4 ms·

> For movies or music for instance, something like 3 year period of copyright ownership would be fine. Great line of thinking. But I think the idea of earning

by sdht0 6y ago

> For movies or music for instance, something like 3 year period of copyright ownership would be fine. Great line of thinking. But I think the idea of earning income from a creative work throughout one's life also has value. A compromise is to retain the existing copyright periods (after which works go to the public domain),but after 5-10 years of creation, works would become free for non commercial distribution. So Netflix would still have to pay for movies in their catalog. But me torrenting it from people freely sharing it and playing it on VLC would be legal.

oscargrouch 6y ago
> Great line of thinking. But I think the idea of earning income from a creative work throughout one's life also has value. I agree with you, at least in parts. I was addressing only the issue of copyright with digital copies, where people watch. play or listen free of charge after a given period. But still after the artist, crew, studio or company cashed from their success, they could still make copyright grants to people that want to reproduce their content. For instance, the free extension would only cover private listening, viewing or playing. But if you want to play the movie in your theater and make some bucks out of it, them you would have to pay for the copyright with the 'extended period rule'. If you are musician and want to sing the song in your show, you would have to pay for copyright. The logic here goes to anyone that might sell others people labor while getting it for free. This should be protected by the copyright law, more or less the way it is now. But for private consumption, just giving enough time that would not be reasonable to just "wait for when its free" for people that otherwise would be buying is enough. If your kids want to watch the new Avengers movies that cost just 10 bucks, who would wait 3 years for such a small value? The problem is the whole industry is still stuck in the 20th century where products were all physical goods. The digital realm and copies are here to stay, they are fighting against the tide, and one day they will wake up that its a lost battle. > A compromise is to retain the existing copyright periods (after which works go to the public domain),but after 5-10 years of creation, works would become free for non commercial distribution. So Netflix would still have to pay for movies in their catalog. But me torrenting it from people freely sharing it and playing it on VLC would be legal. Yes, that's basically it. But 10 years is too much and unnecessary. Within 3 to 4 years anything stop being fresh. People that buy things when they are fresh are no longer interested, and its enough time to make it if your piece had a bad first launch, but by virtue started to catch-up and make some bucks to the creators. The key is to define a period of time where the piece might stop trending until very few people pay for them. Analitics might help to get a reasonable period for each media.

by sdht0 6y ago

oscargrouch 6y ago

> Great line of thinking. But I think the idea of earning income from a creative work throughout one's life also has value. I agree with you, at least in parts. I was addressing only the issue of copyright with digital copies, where people watch. play or listen free of charge after a given period. But still after the artist, crew, studio or company cashed from their success, they could still make copyright grants to people that want to reproduce their content. For instance, the free extension would only cover private listening, viewing or playing. But if you want to play the movie in your theater and make some bucks out of it, them you would have to pay for the copyright with the 'extended period rule'. If you are musician and want to sing the song in your show, you would have to pay for copyright. The logic here goes to anyone that might sell others people labor while getting it for free. This should be protected by the copyright law, more or less the way it is now. But for private consumption, just giving enough time that would not be reasonable to just "wait for when its free" for people that otherwise would be buying is enough. If your kids want to watch the new Avengers movies that cost just 10 bucks, who would wait 3 years for such a small value? The problem is the whole industry is still stuck in the 20th century where products were all physical goods. The digital realm and copies are here to stay, they are fighting against the tide, and one day they will wake up that its a lost battle. > A compromise is to retain the existing copyright periods (after which works go to the public domain),but after 5-10 years of creation, works would become free for non commercial distribution. So Netflix would still have to pay for movies in their catalog. But me torrenting it from people freely sharing it and playing it on VLC would be legal. Yes, that's basically it. But 10 years is too much and unnecessary. Within 3 to 4 years anything stop being fresh. People that buy things when they are fresh are no longer interested, and its enough time to make it if your piece had a bad first launch, but by virtue started to catch-up and make some bucks to the creators. The key is to define a period of time where the piece might stop trending until very few people pay for them. Analitics might help to get a reasonable period for each media.