5 ms·

20 years is a reasonable length for copyrights, since many patents in the U.S. also expire after 20 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_

20 years is a reasonable length for copyrights, since many patents in the U.S. also expire after 20 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_S...

shagie 5y ago
I have photographs that I took 20 years ago that I occasionally sell a print of. You are suggesting that that material now be part of the public domain? For that matter, you're suggesting GCC version 3.0.3, Emacs 21.2 and all prior versions be public domain and not have any copyright or copyleft protection on it? And thus, I could take the source code for them, modify it, close source it release my own version.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  > You are suggesting that that material now be part of the public domain? Yes. I could be wrong, but I feel comfortable guessing that you were sufficiently incentivized to take those photographs 20 years ago. Also, you could still sell prints!
- cogman10 5y ago
  Absolutely. Would you not have taken the photo or sold it had you known the timeframe for it's value would be limited to 20 years? I suspect that, yes, you'd still take that photo. So long as the timespan is long enough to benefit the creator (and thus, encourage creativity) but not so long as to forever lock up the creation, then I see no harm in a much shorter copyright timeframe. Why should I care if a 20 year old compiler or text editor ends up having closed source versions? And, on the flip side, wouldn't it be neat if we had Windows XP source code in the public domain? Now consider the fact that with a 20 year lifespan on copyright every streaming service would have access to everything published in 2001 and earlier. 1 service could give you a bonkers amount of content.
  - ejb999 5y ago
    why limit it to books or other creative creations - if you buy a house, you get exclusive use for 20 years - after that, other people just get to move into the unused bedrooms - after all, your kids are probably grown by now and you don't need them anymore. How is this different - why should I be entitled to get, for free, something someone else created and owns.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      If you build a house, other people can copy it after 20 years. Suddenly it doesn't sound unreasonable at all. > something someone else created and owns The way someone should "own" an idea is exactly what's being disputed...
    - cogman10 5y ago
      Because we are talking about the ability to copy or mimic things when talking about IP/patent laws. We are not talking about physical goods, but instead ideas. It's a crime to steal someone's bible even though the bible texts are (largely) in public domain. It is not the same to compare a thing to a concept. I can copy someone's bitcoin hash all day long, but I don't own that hash simply be copying it into a text document. Same principle. Anyone should be able to write and sell a story about Superman or Mickey.
    - Matumio 5y ago
      Oh no, you are now required to watch this damned cartoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 (A one minute ELI5 explanation about the difference between physical and intellectual property.)
    - kolinko 5y ago
      With property it kind of works this way, via property tax. You can see property tax as the government taking a small percentage of your property every year, and you buying it back.
- bediger4000 5y ago
  Honestly, I don't see the problem with a 20 year copyright term. You made profits off the prints for 20 years, and the state enforced those rights. You didn't pay for them, at most you paid a token fee to register the copyrights. That's the bargain of copyright, I think. Yes, some folks lose control after a period, but everyone else is enriched. Excuse me, I've got to go order a Miskatonic University sweatshirt.
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    > You made profits off the prints for 20 years, and the state enforced those rights. You didn't pay for them, at most you paid a token fee to register the copyrights. That's a very idealized version. You most likely did pay taxes on any income made and you payed a lawyer to enforce your right, if necessary. The only thing the state did was to write those laws down once and offer a judge and jury, in case of a violation. Also, you didn't pay for any of your other rights. I don't see why copyright should be special in that regard. I'm fine with 20 years, but that argument in particular is rather weak.
    - MagnumOpus 5y ago
      > The only thing the state did was to write those laws down once and offer a judge and jury, in case of a violation. Nope. The judge and jury are backed by the bailiff who forecloses on you if you don't pay the judgement, and by the police who jails you if you resist the taking of your assets, and by the prison system where you end up. This whole security apparatus is behind just "writing those laws", and it does not come cheap.
- marpstar 5y ago
  I believe that's what the GP is saying. Perhaps I'm wrong, but your tone seems to indicate that you think doing doing so is completely preposterous. And while you're allowed to feel that way, instead of dismissing the GP entirely, I'd be more interested in hearing more about your position based on your totally valid personal experience.
- MichaelBurge 5y ago
  Richard Stallman - the originator of GCC and Emacs and copyleft - says 10 years: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en....
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- superluserdo 5y ago
  Re software: While not necessarily fundamentally anti-copyright, the basic point of "copyleft" licensing like the GPL is to use the system of copyright against itself. I can't imagine the FSF/GNU project would be against a massive reduction of the extent of copyright limits. If there was no concept of copyright, copyleft would be somewhat moot.
