9 ms·

Seems like the correct ruling given the law. Maybe the law should be changed, but that’s a different issue. No one would give a crap about this if it didn’t ma

Seems like the correct ruling given the law. Maybe the law should be changed, but that’s a different issue. No one would give a crap about this if it didn’t mashup two extremely IPs. Should people be allowed to freely cash-in on existing IP? Maybe! Can they today? Not really no. I quite like many of the Sherlock Holmes remakes that exist. I’d love to see IP enter the public domain far far sooner. Seuss and OG Star Trek should almost definitely be public domain by now IMHO.

mindslight 6y ago
I'm no friend of copyright, but I've got to agree that this seems like the correct decision. The real problem is insane copyright terms making our cultural commons owned by private parties indefinitely. Twenty years (like patents) should be more than enough, especially as works under copyright protections are generally easier to bring to market.
- forrestthewoods 6y ago
  I’d go for something a little more tiered. First Harry Potter book came out in 1997. Do I think publishers or printing press companies should be allowed to sell Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone without giving Rowling money? No I do not. But I wouldn’t extend that past 50 years. And I might set compulsory licensing of some kind. Particularly for redistribution of existing work. I think some type of gradient between 20 to 50 or 30 to 50 makes sense. I also like the idea of having copyright expire after 10 years but require an increasing annual fee to extend. This would allow abandoned IP to recirculate but still give creators control over their work if it’s worth their time and money. I’d make the fee growth non-linear so that very few things are worth extending beyond 20 or 30 years. It’s a variant of “use it or lose it”.
  - TylerE 6y ago
    An idea I've always liked is a perpetually extendable copyright with rapidly escalating fees. E.g.... First 10 years are free The next 10 years cost $50 - Basically just enough to make it worth the time to process...basically a bozo filter for abandoned works) Years 21-30 cost $5,000. - Starting to cost real money, but not overly onerous to anything in active commerce. Years 31-40 cost $50,000 Years 41-50 cost $500,000 - Worth it only for highly lucrative works Years 51-60 cost $5,000,000 - You've got to really want it After that keep adding on zeros, I guess. I haven't really thought about the exact numbers. I personally have no problem with Disney keeping all rights to Mickey Mouse in perpetum if they write a billion dollar check every year for the privilege.
    - forrestthewoods 6y ago
      Something like that would be great. That scale actually feels pretty good.
    - EvanAnderson 6y ago
      What you're saying is too logical. It'd never fly, sadly. Those who want "intellectual property" to be treated like physical goods should be alright with it being taxed that way too. The social contract should be mutually beneficial, but right now copyright holders get to hold culture hostage and starve the public domain with egregiously long terms.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      Amazon paid 250 million dollars for the rights to Tolkien's Silmarillion. This proposed scheme will simply lock away most of IP (especially IP with any cultural significance) in the vaults of a few conglomerates.
      - webmaven 6y ago
        > This proposed scheme will simply lock away most of IP (especially IP with any cultural significance) in the vaults of a few conglomerates. The difference being that right now, most IP (regardless of significance) is already being locked up in this way, the conglomerates don't have to pay or take any overt action to keep them locked up, and orphan works are lost when all copies degrade before the lockup period expires (early film, in particular).
        dmitriid 6y ago
        The only way to fix it is to reduce copyright terms to a sane number of years. Any monetary schemes don't really work.
        webmaven 6y ago
        The above proposal is compatible with this goal, since it reduces the default copyright term, and adds optional paid extensions on a sliding scale. As compromises go, it's pretty decent. I few other wrinkles I'd suggest to reduce friction: a copyright registry is being reintroduced[0] here, and this registry must be made public just like patents and trademarks. Registrations and extensions should also be filed a year before expiration (no fair to create a derivative work based on something that is scheduled for expiration only to have the rug pulled out from under you). This gives the creator plenty of time to register a work after publication, minimizing the burden on copyright owners (currently copyright is granted with no notice or registration required). [0] Okay, not really, a copyright registry still exists today, but given it is optional and only affects the amount of damages you can collect from violations and absence from the registry isn't an affirmative defense, it isn't really comparable to the kind of registry that is needed to make such a scheme work. Nor is it comparable to the functions of the registry as it existed before copyright was made automatic.
nitrogen 6y ago
I agree with most of your comment, but want to point out that you're falling victim to the framing set by the IP maximalists: freely cash-in on existing IP I would reword this as "freely remix the culture that suffuses their minds and experiences"

mindslight 6y ago

I'm no friend of copyright, but I've got to agree that this seems like the correct decision. The real problem is insane copyright terms making our cultural commons owned by private parties indefinitely. Twenty years (like patents) should be more than enough, especially as works under copyright protections are generally easier to bring to market.

