2 ms·

> 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 bei

> 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.

2 ms·

> 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 bei

by webmaven 6y ago

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.