6 ms·

> at the end of the day, copyright is about protecting the ability to generate profit That's what is has turned into, but it was never the point. The point wa

> at the end of the day, copyright is about protecting the ability to generate profit That's what is has turned into, but it was never the point. The point was to promote the creation of new creative works. That's it. The way to do that was making sure that creators had a limited time where they could exclusively profit from their efforts, but the creation or protection of profit was never what copyright was all about. Today, creating/protecting profit is what it's been abused to accomplish though, often hurting the creation of new works, and most often not even for the benefit of the actual creators. 20 years was more than enough time for people to profit from their works when worldwide distribution was basically impossible, advertising was a joke compared to what we have today, and it was a massive investment to publish at all. Now you can publish for close to nothing and advertise and distribute worldwide in seconds. 20 years is at least 2x too long. 10 years seems far more reasonable to me. If we're reworking the system we also need to make sure that DRM doesn't prevent works from being useful after they've been returned to the public domain. That's a consideration they didn't have to worry about when copyright protections were being drafted, but it's increasingly going to lock us out of our own culture.

zqfuz 4y ago
"making sure that creators had a limited time where they could exclusively profit" sounds like "protection of profit" to me.
- qu4z-2 4y ago
  Right, but it's the means not the end.
- autoexec 4y ago
  That was a means to an end, not the end itself. That's the point. The goal of copyright has always been very clear. It was for encouraging the creation of new works.
  - godelski 4y ago
    Done through the means of ensuring that the original artist may profit off of their own hard work and no one else can steal the hard work and profit off it. The abuse you're talking about is the extension of the same mechanism that allows rights owners to profit for much longer periods of time, which actually discourages the creation of new works. This can all be true because there aren't binary solutions and things need nuance.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      Copyright is abused in may ways that go far beyond perpetually extended copyright protections. The DMCA has enabled copyright to be used as a weapon to silence criticism. Companies have created a revenue stream out of sending DMCA notices demanding that people (innocent or otherwise) pay settlements now or else face long and expensive court battles. Creators are threatened with lawsuits or dragged through the courts on highly questionable copyright grounds just to bankrupt them and prevent them from being a competitor. Recently, the media industry has taken to suing ISPs for billions if they refuse to permanently stop offering service to customers who have been repeatedly accused of violating copyright. Without any court finding you guilty or any actual proof that a violation took place, if you are accused multiple times and your ISP doesn't disconnect your service forever they could be fined out of existence. Most of the ISPs sued so far have settled out of court, but the media industry has been winning in the courts as well. Copyright is regularly abused to do things that go far beyond what it was intended to, and often to the determent of the creation of new works. Most of the people hurt by such abuses have no ability to fight it, and very little hope of actually winning even if they try.
    - realusername 4y ago
      Most of the copyrights nowadays are held by large conglomerates anyways and not artists, sure that's not a nuanced point of view but copyright isn't nuanced either
      - godelski 4y ago
        The nuance is with respect to the above conversation. I don't think anyone here is disagreeing that the system is being abused and that the copyright holders are abused by large conglomerates. I don't think anyone is arguing against the points you're bringing up.
judge2020 4y ago
Is it possible that the extremely long copyright time still succeeds in promoting the creation of new works? For example, under copyright, you can't take Mickey Mouse, throw sunglasses on him, then re-release all of the existing work, because it's not protected by the fair use clause. However, if you were to create something demonstrably different to the point where it does qualify for fair use, then suddenly you've created new media that you have the copyright for and can do whatever you wish (including sell it; whether or not it's used for commercial purposes is only a factor in fair use determinations, it doesn't instantly disqualify it for fair use). The only thing the public domain seems to benefit is the ability to redistribute the work without iterating upon it in a way that makes it take on a new meaning.
- btdmaster 4y ago
  If fair use meant the same thing as new work, then yes certainly. For now: https://mimiandeunice.com/2011/07/29/fair-use/ https://mimiandeunice.com/2011/07/29/fair-use/
- autoexec 4y ago
