists. For example, you would see "YC for budding young novelists" if copyright were more long-term and secure. You can pay the living expenses of a whole lot of would-be-starving-artists-but-actually-baristas, for an enormous number of years, if you can collect investment revenue from the one who turned out to be Stephen King. This idea is an extension of what copyright is for, which it to allow creators to make money, thus incentivizing them. I support unlimited-duration copyright.
- danbmil99 6y ago
  I don't think the financial challenge of being a writer these days is correlated to copyright laws being too weak.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- lokl 6y ago
  Some literary agencies operate like this. They make most of their revenue from a small number of authors. In some ways, literary agencies already are "YC for budding young novelists."
  - javert 6y ago
    I appreciate your pointing this out. My proposal would undoubtedly allow literary agencies to take more chances, funding more new authors for longer periods of time.
- rectang 6y ago
  > I support unlimited-duration copyright. Wow. That's an unpopular position around here! Even among those of us who support copyright and cringe at the advocacy for piracy you often see in these threads, I think there is a lot more support for shortening copyright duration. Zero copyright facilitates exploitation by certain corporations (telecoms, media giants), while unlimited copyright facilitates exploitation by a different set of corporations (IP-hoarding publishers). Limited duration copyright is the best option.
  - javert 6y ago
    But there is a counterpoint to that. More copyright helps creators and incentivizes creation. > unlimited copyright facilitates exploitation by a different set of corporations "Exploitation" is a loaded word. Nobody is going to pay $500 to read Harry Potter. What you would see with unlimited copyright is what you already see: there is a reasonable maximum that can be charged for (say) books in a given market. In other markets (e.g. 3rd world), prices are lower. Scientific publishing is an entirely different issue, BTW. Science journal publishers rape universities and the general public. That is not really because of copyright. It's a different system of abuse that I don't want to raise here.
    - jbay808 6y ago
      Of the creators you know, how many of them would rank the limited duration of copyright terms among their chief worries that lead them to re-think a career as a creator?
    - metalliqaz 6y ago
      > More copyright helps creators and incentivizes creation. This is false. It helps corporations and hardly anyone else. There was incentive to create music and other works before copyright and there would still be without it.
      - javert 6y ago
        This side-steps the idea presented in my original comment (4th parent of this comment).
- metalliqaz 6y ago
  Really drank Disney's cool-aid, huh?
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't do this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > You can pay the living expenses of a whole lot of would-be-starving-artists-but-actually-baristas, for an enormous number of years, if you can collect investment revenue from the one who turned out to be Stephen King. even with unlimited-length copyright, who would do that? if I'm the investor, I would just find a bunch of aspiring artists and offer to pay their living expenses for a year in exchange for ownership of the copyright. I'd ditch the ones that didn't make money and offer better terms to the successful ones for their next work. with unlimited-length copyright, I might be willing to give more people a one-year shot, but the end result would still be that most of them go back to their barista job.
  - mr_toad 6y ago
    This is pretty much how the music industry operates already.
- PhantomGremlin 6y ago
  if copyright were more long-term I really don't get this. Other people have already replied to you but not specifically on "long-term" vs your later "unlimited-duration" stand. The USA adopted the Berne Convention in 1989. It stipulates that the duration of the term for copyright protection is the life of the author plus at least 50 years after their death. For some categories of works, the minimum duration is shorter. For example, the minimum term for applied art is 25 years. Movies have a minimum term of 50 years. Countries may choose a longer term of protection, and most countries have done so. If you're a potential "budding young novelist", will you eschew that career because life + 50 years isn't unlimited and isn't long enough for you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths#Berne_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright...
LukeShu 6y ago
Honestly, I'd be happy with a short term and unlimited renewals; you just have to renew it. Shortish base-term of 10 years or so that works as currently, but after that you need to renew every 10 years. Let the special interests that currently lobby to extend copyright just spend that money renewing; don't hold everyone else's stuff hostage from the public domain too. And by forcing them to actually file renewals, the forgotten works in buyouts will slip through to the PD; there will be no questions of "who actually owns these rights" for old works, just check who renewed it.
- giancarlostoro 6y ago
  Also make it public record on the internet. Current copyright owners must renew with proof for anything over 10 years old. Boom.
  - LukeShu 6y ago
    Maybe not on the Internet, but go back to old Library of Congress rules. You used to need to file a copy with the Library of Congress to obtain copyright. Then they'd start filing it, but immediately taking it out on loan, and lose it. Then they'd "file" it and take it out on loan before ever giving it over; the copy for the library never existed. Then they decided to just give up on the farce, and not make you file. To renew a work, you should have to actually file a (non-DRM) copy with the Library of Congress, and not take it out on loan. If it's important enough to renew, it's important enough for the Library to demand an actual copy. Now, I don't support having to file with the Library of Congress for the initial copyright, that'd disproportionately hurt independent people who publish on the Internet.
    - giancarlostoro 6y ago
      I mean I'm not opposed to this, but if you're claiming something is your copyright, there should be online carbon copies of it so anybody can confirm and verify.
- rectang 6y ago
  I agree that the uncertainty over whether works are actually copyrighted is a major concern, and one that I wish we could fix independent of the issue of copyright duration. However, concentration of valuable IP in the hands of the few is also a problem. Limited duration copyright provides the greatest benefit to individual authors (by maximizing their bargaining power while limiting the bargaining power of IP-hoarders through erosion) and the public domain.
rtx 6y ago
Do you also hold the same views for brand names?
- dllthomas 6y ago
  Well, for my part, I do think that we should be able to copy and share brand names without permission from their originator after 20 years. On the flip side, I also think that we shouldn't be able to use creative works to pass ourselves off as someone we're not, at any point after the creation. "IP" is an odd collection collection of things that actually work pretty different from each other. Patent limits the use of some kinds information; copyright limits the copying of other kinds of information. Both of these are naturally "non-rivalrous" - I can watch a movie or build an engine at the same time that you watch that same movie or build that same (kind of) engine and we don't interfere with each other. We artificially treat them as if they were rivalrous - where "there are only so many to go around" - so that the market will better reward their production. Letting them eventually fall into the public domain, however, ameliorates the dead weight loss we're causing by artificially driving up the price. Trademark is a bit different. Someone choosing to do business with me, because they have had good experiences doing so in the past or heard about me from a friend, is a limited resource in a way information alone is not. Letting others confuse that by providing their own goods and services under my mark doesn't increase the total value available. So your question isn't really a natural one. These things work differently and it makes sense that we treat them differently. Having said that, your question does make me think about an issue I've seen crop up occasionally, where a long-standing brand known for high quality will self destruct by cutting the quality without cutting prices. If the reduction in quality allows for sufficient cutting of expenses, and the reduction in quality is not sufficiently, immediately obvious, this can radically increase margins without significantly decreasing volume and make people a lot of short term profit until the suckers buying the product figure it out. On the one hand, simply capping the length would presumably make this worse, not better. On the other hand, making them contingent on something beyond a certain point might be an interesting space to look for a solution.
- iso1210 6y ago
  Copyright and patents protect the producer Trademarks protect the consumer

