7 ms·

Copyright terms should be limited to 20 years. Open source or not, this project would be legal in that case.

noobermin 5y ago
I think about my fundamentalist feelings about copyright (between complete abolition and say 20 years like you suggest) and the practical reality of how that would fundamentally change content industries today. For example, I'm thinking of anime franchises, also Disney, etc, who essentially create whole industries out of remakes and repackaging their old IP. Essentially, millions of workers hired to maintain the less creative recreation/maintenance of these IPs would be reshuffled and or lost. Btw, this isn't just creative workers like writers, animators, and the like, but things like merchandise creation, manufacturing, live events, and so on, they'd all be much less of an incentive to maintain a franchise over the mere creation of works that might be separate from each other. Apart from the business/worker side, the ability for an IP holder to release continuing sequels to works (like manga, movie installments, etc) and the legal force against fan works essentially gives more power essentially to the original creator to shape what is "canon" in their work. Perhaps fans could still decide the original creator's later installments are canon, but the extra legal force sort of makes this defacto, while a world of limited copyright the power of the original creator is less so. Thus, the way fans consume media and experience it will change completely as well. It would just be a completely different world, one where a lot of these ills are addressed (like the ones mentioned by GP), and things will be very different. It's hard to say from my vantage point whether the differences would also be "ills" or not (and that might be my bias), but it would certainly be a different world with different rules and different expectations from fans and audiences.
- imtringued 5y ago
  You are confusing copyright with trademarks. You can't release another official harry potter movie just because it would be legal to copy the old ones.
- contravariant 5y ago
  I'm not sure copyright protects you much against someone continuing a story. Trademark protection might. At any rate, fan-fiction is nothing new and while it might be a bit iffy to do commercially I see nobody even trying something remotely similar without at least the blessing of the original author. So really I think society has decided who is allowed to continue a story and as far as I can tell it has little to do with copyright and everything to do with public perception.
- phire 5y ago
  I actually think we would see Disney remaking some of their old IP more often if copyright was only 20 years, or at least the popular ones. If they released remakes at 20 year mark, anyone trying to take advantage of the now expired copyrights would have to compete with the new "official" versions of the IP.
- akira2501 5y ago
  > Essentially, millions of workers hired to maintain the less creative recreation/maintenance of these IPs would be reshuffled and or lost. The other side of that coin is millions of workers now available for new and original projects that have to take real chances and break new ground to get off the ground. > Thus, the way fans consume media and experience it will change completely as well. Should we prevent creators from selling their copyrights as well, or do we simply make the "canonical" rights non transferable in that case? > but it would certainly be a different world with different rules and different expectations from fans and audiences. Vaudeville and burlesque operated under those rules. Audiences didn't seem to mind. "Who's on first" was not an original act.

I think about my fundamentalist feelings about copyright (between complete abolition and say 20 years like you suggest) and the practical reality of how that would fundamentally change content industries today. For example, I'm thinking of anime franchises, also Disney, etc, who essentially create whole industries out of remakes and repackaging their old IP. Essentially, millions of workers hired to maintain the less creative recreation/maintenance of these IPs would be reshuffled and or lost. Btw, this isn't just creative workers like writers, animators, and the like, but things like merchandise creation, manufacturing, live events, and so on, they'd all be much less of an incentive to maintain a franchise over the mere creation of works that might be separate from each other. Apart from the business/worker side, the ability for an IP holder to release continuing sequels to works (like manga, movie installments, etc) and the legal force against fan works essentially gives more power essentially to the original creator to shape what is "canon" in their work. Perhaps fans could still decide the original creator's later installments are canon, but the extra legal force sort of makes this defacto, while a world of limited copyright the power of the original creator is less so. Thus, the way fans consume media and experience it will change completely as well. It would just be a completely different world, one where a lot of these ills are addressed (like the ones mentioned by GP), and things will be very different. It's hard to say from my vantage point whether the differences would also be "ills" or not (and that might be my bias), but it would certainly be a different world with different rules and different expectations from fans and audiences.

imtringued 5y ago
You are confusing copyright with trademarks. You can't release another official harry potter movie just because it would be legal to copy the old ones.
contravariant 5y ago
I'm not sure copyright protects you much against someone continuing a story. Trademark protection might. At any rate, fan-fiction is nothing new and while it might be a bit iffy to do commercially I see nobody even trying something remotely similar without at least the blessing of the original author. So really I think society has decided who is allowed to continue a story and as far as I can tell it has little to do with copyright and everything to do with public perception.
phire 5y ago
I actually think we would see Disney remaking some of their old IP more often if copyright was only 20 years, or at least the popular ones. If they released remakes at 20 year mark, anyone trying to take advantage of the now expired copyrights would have to compete with the new "official" versions of the IP.
akira2501 5y ago
> Essentially, millions of workers hired to maintain the less creative recreation/maintenance of these IPs would be reshuffled and or lost. The other side of that coin is millions of workers now available for new and original projects that have to take real chances and break new ground to get off the ground. > Thus, the way fans consume media and experience it will change completely as well. Should we prevent creators from selling their copyrights as well, or do we simply make the "canonical" rights non transferable in that case? > but it would certainly be a different world with different rules and different expectations from fans and audiences. Vaudeville and burlesque operated under those rules. Audiences didn't seem to mind. "Who's on first" was not an original act.