  > The only thing the public domain seems to benefit is the ability to redistribute the work without iterating upon it in a way that makes it take on a new meaning. No... fair use doesn't work like you think it does and it's a only a defense that has to be tested in court where you'll be up against the legal team of a billion dollar media industry that has connections and ties at the highest levels of the justice system Once something is in the public domain you can use it to create new works that are completely transformative without risking losing everything in a lawsuit. Vast amounts of new and truly innovative creative works are prevented from being created because of our existing copyright laws. Music is the worst at this where just a couple of notes being too similar to some other song can cause you lose everything. People have lost fortunes just for writing a new and unique song that just happened to be in the same genre as another song. (https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a-music-genre https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a...) Look at what one artist had to do (and pay) to get her film seen by the public at all: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sita-sings-the-copyright-blues-1.840387 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sita-sings-the-copyright-bl... If those songs had been fully in the public domain, her amazing and transformative film (which I'd recommend to anyone) would have had no issues at all. How many artists aren't willing or able to go through what she did and just give up? How many musicians are writing songs that will never see the light of day because of fear that some song they've never heard before will be used to take everything from them? They can sign over all their rights to the RIAA and hope that's enough to protect them, or they risk being sued. The public domain is critical for artists to be free to create entirely new works and build on old ones to create new works as well.
__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
> The point was to promote the creation of new creative works. I'm pretty sure it prevents new works more than it creates them these days. It needs a rewrite: - you only get copyright protection if publish an address to send payments to - enforcement of copyright means compelling payment to that address, not removing the infringing work
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  Not just that, you only get protection (in a specific country) if you make it reasonably simply available in said country. I live in the balkans (but still.. part of EU, we have credit cards, internet, everything), and many many media (movies, music,...) are unavailable to buy here... not on netflix, no hulu here, not on any other streaming provider, not released on dvd, not available to buy any other way here... ...but somehow, if I download that movie/episode from a torrent site, i'm somehow causing them financial loss with my download...
  - Taywee 4y ago
    Even in America, I've had to pirate TV shows from England because they simply weren't available here, won't air here, and aren't sold anywhere, even in England. I can't watch Big Fat Quiz of Everything legally at all. My options are to break copyright to pirate it after it airs, not watch it at all, or to move to England. I choose the first. I'd gladly pay for it if given the option, but I have no moral qualms with illegally downloading something I can't even pay for in the first place.
    - geysersam 4y ago
      This illustrates the sheer inefficiency of the market in this case. While distribution is basically free (pirates do it at a very low cost), having a payment system set up for these "unusual" purchases costs more than the revenue is worth.
      - XorNot 4y ago
        The best part is that the second hand market satisfies the legal criteria of ownership, but doesn't reward the creators in the slightest. I've bought a number of media second hand to make sure I own them, and it's remarkable how there just is no way to pay any original producer for things in a lot of cases. I can download a movie easily, but there's no way for me to pay anyone for having done so - meanwhile if I buy a physical copy of that movie from someone else...the creator doesn't make any money from me at all, but it's all completely legal.
Thorentis 4y ago
Oh yes, I agree that even 20 is probably too long in our current day and age with how easy it is to diseeminate work.
ryandrake 4y ago
> That's what is has turned into, but it was never the point. The point was to promote the creation of new creative works. That's it. The way to do that was making sure that creators had a limited time where they could exclusively profit from their efforts, but the creation or protection of profit was never what copyright was all about. Are there any studies showing that copyright actually does achieve its goal of promoting the creation of art? Can we show a causal link between copyright and art creation? Can we show a proportional effect where longer copyright terms lead to more/better art creation? I suppose it would be rather difficult. You'd have to find a control group that's otherwise just like the USA (or your comparable country) but without copyright. Is copyright really the driving force, without which we wouldn't have creative output? I have my doubts. People were drawing on cave walls and parchments long before copyright. Would people simply not create art if copyright didn't exist? And if so, would we really miss that particular art?
- autoexec 4y ago
  I do agree that artists are going to create no matter what. I do suspect we'd have less works if nobody could make a living doing it though. Especially things like film and animation which historically required crazy amounts of money up front. People were willing to fund those efforts because they could expect a likely return on their investment which without copyright protections wouldn't be possible. We've gone way overboard, but I do think some level of protection for creators is for the best even now when it's easier and less expensive than ever to create.
  - fancybouncy 4y ago
