5 ms·

If I wrote a book in 1961 (hypothetically, that would have been precocious even for my parents), it would be in copyright for 75 years after my death. If I rec

If I wrote a book in 1961 (hypothetically, that would have been precocious even for my parents), it would be in copyright for 75 years after my death. If I recorded a song in 1961, that recording would go out of copyright this year under the previous regime. The rights and wrongs of lengthy copyright protection are a separate issue, but the differential treatment of different artistic forms is something I feel should be addressed. This is a step towards equalisation (not full equalisation but a lot less controversial and so easier to enact), and for that I'm thankful.

jellicle 15y ago
Oddly enough, I've never yet seen anyone making the "harmonization" argument argue that the lengthier term should be reduced, rather than arguing that the shorter term should be lengthened. Why is that? Nor is it clear that different countries and different media should have the same rules in the first place.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  Mainly because it is the artists right to own their work for their life. Authors get to, musicians don't, this gets especially tricky when you get artists like (hate to mention him) Justin Bieber who have legitimate recording and writing credits in his early teens. Given the sort of healthcare accessible to the extremely wealthy, it's doubtful that this kid wont outlive copyright even at 70 years from his 2009 copyrights. The problem is it would be like any one of the entrepreneurs on HN being told in X-many years that "Sorry, you lived too long so your company is being taken from you, you'll no longer receive any profit from it and it IS NOT being purchased from you at a fair market value. Sucks to be you. Copyright is one of the most difficult issues we have, because almost anyone who has worked to make their own money be it entrepreneur, writer, musician, etc. would think it abhorrent that they could eventually be forced to give up their work that may still hold a reputable value on the market be forcibly given up for economic loss. It's quite frankly absurd. Then you have organizations like the RIAA and MPAA who act on behalf of mega-corps that have conglomerated thousands of peoples work under themselves and keeps those artists trapped with huge debts, lengthy record contracts, etc. The RIAA does to musicians what Monsanto does to farmers. They're elephants throwing their weight around in a pen full of guinea pigs, and its hard to see these corporations as anything but evil and greedy. Basically because all they are are evil and greedy. Then you have the legislators who all have a lot of green mysteriously slipped into their pockets, and they claim to be pro-business and support copyright because it helps the little guy. Whilst the little guy is generally unable to be helped because they're firmly squashed beneath an elephants feet. The problem gets really complex when an authors children starts making legitimate derivative works, because then the series as a whole needs to be kept in copyright to enforce the derivative works clause. So who decides what would be a legitimate derivative work to extend copyright to the end of the child's life, and what isn't so the material has a chance to re-enter the market and not be killed off by the Estates greed. Personally I believe copyright should be 20 years on a work and in case of a series it should be 20 years for the whole from the date of the latest derivative work. Basically, if an author or their estate haven't produced a derivative in 20 years, then it's time to shit or get off the pot. As a writer I don't think this would be harsh, it might encourage creativity and discourage people trying to make Hollywood sales on everything they make.
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    What about drug companies. In just a few years Viagra is entering the public domain and that's more valuable (and cost more to create) than every single song produced in 1961 and 2010. The reality is Artists get a ridiculously long period of time to extract value from their work and we would probably be better off if copywrite lasted 20 years than what it's been extended to for the same reasons that patents are so short.
  - masklinn 15y ago
    > Mainly because it is the artists right to own their work for their life. Why would it be? Copyright was initially supposed to bring betterment to society, not even more wealth to successful artists. How does extending performer rights by 20 years improve society as a whole? > Authors get to, musicians don't Compositors already did. They're musicians. Performers did not. > The problem is it would be like any one of the entrepreneurs on HN being told in X-many years that "Sorry, you lived too long so your company is being taken from you, you'll no longer receive any profit from it and it IS NOT being purchased from you at a fair market value. No, no it would not. > Personally I believe copyright should be 20 years on a work and in case of a series it should be 20 years for the whole from the date of the latest derivative work. Basically, if an author or their estate haven't produced a derivative in 20 years, then it's time to shit or get off the pot. That's a highway to even worse abuse than the current system (which in the fullness of time will already reach infinite copyright duration). > As a writer I don't think this would be harsh, it might encourage creativity. How? A new release with half a paragraph changed would already be a derivative. Have you even seen how many times Lucas has "remastered" star wars?
  - mseebach 15y ago
    It's not fair to compare companies and copyright. I can make a company that provides the same service as your company or a bit of your company or as your company and two others combined, and not violate anything -- that's (mostly) celebrated as competition and innovation. Also, your proposed 20 years copyright + 20 years extensions for derivatives would make it trivial to extend copyright indefinitely by producing a trivial derivative at 19 years. It could even be automated. I think it would be better to fix the derivative works clause so such a work is copyrighted on its own.
code_duck 15y ago
Sounds good... the copyright on books should be reduced to that of recordings, I agree. Oh wait, they did they opposite? Why that I wonder?
nitrogen 15y ago
I strongly disagree that copyright terms for different categories of works should be equal, whether out of a sense of "fairness" or for any other reason. The copyright term should be just long enough to encourage production, yet short enough to match the pace of change in the relevant industry. Personally, I'd give software the shortest copyright terms, music slightly longer, and literary works slightly longer than that, with no copyright term ever longer than 28 years. As an aside, increasing lifespans should give us more time to enjoy the world and push it forward. Instead, they're used as a justification to slow the world down with things like longer copyright terms for long-lived authors.
serge2k 15y ago
A step towards sanity would be to bring other forms of copyright more in line with the 50 years for music. What good does it do a song you wrote in 1960 to be copyrighted in 2060?