javert 6y ago

Longer copyright times would incentivize more investment in artists. For example, you would see "YC for budding young novelists" if copyright were more long-term and secure. You can pay the living expenses of a whole lot of would-be-starving-artists-but-actually-baristas, for an enormous number of years, if you can collect investment revenue from the one who turned out to be Stephen King. This idea is an extension of what copyright is for, which it to allow creators to make money, thus incentivizing them. I support unlimited-duration copyright.

danbmil99 6y ago
I don't think the financial challenge of being a writer these days is correlated to copyright laws being too weak.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
lokl 6y ago
Some literary agencies operate like this. They make most of their revenue from a small number of authors. In some ways, literary agencies already are "YC for budding young novelists."
- javert 6y ago
  I appreciate your pointing this out. My proposal would undoubtedly allow literary agencies to take more chances, funding more new authors for longer periods of time.
rectang 6y ago
> I support unlimited-duration copyright. Wow. That's an unpopular position around here! Even among those of us who support copyright and cringe at the advocacy for piracy you often see in these threads, I think there is a lot more support for shortening copyright duration. Zero copyright facilitates exploitation by certain corporations (telecoms, media giants), while unlimited copyright facilitates exploitation by a different set of corporations (IP-hoarding publishers). Limited duration copyright is the best option.
- javert 6y ago
  But there is a counterpoint to that. More copyright helps creators and incentivizes creation. > unlimited copyright facilitates exploitation by a different set of corporations "Exploitation" is a loaded word. Nobody is going to pay $500 to read Harry Potter. What you would see with unlimited copyright is what you already see: there is a reasonable maximum that can be charged for (say) books in a given market. In other markets (e.g. 3rd world), prices are lower. Scientific publishing is an entirely different issue, BTW. Science journal publishers rape universities and the general public. That is not really because of copyright. It's a different system of abuse that I don't want to raise here.
  - jbay808 6y ago
    Of the creators you know, how many of them would rank the limited duration of copyright terms among their chief worries that lead them to re-think a career as a creator?
  - metalliqaz 6y ago
    > More copyright helps creators and incentivizes creation. This is false. It helps corporations and hardly anyone else. There was incentive to create music and other works before copyright and there would still be without it.
    - javert 6y ago
      This side-steps the idea presented in my original comment (4th parent of this comment).
metalliqaz 6y ago
Really drank Disney's cool-aid, huh?
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't do this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
leetcrew 6y ago
> You can pay the living expenses of a whole lot of would-be-starving-artists-but-actually-baristas, for an enormous number of years, if you can collect investment revenue from the one who turned out to be Stephen King. even with unlimited-length copyright, who would do that? if I'm the investor, I would just find a bunch of aspiring artists and offer to pay their living expenses for a year in exchange for ownership of the copyright. I'd ditch the ones that didn't make money and offer better terms to the successful ones for their next work. with unlimited-length copyright, I might be willing to give more people a one-year shot, but the end result would still be that most of them go back to their barista job.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  This is pretty much how the music industry operates already.
PhantomGremlin 6y ago
if copyright were more long-term I really don't get this. Other people have already replied to you but not specifically on "long-term" vs your later "unlimited-duration" stand. The USA adopted the Berne Convention in 1989. It stipulates that the duration of the term for copyright protection is the life of the author plus at least 50 years after their death. For some categories of works, the minimum duration is shorter. For example, the minimum term for applied art is 25 years. Movies have a minimum term of 50 years. Countries may choose a longer term of protection, and most countries have done so. If you're a potential "budding young novelist", will you eschew that career because life + 50 years isn't unlimited and isn't long enough for you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths#Berne_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright...