    > artists are going to create no matter what. i don't agree. fine artists will, but the bulk of consumed art is commercial art, it's a job, and most people only work if they get money for it. I like the soviet model of commissioning people to write e.g. math and science books: the author got a stipend like any office worker, and copyright belonged to the commissioner (the country).
    - autoexec 4y ago
dahart 4y ago
> The point was to promote the creation of new creative works. What are you referring to exactly, US copyright law or earlier laws from other countries? US Copyright law from the beginning (1790) was written in part to preserve the economic property rights of authors and publishers. Part of the point always has been protection of profit. [1] [2]. Initially it only applied to books, not to art. You can’t really separate the granting of a limited-time monopoly over a work from the promotion of new creative works, they go hand in hand, to say economic protection was never the point is not accurate. ‘In 1783 several authors' petitions persuaded the Continental Congress "that nothing is more properly a man's own than the fruit of his study, and that the protection and security of literary property would greatly tend to encourage genius and to promote useful discoveries."’ [2] The earlier British Statue of Anne says similarly: “Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families: For Preventing therefore such Practices for the future, and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books; May it please Your Majesty, that it may be Enacted” [3] Note that both quotes reference economic protection as the first reason, and promotion of creativity second. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/timeline/timeline_18th_century.html https://www.copyright.gov/timeline/timeline_18th_century.htm... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne#Text
- __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
  From that history of copyright page: > The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers I think it's far more likely that they're about making sure that the wrong sort of bible, or the wrong sort of pamphlet, doesn't get printed. Whatever "for the economy" or "for the creators" verbiage is in there was added after the fact by marketing.
  - etrevino 4y ago
brigandish 4y ago
> The point was to promote the creation of new creative works for profit, profit of money and profit of learning. The first copyright law in the world, the Statute of Anne[1] specifically mentions money in the preamble: > Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families: For Preventing therefore such Practices for the future, and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books; (As an aside, I'm so glad English moved away from German or we'd still be using capital letters everywhere!) Authors of the time were arguing against censorship, monopolies formed by powerful printers, and to make money they felt they were owed. As Daniel Defoe, author of Robinson Crusoe, is quoted as saying in that article: > One Man Studies Seven Year, to bring a finish'd Peice into the World, and a Pyrate Printer, Reprints his Copy immediately, and Sells it for a quarter of the Price ... these things call for an Act of Parliament Let's not misrepresent history to fit our own dispositions today. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
wyldfire 4y ago
> That's what is has turned into, but it was never the point. The point was to promote the creation of new creative works. I wonder - if copyright expiration had been enshrined in something harder to extend like a US Constitution amendment, would we be better off? Or would the powerful media/entertainment forces try to convince the electorate that early expirations were problematic? Would we have a flourishing public domain or would HUAC have flipped on its head - looking instead for the enemies of the entertainment industry? Commies who don't want Mickey Mouse to make money.
kqr 4y ago
Are you confusing copyright with patent rights? Patents have a dual purpose: - they force exclusive access to a technology for a while, promoting innovation and profit; but! - they also force you to publish all the internals of how that technology works, promoting production of cheaper copies after the exclusive period has passed. I'm not aware of copyright having any such function.
smeagull 4y ago
> The point was to promote the creation of new creative works. I thought the point was to ensure streamers and video creators couldn't film the real world where songs get performed all the time.
AussieWog93 4y ago
>20 years is at least 2x too long. 10 years seems far more reasonable to me. What about stuff that didn't land initially, but was discovered years/decades later and loved. Should they be denied the right to make a (belated) profit?
- krisroadruck 4y ago
  Seems like this could be handled by something like: Either 10 years, or 10 years from when you collect your first dollar, so long as that first dollar is collected within the first 10 years - giving you potentially up to 20 years in total.
  - Etherlord87 4y ago
    That's a ridiculous ad hoc argument. What if you make something, put it on a gumroad, and sell only one copy for 1 dollar (I actually started a shop on gumroad, all things for $1 and I got exactly one sale :D), but 10 years later you're discovered or some of the products is suddenly widely useful, or what if the one person that bought it now uses own reach to sell your product? I'm not saying 10 years protection is not enough, but the "first dollar" approach I find ridiculous. Maybe there should be regulations where if you earn x% of the initial expenses (it would work at least for companies), then the work is released to public.

