6 ms·
I personally think the better solution is going back to how copyright worked pre 1976, where copyright had to be positively asserted to exist and everything els
by leeter 5y ago
I personally think the better solution is going back to how copyright worked pre 1976, where copyright had to be positively asserted to exist and everything else went into the public domain. I'm also of the position that a 'make available' clause needs to be added to ensure that a work is constantly available during its period of copyright; moreover if the rightsholder should fail to make it available for longer than a set period of time it reverts to the public domain permanently. Finally I think the default period for copyright should be 23years (in line with patents) with progressively more expensive renewals based on the annual income of the property, the goal being to encourage people to let things go into the public domain unless they are extremely profitable.
- shadilay 5y agoI wholly agree with this but the extension period should be forever with exponentially increasing fees not based on the profit of the work which can be gamed like movies are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
- BeFlatXIII 5y agoWhy forever and not terminated at the author’s funeral (or 20 years after publication, whichever is later)?
- redflagsTA 5y agoThis is tougher when the work is produced by a team and the copyright is owned by the company. There also needs to be logic to handle this other case.
- not2b 5y agoWouldn't help; with Content ID the big companies are positively asserting copyright to things they don't own.
- grishka 5y agoIMO copyright for creative works should last a year, maybe two or three, but no more. The most income something generates is usually when it just gets released. Movies, for example, usually don't even count their revenue from outside of movie theaters. This is the only way to make copyright mostly work, and make people respect it. Right now it's so long it could as well never expire. On the other hand, if it only lasts several years, many people would have the choice of paying right now or waiting for the copyright to expire and getting it for free. It's also very unfortunate that the entirety of our pop culture is covered by copyright right now. And second thing to make it work even better: copyright should not be transferable. It should not be possible to sign something to forfeit your exclusive rights to your own work.
- jonny_eh 5y ago> usually don't even count their revenue from outside of movie theaters I assure you, people are counting revenue. They're not releasing Blurays as a charity.
- grishka 5y agoI meant in publicly available "box office" figures and all that. Box office earnings alone usually cover all the expenses already, many times over.
- tehwebguy 5y agoI'm fairly sure the only reason for this is to minimize backend payments to actors & directors.
- jonny_eh 5y agoExactly, it's to not pay anyone that has terms in their contracts that say something like "earns 1% of the film's profits". If all the revenue is paid out to the studio in the form of "consulting fees" then voila: no profits.
- 5y ago