LukeShu 6y ago

Honestly, I'd be happy with a short term and unlimited renewals; you just have to renew it. Shortish base-term of 10 years or so that works as currently, but after that you need to renew every 10 years. Let the special interests that currently lobby to extend copyright just spend that money renewing; don't hold everyone else's stuff hostage from the public domain too. And by forcing them to actually file renewals, the forgotten works in buyouts will slip through to the PD; there will be no questions of "who actually owns these rights" for old works, just check who renewed it.

giancarlostoro 6y ago
Also make it public record on the internet. Current copyright owners must renew with proof for anything over 10 years old. Boom.
- LukeShu 6y ago
  Maybe not on the Internet, but go back to old Library of Congress rules. You used to need to file a copy with the Library of Congress to obtain copyright. Then they'd start filing it, but immediately taking it out on loan, and lose it. Then they'd "file" it and take it out on loan before ever giving it over; the copy for the library never existed. Then they decided to just give up on the farce, and not make you file. To renew a work, you should have to actually file a (non-DRM) copy with the Library of Congress, and not take it out on loan. If it's important enough to renew, it's important enough for the Library to demand an actual copy. Now, I don't support having to file with the Library of Congress for the initial copyright, that'd disproportionately hurt independent people who publish on the Internet.
  - giancarlostoro 6y ago
    I mean I'm not opposed to this, but if you're claiming something is your copyright, there should be online carbon copies of it so anybody can confirm and verify.
rectang 6y ago
I agree that the uncertainty over whether works are actually copyrighted is a major concern, and one that I wish we could fix independent of the issue of copyright duration. However, concentration of valuable IP in the hands of the few is also a problem. Limited duration copyright provides the greatest benefit to individual authors (by maximizing their bargaining power while limiting the bargaining power of IP-hoarders through erosion) and the public domain.

rtx 6y ago

Do you also hold the same views for brand names?

dllthomas 6y ago
Well, for my part, I do think that we should be able to copy and share brand names without permission from their originator after 20 years. On the flip side, I also think that we shouldn't be able to use creative works to pass ourselves off as someone we're not, at any point after the creation. "IP" is an odd collection collection of things that actually work pretty different from each other. Patent limits the use of some kinds information; copyright limits the copying of other kinds of information. Both of these are naturally "non-rivalrous" - I can watch a movie or build an engine at the same time that you watch that same movie or build that same (kind of) engine and we don't interfere with each other. We artificially treat them as if they were rivalrous - where "there are only so many to go around" - so that the market will better reward their production. Letting them eventually fall into the public domain, however, ameliorates the dead weight loss we're causing by artificially driving up the price. Trademark is a bit different. Someone choosing to do business with me, because they have had good experiences doing so in the past or heard about me from a friend, is a limited resource in a way information alone is not. Letting others confuse that by providing their own goods and services under my mark doesn't increase the total value available. So your question isn't really a natural one. These things work differently and it makes sense that we treat them differently. Having said that, your question does make me think about an issue I've seen crop up occasionally, where a long-standing brand known for high quality will self destruct by cutting the quality without cutting prices. If the reduction in quality allows for sufficient cutting of expenses, and the reduction in quality is not sufficiently, immediately obvious, this can radically increase margins without significantly decreasing volume and make people a lot of short term profit until the suckers buying the product figure it out. On the one hand, simply capping the length would presumably make this worse, not better. On the other hand, making them contingent on something beyond a certain point might be an interesting space to look for a solution.
iso1210 6y ago
Copyright and patents protect the producer Trademarks protect the consumer