- morpheuskafka 5y ago
  I think the software if anything would be the least harmed by a twenty year term. If you wanted to make a closed source compiler its going to need to be better than the latest open source ones for anyone to buy it, so it seems like starting with a twenty year old design and having to (cleanroom) fix all the various bugs that have since been found and modernize the codebase, plus add all the new features needed to be competitive, would be a nonstarter. If you could fork the latest version and make it closed source, then it's easy, you just add a couple useful features and now yours is "better." But if you have to start with such an ancient version and decades of technical debt you didn't even create, it would be a total waste of time. The open source one would continue getting better while you were playing catchup to even release it.
- danny_codes 5y ago
  Yes that sounds reasonable to me.
- hajile 5y ago
  Yes. You can still sell prints of uncopyrighted stuff. Your software argument is even better evidence that 20 years is a good idea. If the software is maintained, the new, derivative versions continue to be copyright protected. At the same time, abandonware becomes available for use without worry. Here's another thought experiment. Assume Spiderman was first created in 2002 with the launch of the movie. It would be expiring soon. They've already made massive profits and such old movies are found for bargain-basement prices all over, so there's not a ton of money left to be made. What does Disney have to lose? Just the idea of Spiderman himself, but would you rather see Marvel's spiderman or Warner Bros making yet another failed superhero movie? The latest Spiderman movie would still be available under copyright for another 20 years too. The only way Disney loses is if Warner Bros actually manages to make better content than disney makes. If better content COULD be made, but is stopped by copyright, this runs counter to the copyright's purpose according to the US Constitution. Summed up, long copyright only serves to lock-in big companies and protect them from people who could do a better job with the ideas than they could. Everyone is worse off except the company's stockholders.
  - cogman10 5y ago
    And, an example of where we are actively harmed is the Hulk. Because Disney doesn't own the rights to the Hulk we've not ever seen a good integration of the Hulk into the MCU. All because while Marvel was floundering they sold off rights piecemeal to a bunch of companies.
  - hinkley 5y ago
    Disney makes billions a year off of Winnie the Pooh. Every year. New movie or not. What they make on Spider-Man is peanuts to that. It’s Pooh and the Mouse they are nervous about.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > I have photographs that I took 20 years ago that I occasionally sell a print of. You are suggesting that that material now be part of the public domain? Have you been selling the prints for 20 years? Then sure, that's probably fine. If you didn't make enough money off those sales, encouragement to go take new photos is a good thing. > For that matter, you're suggesting GCC version 3.0.3, Emacs 21.2 and all prior versions be public domain and not have any copyright or copyleft protection on it? And thus, I could take the source code for them, modify it, close source it release my own version. But you also get to take any closed-source program from X years ago and it becomes public domain too. I'm comfortable with this tradeoff. Though I'd like to go further and force companies to register a copy of the source code when they register their copyright, to be released upon expiration. And we could always add specific open-source legislation... If you really don't like 20 years we can do 30. But I think half an adult lifetime is long enough to profit off any particular work.
- chrismcb 5y ago
  Personally I think it should be 25 years But yes. That is how copyright works. At the end of the term, the item falls into public domain. If that term is 20 years, then your photo should be public domain by then. That should incentivize you to take more photos
  - shagie 5y ago
    As a hobbyist photographer, no - it wouldn't incentivize me to take more photos... or rather, it would incentivize me to not publish my photos and share them with others online. Simply said, if you wish to profit from or enjoy the creative works that I have done beyond what I've provided, I expect some compensation. If that term was 20 years, my photographs would never have been displayed online in the first place. Additionally, model releases and property releases become much more difficult when someone in the photograph loses their rights for how the photograph may be used. I firmly believe that a reduction of the copyright duration that would make it expire during the lifetime of the artist or model would have a chilling effect on hobbyist art being accessible to the public.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > my photographs would never have been displayed online in the first place. So the world would have to learn to somehow live with that loss. Given all the other works it would get access to in stead, I strongly suspect the world at large will find that a great bargain. I've never (AFAIK) seen your photos even in this timeline where they are online (IIUC?), and I'm okay with that. But I'd sure love it if a bunch of stuff I know of from between 1923 and 1990 were in the public domain. So at least I would find that bargain great.
- rambojazz 5y ago
  But you are not dead yet. The idea above is "20 years from death".
  - shagie 5y ago
    I am replying to a post that looks to make the term of copyrights the same as the term of patents. Patents aren't tied to the lifespan of their inventor. Life + 20y is is quite reasonable. 20y from publication is on the very short side for content that has a lifespan that can easily outlast its creator. Some of the posts are suggesting that things that were published in 1990 or 2000 should be in the public domain now.

