3 ms·

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 a

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.
alasdair_ 6y ago
Personally I'd like to see something similar, but with taxes (perhaps 2% or so) paid on the value of the property. Who sets the value? You do! With the caveat that anyone can buy a perpetual license to do anything they want with the property if they pay its declared value.
- milesvp 6y ago
  I’ve been wanting this for years! Ever since I saw an econ paper that estimated the majority of copyrights wouldn’t be renewed if they even cost $1. It’s such an elegant solution. It can still be gamed, but at least it provides some price feedback in the system.
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    “Radical Markets” is the book I stole the idea from, although they advocate for complete ownership transfer instead of perpetual licensing, which seems a bit unfair to me.
- jacobkania 6y ago
  I’ve heard this idea before on HN in regards to reforming patent law also. I LOVE this idea. Pay a small tax on the stated value, but also allow others to buy rights at that stated value. When filing for a patent or copyright, say “I believe this is worth $1m” — so you pay a $20k tax on filing/renewing it. If you’re not confident that your idea can actually redeem 2% of that stated value, then maybe it’s too risky to actually be worth that much. So you say it’s worth $100k because you can definitely make at least $2k from it. But if you’re really only confident in making $2k from your idea, and someone else is allowed to “buy license to use your material” at $100k, you’d be absolutely floored to make so much money from that idea. So if you end up being wildly successful, you’ve still made a lot of money (and can keep using your idea), but now competition/reuse is allowed past your stated value threshold.
  - bl0b 6y ago
    What if you have an excellent idea but don't have any money with which to 'secure' it? Or is that more something a patent is meant to handle.
hanoz 6y ago
> Honestly, I'd be happy with a short term and unlimited renewals; you just have to renew it. An immeasurable treasure of music and other works of art in the public domain would still be in the hands of these rentiers on that basis.
- gruez 6y ago
  You can work around this by making the renewal price increase exponentially (or geometrically) the more times you renew it.
robocat 6y ago
> And by forcing them to actually file renewals, the forgotten works in buyouts will slip through to the [public domain]. I can’t see how that would work now that the data is digitised and the filings are completely automated. At best it might work for some older music, but it wouldn’t work for anything produced after the rule was introduced because services would be created to automatically do the filing for artists.

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.

alasdair_ 6y ago

Personally I'd like to see something similar, but with taxes (perhaps 2% or so) paid on the value of the property. Who sets the value? You do! With the caveat that anyone can buy a perpetual license to do anything they want with the property if they pay its declared value.

milesvp 6y ago
I’ve been wanting this for years! Ever since I saw an econ paper that estimated the majority of copyrights wouldn’t be renewed if they even cost $1. It’s such an elegant solution. It can still be gamed, but at least it provides some price feedback in the system.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  “Radical Markets” is the book I stole the idea from, although they advocate for complete ownership transfer instead of perpetual licensing, which seems a bit unfair to me.
jacobkania 6y ago
I’ve heard this idea before on HN in regards to reforming patent law also. I LOVE this idea. Pay a small tax on the stated value, but also allow others to buy rights at that stated value. When filing for a patent or copyright, say “I believe this is worth $1m” — so you pay a $20k tax on filing/renewing it. If you’re not confident that your idea can actually redeem 2% of that stated value, then maybe it’s too risky to actually be worth that much. So you say it’s worth $100k because you can definitely make at least $2k from it. But if you’re really only confident in making $2k from your idea, and someone else is allowed to “buy license to use your material” at $100k, you’d be absolutely floored to make so much money from that idea. So if you end up being wildly successful, you’ve still made a lot of money (and can keep using your idea), but now competition/reuse is allowed past your stated value threshold.
- bl0b 6y ago
  What if you have an excellent idea but don't have any money with which to 'secure' it? Or is that more something a patent is meant to handle.

hanoz 6y ago

> Honestly, I'd be happy with a short term and unlimited renewals; you just have to renew it. An immeasurable treasure of music and other works of art in the public domain would still be in the hands of these rentiers on that basis.

gruez 6y ago
You can work around this by making the renewal price increase exponentially (or geometrically) the more times you renew it.

robocat 6y ago

> And by forcing them to actually file renewals, the forgotten works in buyouts will slip through to the [public domain]. I can’t see how that would work now that the data is digitised and the filings are completely automated. At best it might work for some older music, but it wouldn’t work for anything produced after the rule was introduced because services would be created to automatically do the filing for artists.