jellicle 15y ago

Oddly enough, I've never yet seen anyone making the "harmonization" argument argue that the lengthier term should be reduced, rather than arguing that the shorter term should be lengthened. Why is that? Nor is it clear that different countries and different media should have the same rules in the first place.

electromagnetic 15y ago
Mainly because it is the artists right to own their work for their life. Authors get to, musicians don't, this gets especially tricky when you get artists like (hate to mention him) Justin Bieber who have legitimate recording and writing credits in his early teens. Given the sort of healthcare accessible to the extremely wealthy, it's doubtful that this kid wont outlive copyright even at 70 years from his 2009 copyrights. The problem is it would be like any one of the entrepreneurs on HN being told in X-many years that "Sorry, you lived too long so your company is being taken from you, you'll no longer receive any profit from it and it IS NOT being purchased from you at a fair market value. Sucks to be you. Copyright is one of the most difficult issues we have, because almost anyone who has worked to make their own money be it entrepreneur, writer, musician, etc. would think it abhorrent that they could eventually be forced to give up their work that may still hold a reputable value on the market be forcibly given up for economic loss. It's quite frankly absurd. Then you have organizations like the RIAA and MPAA who act on behalf of mega-corps that have conglomerated thousands of peoples work under themselves and keeps those artists trapped with huge debts, lengthy record contracts, etc. The RIAA does to musicians what Monsanto does to farmers. They're elephants throwing their weight around in a pen full of guinea pigs, and its hard to see these corporations as anything but evil and greedy. Basically because all they are are evil and greedy. Then you have the legislators who all have a lot of green mysteriously slipped into their pockets, and they claim to be pro-business and support copyright because it helps the little guy. Whilst the little guy is generally unable to be helped because they're firmly squashed beneath an elephants feet. The problem gets really complex when an authors children starts making legitimate derivative works, because then the series as a whole needs to be kept in copyright to enforce the derivative works clause. So who decides what would be a legitimate derivative work to extend copyright to the end of the child's life, and what isn't so the material has a chance to re-enter the market and not be killed off by the Estates greed. Personally I believe copyright should be 20 years on a work and in case of a series it should be 20 years for the whole from the date of the latest derivative work. Basically, if an author or their estate haven't produced a derivative in 20 years, then it's time to shit or get off the pot. As a writer I don't think this would be harsh, it might encourage creativity and discourage people trying to make Hollywood sales on everything they make.
- onemoreact 15y ago
  What about drug companies. In just a few years Viagra is entering the public domain and that's more valuable (and cost more to create) than every single song produced in 1961 and 2010. The reality is Artists get a ridiculously long period of time to extract value from their work and we would probably be better off if copywrite lasted 20 years than what it's been extended to for the same reasons that patents are so short.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > Mainly because it is the artists right to own their work for their life. Why would it be? Copyright was initially supposed to bring betterment to society, not even more wealth to successful artists. How does extending performer rights by 20 years improve society as a whole? > Authors get to, musicians don't Compositors already did. They're musicians. Performers did not. > The problem is it would be like any one of the entrepreneurs on HN being told in X-many years that "Sorry, you lived too long so your company is being taken from you, you'll no longer receive any profit from it and it IS NOT being purchased from you at a fair market value. No, no it would not. > Personally I believe copyright should be 20 years on a work and in case of a series it should be 20 years for the whole from the date of the latest derivative work. Basically, if an author or their estate haven't produced a derivative in 20 years, then it's time to shit or get off the pot. That's a highway to even worse abuse than the current system (which in the fullness of time will already reach infinite copyright duration). > As a writer I don't think this would be harsh, it might encourage creativity. How? A new release with half a paragraph changed would already be a derivative. Have you even seen how many times Lucas has "remastered" star wars?
- mseebach 15y ago
  It's not fair to compare companies and copyright. I can make a company that provides the same service as your company or a bit of your company or as your company and two others combined, and not violate anything -- that's (mostly) celebrated as competition and innovation. Also, your proposed 20 years copyright + 20 years extensions for derivatives would make it trivial to extend copyright indefinitely by producing a trivial derivative at 19 years. It could even be automated. I think it would be better to fix the derivative works clause so such a work is copyrighted on its own.

code_duck 15y ago

Sounds good... the copyright on books should be reduced to that of recordings, I agree. Oh wait, they did they opposite? Why that I wonder?

nitrogen 15y ago

I strongly disagree that copyright terms for different categories of works should be equal, whether out of a sense of "fairness" or for any other reason. The copyright term should be just long enough to encourage production, yet short enough to match the pace of change in the relevant industry. Personally, I'd give software the shortest copyright terms, music slightly longer, and literary works slightly longer than that, with no copyright term ever longer than 28 years. As an aside, increasing lifespans should give us more time to enjoy the world and push it forward. Instead, they're used as a justification to slow the world down with things like longer copyright terms for long-lived authors.

serge2k 15y ago

A step towards sanity would be to bring other forms of copyright more in line with the 50 years for music. What good does it do a song you wrote in 1960 to be copyrighted in 2060?