4 ms·

I don't see that much a problem with it. 95 years or death + 70 years gives the creator and their children the benefit of their copyrights. How long do people

I don't see that much a problem with it. 95 years or death + 70 years gives the creator and their children the benefit of their copyrights. How long do people think it should be?

loeg 5y ago
One thousand years. This gives the creator, their children, and their descendants the benefit of their copyrights for a millennium.
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  1,000 years is too long IMO.
  - loeg 5y ago
    Why 200 years, but not 1000?
    - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
      Who said 200 years?
      - _dain_ 5y ago
        Disney, circa 2070.
        VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
        Is that real or did you just make that up
        _dain_ 5y ago
        I saw it in a dream, so yes it's real.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Why should the children get the benefit of copyrights at all? If the work made anything during the author's lifetime they already inherit that benefit, and then you are saying they should get another lifetime's worth of revenue ownership as well ¯\(°_o)/¯ Also, many works are not by human authors but teams of contract workers who assigned their copyright interest to an employer for a paycheck and waived any long-term interest therein. Obviously said employer wishes to recoup their investment but I'm not convinced that the children of the original shareholders need monopoly protection. 95 years is already longer than the average human lifetime. Betty White died the other day at the age of almost 100; imagine if the 95-year erm had always been the in effect, and consider that only works published before she reached the age of 5 would have become available during her lifetime.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    YHBT. YHL. HAND.
- syockit 5y ago
  That gives DMCA a whole new and literal meaning.
Gigachad 5y ago
I'd find that fine as long as we weaken the definition of copyright. Protect the exact text of Harry Potter for that long but allow people to write their own related works at any time.
- danny_codes 5y ago
  Yeah to me this is an important distinction. The _idea_ of Harry Potter and the Harry Potter books are IMO different things. It's like re-making a move like Wizard of Oz. It's just a new thing, but based on the same source material.
password1 5y ago
Why would the children need to inherit the copyright? They can inherit the money that the parent earned, the companies he founded, the merchandise and brands he created with the IP. Imagine inheriting the Star Wars brand without the exclusive copyright, it would still be worth billions. They can inherit a LOT even without having the copyrights.
int_19h 5y ago
I don't think there should be a limit, but if we're going to treat things as property, let's also tax them as property. If you're willing to pay property taxes for 95 years, it's all yours. If not, it becomes public domain. I'd also make the tax progressive over time, starting with zero for the first few years (basically to give the author some time to market it), and then gradually rising. What's the justification for taxing it? Well, just as physical property is a monopoly on exclusive use of some thing, copyright is a monopoly on exclusive use of some information. Both take something out of the commons, and yet both also depend on the commons to actually enforce this monopoly and profit from it. It stands to reason that the commons should be compensated.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> How long do people think it should be? As long as the copyright owner is willing to pay for it. The first, say, 7 years should be free. After that, the copyright owner declares a value (which serves as a standing offer to sell it into the public domain that any person, natural or corporate, can accept by rendering payment) and pays an annual tax, at a gradually increasing percentage, on the declared value. There should also be a minimum declared value for continued protection, which also increases by age of the work (as well as being indexed for inflation).

I don't see that much a problem with it. 95 years or death + 70 years gives the creator and their children the benefit of their copyrights. How long do people think it should be?

loeg 5y ago

One thousand years. This gives the creator, their children, and their descendants the benefit of their copyrights for a millennium.

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
1,000 years is too long IMO.
- loeg 5y ago
  Why 200 years, but not 1000?
  - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
    Who said 200 years?
    - _dain_ 5y ago
      Disney, circa 2070.
      - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
        Is that real or did you just make that up
        _dain_ 5y ago
        I saw it in a dream, so yes it's real.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Why should the children get the benefit of copyrights at all? If the work made anything during the author's lifetime they already inherit that benefit, and then you are saying they should get another lifetime's worth of revenue ownership as well ¯\(°_o)/¯ Also, many works are not by human authors but teams of contract workers who assigned their copyright interest to an employer for a paycheck and waived any long-term interest therein. Obviously said employer wishes to recoup their investment but I'm not convinced that the children of the original shareholders need monopoly protection. 95 years is already longer than the average human lifetime. Betty White died the other day at the age of almost 100; imagine if the 95-year erm had always been the in effect, and consider that only works published before she reached the age of 5 would have become available during her lifetime.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  YHBT. YHL. HAND.
syockit 5y ago
That gives DMCA a whole new and literal meaning.

Gigachad 5y ago

I'd find that fine as long as we weaken the definition of copyright. Protect the exact text of Harry Potter for that long but allow people to write their own related works at any time.

danny_codes 5y ago
Yeah to me this is an important distinction. The _idea_ of Harry Potter and the Harry Potter books are IMO different things. It's like re-making a move like Wizard of Oz. It's just a new thing, but based on the same source material.

password1 5y ago

Why would the children need to inherit the copyright? They can inherit the money that the parent earned, the companies he founded, the merchandise and brands he created with the IP. Imagine inheriting the Star Wars brand without the exclusive copyright, it would still be worth billions. They can inherit a LOT even without having the copyrights.

int_19h 5y ago

I don't think there should be a limit, but if we're going to treat things as property, let's also tax them as property. If you're willing to pay property taxes for 95 years, it's all yours. If not, it becomes public domain. I'd also make the tax progressive over time, starting with zero for the first few years (basically to give the author some time to market it), and then gradually rising. What's the justification for taxing it? Well, just as physical property is a monopoly on exclusive use of some thing, copyright is a monopoly on exclusive use of some information. Both take something out of the commons, and yet both also depend on the commons to actually enforce this monopoly and profit from it. It stands to reason that the commons should be compensated.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> How long do people think it should be? As long as the copyright owner is willing to pay for it. The first, say, 7 years should be free. After that, the copyright owner declares a value (which serves as a standing offer to sell it into the public domain that any person, natural or corporate, can accept by rendering payment) and pays an annual tax, at a gradually increasing percentage, on the declared value. There should also be a minimum declared value for continued protection, which also increases by age of the work (as well as being indexed for inflation).