forrestthewoods 6y ago
I’d go for something a little more tiered. First Harry Potter book came out in 1997. Do I think publishers or printing press companies should be allowed to sell Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone without giving Rowling money? No I do not. But I wouldn’t extend that past 50 years. And I might set compulsory licensing of some kind. Particularly for redistribution of existing work. I think some type of gradient between 20 to 50 or 30 to 50 makes sense. I also like the idea of having copyright expire after 10 years but require an increasing annual fee to extend. This would allow abandoned IP to recirculate but still give creators control over their work if it’s worth their time and money. I’d make the fee growth non-linear so that very few things are worth extending beyond 20 or 30 years. It’s a variant of “use it or lose it”.
- TylerE 6y ago
  An idea I've always liked is a perpetually extendable copyright with rapidly escalating fees. E.g.... First 10 years are free The next 10 years cost $50 - Basically just enough to make it worth the time to process...basically a bozo filter for abandoned works) Years 21-30 cost $5,000. - Starting to cost real money, but not overly onerous to anything in active commerce. Years 31-40 cost $50,000 Years 41-50 cost $500,000 - Worth it only for highly lucrative works Years 51-60 cost $5,000,000 - You've got to really want it After that keep adding on zeros, I guess. I haven't really thought about the exact numbers. I personally have no problem with Disney keeping all rights to Mickey Mouse in perpetum if they write a billion dollar check every year for the privilege.
  - forrestthewoods 6y ago
    Something like that would be great. That scale actually feels pretty good.
  - EvanAnderson 6y ago
    What you're saying is too logical. It'd never fly, sadly. Those who want "intellectual property" to be treated like physical goods should be alright with it being taxed that way too. The social contract should be mutually beneficial, but right now copyright holders get to hold culture hostage and starve the public domain with egregiously long terms.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    Amazon paid 250 million dollars for the rights to Tolkien's Silmarillion. This proposed scheme will simply lock away most of IP (especially IP with any cultural significance) in the vaults of a few conglomerates.
    - webmaven 6y ago
      > This proposed scheme will simply lock away most of IP (especially IP with any cultural significance) in the vaults of a few conglomerates. The difference being that right now, most IP (regardless of significance) is already being locked up in this way, the conglomerates don't have to pay or take any overt action to keep them locked up, and orphan works are lost when all copies degrade before the lockup period expires (early film, in particular).
      - dmitriid 6y ago
        The only way to fix it is to reduce copyright terms to a sane number of years. Any monetary schemes don't really work.
        webmaven 6y ago
        The above proposal is compatible with this goal, since it reduces the default copyright term, and adds optional paid extensions on a sliding scale. As compromises go, it's pretty decent. I few other wrinkles I'd suggest to reduce friction: a copyright registry is being reintroduced[0] here, and this registry must be made public just like patents and trademarks. Registrations and extensions should also be filed a year before expiration (no fair to create a derivative work based on something that is scheduled for expiration only to have the rug pulled out from under you). This gives the creator plenty of time to register a work after publication, minimizing the burden on copyright owners (currently copyright is granted with no notice or registration required). [0] Okay, not really, a copyright registry still exists today, but given it is optional and only affects the amount of damages you can collect from violations and absence from the registry isn't an affirmative defense, it isn't really comparable to the kind of registry that is needed to make such a scheme work. Nor is it comparable to the functions of the registry as it existed before copyright was made automatic.

nitrogen 6y ago

I agree with most of your comment, but want to point out that you're falling victim to the framing set by the IP maximalists: freely cash-in on existing IP I would reword this as "freely remix the culture that suffuses their minds and experiences"