shagie 5y ago

I have photographs that I took 20 years ago that I occasionally sell a print of. You are suggesting that that material now be part of the public domain? For that matter, you're suggesting GCC version 3.0.3, Emacs 21.2 and all prior versions be public domain and not have any copyright or copyleft protection on it? And thus, I could take the source code for them, modify it, close source it release my own version.

tshaddox 5y ago
> You are suggesting that that material now be part of the public domain? Yes. I could be wrong, but I feel comfortable guessing that you were sufficiently incentivized to take those photographs 20 years ago. Also, you could still sell prints!
cogman10 5y ago
Absolutely. Would you not have taken the photo or sold it had you known the timeframe for it's value would be limited to 20 years? I suspect that, yes, you'd still take that photo. So long as the timespan is long enough to benefit the creator (and thus, encourage creativity) but not so long as to forever lock up the creation, then I see no harm in a much shorter copyright timeframe. Why should I care if a 20 year old compiler or text editor ends up having closed source versions? And, on the flip side, wouldn't it be neat if we had Windows XP source code in the public domain? Now consider the fact that with a 20 year lifespan on copyright every streaming service would have access to everything published in 2001 and earlier. 1 service could give you a bonkers amount of content.
- ejb999 5y ago
  why limit it to books or other creative creations - if you buy a house, you get exclusive use for 20 years - after that, other people just get to move into the unused bedrooms - after all, your kids are probably grown by now and you don't need them anymore. How is this different - why should I be entitled to get, for free, something someone else created and owns.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    If you build a house, other people can copy it after 20 years. Suddenly it doesn't sound unreasonable at all. > something someone else created and owns The way someone should "own" an idea is exactly what's being disputed...
  - cogman10 5y ago
    Because we are talking about the ability to copy or mimic things when talking about IP/patent laws. We are not talking about physical goods, but instead ideas. It's a crime to steal someone's bible even though the bible texts are (largely) in public domain. It is not the same to compare a thing to a concept. I can copy someone's bitcoin hash all day long, but I don't own that hash simply be copying it into a text document. Same principle. Anyone should be able to write and sell a story about Superman or Mickey.
  - Matumio 5y ago
    Oh no, you are now required to watch this damned cartoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 (A one minute ELI5 explanation about the difference between physical and intellectual property.)
  - kolinko 5y ago
    With property it kind of works this way, via property tax. You can see property tax as the government taking a small percentage of your property every year, and you buying it back.
bediger4000 5y ago
Honestly, I don't see the problem with a 20 year copyright term. You made profits off the prints for 20 years, and the state enforced those rights. You didn't pay for them, at most you paid a token fee to register the copyrights. That's the bargain of copyright, I think. Yes, some folks lose control after a period, but everyone else is enriched. Excuse me, I've got to go order a Miskatonic University sweatshirt.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  > You made profits off the prints for 20 years, and the state enforced those rights. You didn't pay for them, at most you paid a token fee to register the copyrights. That's a very idealized version. You most likely did pay taxes on any income made and you payed a lawyer to enforce your right, if necessary. The only thing the state did was to write those laws down once and offer a judge and jury, in case of a violation. Also, you didn't pay for any of your other rights. I don't see why copyright should be special in that regard. I'm fine with 20 years, but that argument in particular is rather weak.
  - MagnumOpus 5y ago
    > The only thing the state did was to write those laws down once and offer a judge and jury, in case of a violation. Nope. The judge and jury are backed by the bailiff who forecloses on you if you don't pay the judgement, and by the police who jails you if you resist the taking of your assets, and by the prison system where you end up. This whole security apparatus is behind just "writing those laws", and it does not come cheap.
marpstar 5y ago
I believe that's what the GP is saying. Perhaps I'm wrong, but your tone seems to indicate that you think doing doing so is completely preposterous. And while you're allowed to feel that way, instead of dismissing the GP entirely, I'd be more interested in hearing more about your position based on your totally valid personal experience.
MichaelBurge 5y ago
Richard Stallman - the originator of GCC and Emacs and copyleft - says 10 years: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en....
