4 ms·

This is hard to get into without context. Copyright (and patents) exist "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to A

This is hard to get into without context. Copyright (and patents) exist "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The purpose is to promote the progress of science and useful arts for the public's benefit, the means is a limited time monopoly. The limited time rights are intended to be the minimum necessary to incentivize people to create for the public's benefit. Originally this was 14yrs, required registration, and could be renewed once. The intent has been twisted by those with an interest in perpetuating copyright indefinitely (rights holders). Now copyright is 70yrs after the death of the creator or 95yrs after publication for contract work. [0] Why does someone need to be incentivized to create after they're dead? Why were these extensions retroactive since you can't incentivize someone to create something they've already created? This has been argued in the US courts, the end result of these extensions was because each one is still for a 'limited time' they're okay - even if they're repeatedly extended at each expiration. This isn't the original intent or spirit of copyright law. > "Pirating it now deprives the owner of some amount of ability to make money from it in the future." The rights holders have lobbied to twist the law for their own self-interest and then play victim - I have little sympathy for that. I think if we had something sane (5yrs, maybe special protections around certain types of adaptations, maybe longer time frame to reward authors specifically up to some dollar amount if adapted for-profit, restrictions on for-profit distribution by third parties?) the law would be more aligned with its original goals and there would be fewer issues. Today you can't even declare something 'public domain' if you want to since copyright is reserved by default. The best you can do is license it permissively. [0]: An aside, at one point it was until the author's death. This gave me an idea for a B-movie where a serial killer goes around taking out pop groups so their music goes into the public domain.

sputr 6y ago
A very good comment. I would like to point out to everyone that the correct expression to use in these discussions is rights holder NOT author. Anyone still imagining this as a fight between pirate and "author" is strongly misled. Most people will happily support the author - just look at youtube/patreon. But most are also aware that buying or pirating a book ... has very little to do with the author in either case.
- realityking 6y ago
  The author presumably got paid at some point and how much directly relates to how long the new rights holder will be able to monetize the creation. If a book is only copyrighted for, say, 5 years after creation, the advances for authors will become a lot smaller.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    That seems fine on net since the public benefits massively. If it turns out 5 isn't enough time to incentivize people to actually write books or make movies then maybe back to the original 14. I don't know the specific policy answer that turns out to be enough time to keep the incentive, but I do know it isn't 95 years after the publication date or 70 years after the author's death.
FalconSensei 6y ago
> Why does someone need to be incentivized to create after they're dead? That means if I spend a couple years writing a book, instead of spending more time with my family or working on something else, and get hit by a car and die the day after the release... my family is left with nothing? My incentive to create would be that my family would have some earning even after my death (if I'm older or sick, for example)
- fossuser 6y ago
  A problem better solved by life insurance than copyright. That said, you'd still have the 5yr or whatever amount of time. I don't think tying it to the life of the author makes sense. It was just an example of how the spirit of the law got twisted from 'incentive to create' to 'rights holders should profit forever from their IP'.
CogitoCogito 6y ago
This is a good point and worthy some thought. Let's say that Congress passes another extension of copyright the day before a certain work is to enter the public domain. Is it then unethical to pirate it the next day? What if it didn't pass? Is it unethical to make use of the work the next day without paying the owners of the IP? Why? What's the true difference? If this line of reasoning makes sense, then when is it unethical to pirate works? Until the copyright goes out? Until the original authors die? Until the original authors' heirs die? Until 14 + 14 years have passed (original extended copyright length)? Or is it when the IP is owned by individuals and not corporations? Maybe ethics here just is a bit too complicated and it's pointless to bring it into the discussion?

sputr 6y ago

A very good comment. I would like to point out to everyone that the correct expression to use in these discussions is rights holder NOT author. Anyone still imagining this as a fight between pirate and "author" is strongly misled. Most people will happily support the author - just look at youtube/patreon. But most are also aware that buying or pirating a book ... has very little to do with the author in either case.

realityking 6y ago
The author presumably got paid at some point and how much directly relates to how long the new rights holder will be able to monetize the creation. If a book is only copyrighted for, say, 5 years after creation, the advances for authors will become a lot smaller.
- fossuser 6y ago
  That seems fine on net since the public benefits massively. If it turns out 5 isn't enough time to incentivize people to actually write books or make movies then maybe back to the original 14. I don't know the specific policy answer that turns out to be enough time to keep the incentive, but I do know it isn't 95 years after the publication date or 70 years after the author's death.

FalconSensei 6y ago

> Why does someone need to be incentivized to create after they're dead? That means if I spend a couple years writing a book, instead of spending more time with my family or working on something else, and get hit by a car and die the day after the release... my family is left with nothing? My incentive to create would be that my family would have some earning even after my death (if I'm older or sick, for example)

fossuser 6y ago
A problem better solved by life insurance than copyright. That said, you'd still have the 5yr or whatever amount of time. I don't think tying it to the life of the author makes sense. It was just an example of how the spirit of the law got twisted from 'incentive to create' to 'rights holders should profit forever from their IP'.

CogitoCogito 6y ago

This is a good point and worthy some thought. Let's say that Congress passes another extension of copyright the day before a certain work is to enter the public domain. Is it then unethical to pirate it the next day? What if it didn't pass? Is it unethical to make use of the work the next day without paying the owners of the IP? Why? What's the true difference? If this line of reasoning makes sense, then when is it unethical to pirate works? Until the copyright goes out? Until the original authors die? Until the original authors' heirs die? Until 14 + 14 years have passed (original extended copyright length)? Or is it when the IP is owned by individuals and not corporations? Maybe ethics here just is a bit too complicated and it's pointless to bring it into the discussion?