3 ms·

You seem to misunderstand how copyright works. Registration is not required and there is no comprehensive registry of everything copyrighted. Copyrights are cre

You seem to misunderstand how copyright works. Registration is not required and there is no comprehensive registry of everything copyrighted. Copyrights are created upon creation of the work and inure to the author. Registration merely grants the author certain benefits (e.g., a right to pursue statutory damages against infringers). > No filing? Copyright invalid, public domain. This would kill copyright entirely. 99.999% of copyright-eligible works are commercially worthless and always will be. Even if registration were free, it would not be worth the time to do it in most cases. However, we want to protect all copyrightable works so that in the 0.001% case, the right person or people can capitalize on the value of their work. For example, if you wrote a story years ago and would like to make it into a novel, it would be unfair if anyone could copy your story because you didn't register your copyright.

jedberg 6y ago
I'm actually very aware of how copyright works. I know there is no registration. That's a huge problem, as it leads to abandoned works. I want to change the system to require registration. > 99.999% of copyright-eligible works are commercially worthless and always will be Then it should be no problem to have it in the public domain. > However, we want to protect all copyrightable works so that in the 0.001% case, the right person or people can capitalize on the value of their work Why? > For example, if you wrote a story years ago and would like to make it into a novel, it would be unfair if anyone could copy your story because you didn't register your copyright. Why? The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to pursue risky creative endeavors and then know that they are protected from someone stealing it before they can make money on it. If someone has no intention of making money, then they will create for free, and there is no reason to protect it. If they want to make money, they can register it.
- anon98356 6y ago
  Creating something without the intention of making money is different from creating something without the prospect of making money. The former is already covered by the likes of Creative Commons licensing or just not enforcing copyright. But if I create something without expecting it to be successful why shouldn't that be protected on the off chance it does end up being successful?
  - jedberg 6y ago
    > But if I create something without expecting it to be successful why shouldn't that be protected on the off chance it does end up being successful? Copyright is not meant to protect your profits. It's meant to encourage creative risk taking. If you're going to take the creative risk anyway, then copyright isn't necessary.
    - bdowling 6y ago
      > Copyright is not meant to protect your profits. It's meant to encourage creative risk taking. Copyright encourages creative risk taking precisely by protecting the economic interests (e.g., profits) of those creative risk takers. > If you're going to take the creative risk anyway, then copyright isn't necessary. People don't take risks when there's zero possibility of reward. Even people who create mainly for themselves would be demoralized by the idea that even if they were successful, anyone could just take and exploit their work.
      - jedberg 6y ago
        Then they can just register their work. Make the first five years free or even 10. The point is registration won't affect creative output.
        bdowling 6y ago
        There's no such thing as a free lunch. Processing registrations and maintaining a registry has significant costs. In 2019, the US Copyright Office made 547,837 registrations and received about $35 million in total fees. [0] In 2019, the Registrar of Copyrights asked Congress for a budget of $92.9 million. [1] Currently, most works are only registered when owners have an actual infringer that they want to assert statutory damages against, or when a work is a commercial work that will certainly be infringed. If mandatory registration were enacted, the Copyright Office would need to handle hundreds or thousands of times as many registrations. Even an impossible 1000x expansion of registration capacity wouldn't come close to being able to register everything that people would actually want to protect. For example, a user on Quora [2] estimated that 100 million photos are uploaded to Instagram every day. Even if registration were free and streamlined, the yearly capacity of a 1000x Office would be saturated by 5 days of Instagram photos alone. If registration were mandatory, commercial producers of creative works would not be affected because they would quickly learn to register everything. Ordinary people who don't want their Instagram photos to be exploited by others for profit, however, would lose. Opportunists who want to use the works of others without paying would win. So, even if mandatory registration didn't affect creative output, it would be ridiculously expensive and would upset who wins and who loses in a way that would be counter to the public interest. It's never going to happen. Goals in copyright policy should be addressed narrowly. If you want more works to enter the public domain, then you adjust the copyright term. If you want people to be able to use apparently-abandoned works, then you make apparent abandonment a defense to a claim of copyright infringement. If you want to expand Fair Use, then you amend the statute. Mandatory registration, however, would be a dramatic change that would upset everything; it's not worth discussing and I regret spending so much time on this response. [0] https://www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/2019/ar2019.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/2019/ar2019.pdf [1] https://www.copyright.gov/about/budget/2020/senate-budget-testimony-fy20.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/about/budget/2020/senate-budget-te... [2] https://www.quora.com/How-many-photos-are-being-uploaded-on-Instagram-daily https://www.quora.com/How-many-photos-are-being-uploaded-on-...
- simonh 6y ago
  This would be a plagiarists manifesto. Just because I can't afford to copyright everything I write, that doesn't mean it's ok for anyone else to just take it. Also, what happens if i intend to copyright it when it's finished, but someone gets hold of a copy and publishes it before I'm ready? Some authors can take decades to develop a project. What you're advocating is a poorly thought out recipe for publishers to systematically rip off artists.