zqfuz 4y ago

"making sure that creators had a limited time where they could exclusively profit" sounds like "protection of profit" to me.

qu4z-2 4y ago
Right, but it's the means not the end.
autoexec 4y ago
That was a means to an end, not the end itself. That's the point. The goal of copyright has always been very clear. It was for encouraging the creation of new works.
- godelski 4y ago
  Done through the means of ensuring that the original artist may profit off of their own hard work and no one else can steal the hard work and profit off it. The abuse you're talking about is the extension of the same mechanism that allows rights owners to profit for much longer periods of time, which actually discourages the creation of new works. This can all be true because there aren't binary solutions and things need nuance.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    Copyright is abused in may ways that go far beyond perpetually extended copyright protections. The DMCA has enabled copyright to be used as a weapon to silence criticism. Companies have created a revenue stream out of sending DMCA notices demanding that people (innocent or otherwise) pay settlements now or else face long and expensive court battles. Creators are threatened with lawsuits or dragged through the courts on highly questionable copyright grounds just to bankrupt them and prevent them from being a competitor. Recently, the media industry has taken to suing ISPs for billions if they refuse to permanently stop offering service to customers who have been repeatedly accused of violating copyright. Without any court finding you guilty or any actual proof that a violation took place, if you are accused multiple times and your ISP doesn't disconnect your service forever they could be fined out of existence. Most of the ISPs sued so far have settled out of court, but the media industry has been winning in the courts as well. Copyright is regularly abused to do things that go far beyond what it was intended to, and often to the determent of the creation of new works. Most of the people hurt by such abuses have no ability to fight it, and very little hope of actually winning even if they try.
  - realusername 4y ago
    Most of the copyrights nowadays are held by large conglomerates anyways and not artists, sure that's not a nuanced point of view but copyright isn't nuanced either
    - godelski 4y ago
      The nuance is with respect to the above conversation. I don't think anyone here is disagreeing that the system is being abused and that the copyright holders are abused by large conglomerates. I don't think anyone is arguing against the points you're bringing up.

judge2020 4y ago

Is it possible that the extremely long copyright time still succeeds in promoting the creation of new works? For example, under copyright, you can't take Mickey Mouse, throw sunglasses on him, then re-release all of the existing work, because it's not protected by the fair use clause. However, if you were to create something demonstrably different to the point where it does qualify for fair use, then suddenly you've created new media that you have the copyright for and can do whatever you wish (including sell it; whether or not it's used for commercial purposes is only a factor in fair use determinations, it doesn't instantly disqualify it for fair use). The only thing the public domain seems to benefit is the ability to redistribute the work without iterating upon it in a way that makes it take on a new meaning.

btdmaster 4y ago
If fair use meant the same thing as new work, then yes certainly. For now: https://mimiandeunice.com/2011/07/29/fair-use/ https://mimiandeunice.com/2011/07/29/fair-use/
autoexec 4y ago
> The only thing the public domain seems to benefit is the ability to redistribute the work without iterating upon it in a way that makes it take on a new meaning. No... fair use doesn't work like you think it does and it's a only a defense that has to be tested in court where you'll be up against the legal team of a billion dollar media industry that has connections and ties at the highest levels of the justice system Once something is in the public domain you can use it to create new works that are completely transformative without risking losing everything in a lawsuit. Vast amounts of new and truly innovative creative works are prevented from being created because of our existing copyright laws. Music is the worst at this where just a couple of notes being too similar to some other song can cause you lose everything. People have lost fortunes just for writing a new and unique song that just happened to be in the same genre as another song. (https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a-music-genre https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a...) Look at what one artist had to do (and pay) to get her film seen by the public at all: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sita-sings-the-copyright-blues-1.840387 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sita-sings-the-copyright-bl... If those songs had been fully in the public domain, her amazing and transformative film (which I'd recommend to anyone) would have had no issues at all. How many artists aren't willing or able to go through what she did and just give up? How many musicians are writing songs that will never see the light of day because of fear that some song they've never heard before will be used to take everything from them? They can sign over all their rights to the RIAA and hope that's enough to protect them, or they risk being sued. The public domain is critical for artists to be free to create entirely new works and build on old ones to create new works as well.