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
superluserdo 5y ago
Re software: While not necessarily fundamentally anti-copyright, the basic point of "copyleft" licensing like the GPL is to use the system of copyright against itself. I can't imagine the FSF/GNU project would be against a massive reduction of the extent of copyright limits. If there was no concept of copyright, copyleft would be somewhat moot.
morpheuskafka 5y ago
I think the software if anything would be the least harmed by a twenty year term. If you wanted to make a closed source compiler its going to need to be better than the latest open source ones for anyone to buy it, so it seems like starting with a twenty year old design and having to (cleanroom) fix all the various bugs that have since been found and modernize the codebase, plus add all the new features needed to be competitive, would be a nonstarter. If you could fork the latest version and make it closed source, then it's easy, you just add a couple useful features and now yours is "better." But if you have to start with such an ancient version and decades of technical debt you didn't even create, it would be a total waste of time. The open source one would continue getting better while you were playing catchup to even release it.
danny_codes 5y ago
Yes that sounds reasonable to me.
hajile 5y ago
Yes. You can still sell prints of uncopyrighted stuff. Your software argument is even better evidence that 20 years is a good idea. If the software is maintained, the new, derivative versions continue to be copyright protected. At the same time, abandonware becomes available for use without worry. Here's another thought experiment. Assume Spiderman was first created in 2002 with the launch of the movie. It would be expiring soon. They've already made massive profits and such old movies are found for bargain-basement prices all over, so there's not a ton of money left to be made. What does Disney have to lose? Just the idea of Spiderman himself, but would you rather see Marvel's spiderman or Warner Bros making yet another failed superhero movie? The latest Spiderman movie would still be available under copyright for another 20 years too. The only way Disney loses is if Warner Bros actually manages to make better content than disney makes. If better content COULD be made, but is stopped by copyright, this runs counter to the copyright's purpose according to the US Constitution. Summed up, long copyright only serves to lock-in big companies and protect them from people who could do a better job with the ideas than they could. Everyone is worse off except the company's stockholders.
- cogman10 5y ago
  And, an example of where we are actively harmed is the Hulk. Because Disney doesn't own the rights to the Hulk we've not ever seen a good integration of the Hulk into the MCU. All because while Marvel was floundering they sold off rights piecemeal to a bunch of companies.
- hinkley 5y ago
  Disney makes billions a year off of Winnie the Pooh. Every year. New movie or not. What they make on Spider-Man is peanuts to that. It’s Pooh and the Mouse they are nervous about.
Dylan16807 5y ago
> I have photographs that I took 20 years ago that I occasionally sell a print of. You are suggesting that that material now be part of the public domain? Have you been selling the prints for 20 years? Then sure, that's probably fine. If you didn't make enough money off those sales, encouragement to go take new photos is a good thing. > For that matter, you're suggesting GCC version 3.0.3, Emacs 21.2 and all prior versions be public domain and not have any copyright or copyleft protection on it? And thus, I could take the source code for them, modify it, close source it release my own version. But you also get to take any closed-source program from X years ago and it becomes public domain too. I'm comfortable with this tradeoff. Though I'd like to go further and force companies to register a copy of the source code when they register their copyright, to be released upon expiration. And we could always add specific open-source legislation... If you really don't like 20 years we can do 30. But I think half an adult lifetime is long enough to profit off any particular work.
chrismcb 5y ago
Personally I think it should be 25 years But yes. That is how copyright works. At the end of the term, the item falls into public domain. If that term is 20 years, then your photo should be public domain by then. That should incentivize you to take more photos
- shagie 5y ago
  As a hobbyist photographer, no - it wouldn't incentivize me to take more photos... or rather, it would incentivize me to not publish my photos and share them with others online. Simply said, if you wish to profit from or enjoy the creative works that I have done beyond what I've provided, I expect some compensation. If that term was 20 years, my photographs would never have been displayed online in the first place. Additionally, model releases and property releases become much more difficult when someone in the photograph loses their rights for how the photograph may be used. I firmly believe that a reduction of the copyright duration that would make it expire during the lifetime of the artist or model would have a chilling effect on hobbyist art being accessible to the public.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > my photographs would never have been displayed online in the first place. So the world would have to learn to somehow live with that loss. Given all the other works it would get access to in stead, I strongly suspect the world at large will find that a great bargain. I've never (AFAIK) seen your photos even in this timeline where they are online (IIUC?), and I'm okay with that. But I'd sure love it if a bunch of stuff I know of from between 1923 and 1990 were in the public domain. So at least I would find that bargain great.
rambojazz 5y ago
But you are not dead yet. The idea above is "20 years from death".
- shagie 5y ago
  I am replying to a post that looks to make the term of copyrights the same as the term of patents. Patents aren't tied to the lifespan of their inventor. Life + 20y is is quite reasonable. 20y from publication is on the very short side for content that has a lifespan that can easily outlast its creator. Some of the posts are suggesting that things that were published in 1990 or 2000 should be in the public domain now.