jedberg 6y ago

I'm actually very aware of how copyright works. I know there is no registration. That's a huge problem, as it leads to abandoned works. I want to change the system to require registration. > 99.999% of copyright-eligible works are commercially worthless and always will be Then it should be no problem to have it in the public domain. > However, we want to protect all copyrightable works so that in the 0.001% case, the right person or people can capitalize on the value of their work Why? > For example, if you wrote a story years ago and would like to make it into a novel, it would be unfair if anyone could copy your story because you didn't register your copyright. Why? The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to pursue risky creative endeavors and then know that they are protected from someone stealing it before they can make money on it. If someone has no intention of making money, then they will create for free, and there is no reason to protect it. If they want to make money, they can register it.

anon98356 6y ago
Creating something without the intention of making money is different from creating something without the prospect of making money. The former is already covered by the likes of Creative Commons licensing or just not enforcing copyright. But if I create something without expecting it to be successful why shouldn't that be protected on the off chance it does end up being successful?
- jedberg 6y ago
  > But if I create something without expecting it to be successful why shouldn't that be protected on the off chance it does end up being successful? Copyright is not meant to protect your profits. It's meant to encourage creative risk taking. If you're going to take the creative risk anyway, then copyright isn't necessary.
  - bdowling 6y ago
    > Copyright is not meant to protect your profits. It's meant to encourage creative risk taking. Copyright encourages creative risk taking precisely by protecting the economic interests (e.g., profits) of those creative risk takers. > If you're going to take the creative risk anyway, then copyright isn't necessary. People don't take risks when there's zero possibility of reward. Even people who create mainly for themselves would be demoralized by the idea that even if they were successful, anyone could just take and exploit their work.
    - jedberg 6y ago
      Then they can just register their work. Make the first five years free or even 10. The point is registration won't affect creative output.
      - bdowling 6y ago
        There's no such thing as a free lunch. Processing registrations and maintaining a registry has significant costs. In 2019, the US Copyright Office made 547,837 registrations and received about $35 million in total fees. [0] In 2019, the Registrar of Copyrights asked Congress for a budget of $92.9 million. [1] Currently, most works are only registered when owners have an actual infringer that they want to assert statutory damages against, or when a work is a commercial work that will certainly be infringed. If mandatory registration were enacted, the Copyright Office would need to handle hundreds or thousands of times as many registrations. Even an impossible 1000x expansion of registration capacity wouldn't come close to being able to register everything that people would actually want to protect. For example, a user on Quora [2] estimated that 100 million photos are uploaded to Instagram every day. Even if registration were free and streamlined, the yearly capacity of a 1000x Office would be saturated by 5 days of Instagram photos alone. If registration were mandatory, commercial producers of creative works would not be affected because they would quickly learn to register everything. Ordinary people who don't want their Instagram photos to be exploited by others for profit, however, would lose. Opportunists who want to use the works of others without paying would win. So, even if mandatory registration didn't affect creative output, it would be ridiculously expensive and would upset who wins and who loses in a way that would be counter to the public interest. It's never going to happen. Goals in copyright policy should be addressed narrowly. If you want more works to enter the public domain, then you adjust the copyright term. If you want people to be able to use apparently-abandoned works, then you make apparent abandonment a defense to a claim of copyright infringement. If you want to expand Fair Use, then you amend the statute. Mandatory registration, however, would be a dramatic change that would upset everything; it's not worth discussing and I regret spending so much time on this response. [0] https://www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/2019/ar2019.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/2019/ar2019.pdf [1] https://www.copyright.gov/about/budget/2020/senate-budget-testimony-fy20.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/about/budget/2020/senate-budget-te... [2] https://www.quora.com/How-many-photos-are-being-uploaded-on-Instagram-daily https://www.quora.com/How-many-photos-are-being-uploaded-on-...
simonh 6y ago
This would be a plagiarists manifesto. Just because I can't afford to copyright everything I write, that doesn't mean it's ok for anyone else to just take it. Also, what happens if i intend to copyright it when it's finished, but someone gets hold of a copy and publishes it before I'm ready? Some authors can take decades to develop a project. What you're advocating is a poorly thought out recipe for publishers to systematically rip off artists.