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago

> The point was to promote the creation of new creative works. I'm pretty sure it prevents new works more than it creates them these days. It needs a rewrite: - you only get copyright protection if publish an address to send payments to - enforcement of copyright means compelling payment to that address, not removing the infringing work

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
Not just that, you only get protection (in a specific country) if you make it reasonably simply available in said country. I live in the balkans (but still.. part of EU, we have credit cards, internet, everything), and many many media (movies, music,...) are unavailable to buy here... not on netflix, no hulu here, not on any other streaming provider, not released on dvd, not available to buy any other way here... ...but somehow, if I download that movie/episode from a torrent site, i'm somehow causing them financial loss with my download...
- Taywee 4y ago
  Even in America, I've had to pirate TV shows from England because they simply weren't available here, won't air here, and aren't sold anywhere, even in England. I can't watch Big Fat Quiz of Everything legally at all. My options are to break copyright to pirate it after it airs, not watch it at all, or to move to England. I choose the first. I'd gladly pay for it if given the option, but I have no moral qualms with illegally downloading something I can't even pay for in the first place.
  - geysersam 4y ago
    This illustrates the sheer inefficiency of the market in this case. While distribution is basically free (pirates do it at a very low cost), having a payment system set up for these "unusual" purchases costs more than the revenue is worth.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      The best part is that the second hand market satisfies the legal criteria of ownership, but doesn't reward the creators in the slightest. I've bought a number of media second hand to make sure I own them, and it's remarkable how there just is no way to pay any original producer for things in a lot of cases. I can download a movie easily, but there's no way for me to pay anyone for having done so - meanwhile if I buy a physical copy of that movie from someone else...the creator doesn't make any money from me at all, but it's all completely legal.

Thorentis 4y ago

Oh yes, I agree that even 20 is probably too long in our current day and age with how easy it is to diseeminate work.

ryandrake 4y ago

> That's what is has turned into, but it was never the point. The point was to promote the creation of new creative works. That's it. The way to do that was making sure that creators had a limited time where they could exclusively profit from their efforts, but the creation or protection of profit was never what copyright was all about. Are there any studies showing that copyright actually does achieve its goal of promoting the creation of art? Can we show a causal link between copyright and art creation? Can we show a proportional effect where longer copyright terms lead to more/better art creation? I suppose it would be rather difficult. You'd have to find a control group that's otherwise just like the USA (or your comparable country) but without copyright. Is copyright really the driving force, without which we wouldn't have creative output? I have my doubts. People were drawing on cave walls and parchments long before copyright. Would people simply not create art if copyright didn't exist? And if so, would we really miss that particular art?

autoexec 4y ago
I do agree that artists are going to create no matter what. I do suspect we'd have less works if nobody could make a living doing it though. Especially things like film and animation which historically required crazy amounts of money up front. People were willing to fund those efforts because they could expect a likely return on their investment which without copyright protections wouldn't be possible. We've gone way overboard, but I do think some level of protection for creators is for the best even now when it's easier and less expensive than ever to create.
- fancybouncy 4y ago
  > artists are going to create no matter what. i don't agree. fine artists will, but the bulk of consumed art is commercial art, it's a job, and most people only work if they get money for it. I like the soviet model of commissioning people to write e.g. math and science books: the author got a stipend like any office worker, and copyright belonged to the commissioner (the country).
  - autoexec 4y ago

dahart 4y ago

> The point was to promote the creation of new creative works. What are you referring to exactly, US copyright law or earlier laws from other countries? US Copyright law from the beginning (1790) was written in part to preserve the economic property rights of authors and publishers. Part of the point always has been protection of profit. [1] [2]. Initially it only applied to books, not to art. You can’t really separate the granting of a limited-time monopoly over a work from the promotion of new creative works, they go hand in hand, to say economic protection was never the point is not accurate. ‘In 1783 several authors' petitions persuaded the Continental Congress "that nothing is more properly a man's own than the fruit of his study, and that the protection and security of literary property would greatly tend to encourage genius and to promote useful discoveries."’ [2] The earlier British Statue of Anne says similarly: “Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families: For Preventing therefore such Practices for the future, and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books; May it please Your Majesty, that it may be Enacted” [3] Note that both quotes reference economic protection as the first reason, and promotion of creativity second. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/timeline/timeline_18th_century.html https://www.copyright.gov/timeline/timeline_18th_century.htm... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne#Text

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
From that history of copyright page: > The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers I think it's far more likely that they're about making sure that the wrong sort of bible, or the wrong sort of pamphlet, doesn't get printed. Whatever "for the economy" or "for the creators" verbiage is in there was added after the fact by marketing.
- etrevino 4y ago

brigandish 4y ago

> The point was to promote the creation of new creative works for profit, profit of money and profit of learning. The first copyright law in the world, the Statute of Anne[1] specifically mentions money in the preamble: > Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families: For Preventing therefore such Practices for the future, and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books; (As an aside, I'm so glad English moved away from German or we'd still be using capital letters everywhere!) Authors of the time were arguing against censorship, monopolies formed by powerful printers, and to make money they felt they were owed. As Daniel Defoe, author of Robinson Crusoe, is quoted as saying in that article: > One Man Studies Seven Year, to bring a finish'd Peice into the World, and a Pyrate Printer, Reprints his Copy immediately, and Sells it for a quarter of the Price ... these things call for an Act of Parliament Let's not misrepresent history to fit our own dispositions today. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

wyldfire 4y ago

> That's what is has turned into, but it was never the point. The point was to promote the creation of new creative works. I wonder - if copyright expiration had been enshrined in something harder to extend like a US Constitution amendment, would we be better off? Or would the powerful media/entertainment forces try to convince the electorate that early expirations were problematic? Would we have a flourishing public domain or would HUAC have flipped on its head - looking instead for the enemies of the entertainment industry? Commies who don't want Mickey Mouse to make money.

kqr 4y ago

Are you confusing copyright with patent rights? Patents have a dual purpose: - they force exclusive access to a technology for a while, promoting innovation and profit; but! - they also force you to publish all the internals of how that technology works, promoting production of cheaper copies after the exclusive period has passed. I'm not aware of copyright having any such function.

smeagull 4y ago

> The point was to promote the creation of new creative works. I thought the point was to ensure streamers and video creators couldn't film the real world where songs get performed all the time.

AussieWog93 4y ago

>20 years is at least 2x too long. 10 years seems far more reasonable to me. What about stuff that didn't land initially, but was discovered years/decades later and loved. Should they be denied the right to make a (belated) profit?

krisroadruck 4y ago
Seems like this could be handled by something like: Either 10 years, or 10 years from when you collect your first dollar, so long as that first dollar is collected within the first 10 years - giving you potentially up to 20 years in total.
- Etherlord87 4y ago
  That's a ridiculous ad hoc argument. What if you make something, put it on a gumroad, and sell only one copy for 1 dollar (I actually started a shop on gumroad, all things for $1 and I got exactly one sale :D), but 10 years later you're discovered or some of the products is suddenly widely useful, or what if the one person that bought it now uses own reach to sell your product? I'm not saying 10 years protection is not enough, but the "first dollar" approach I find ridiculous. Maybe there should be regulations where if you earn x% of the initial expenses (it would work at least for companies), then the work is released to public.