4 ms·

The one nice thing about our copyright laws is that they auto,attic ally apply as soon as you've created something. That's a good thing I think people overlook.

The one nice thing about our copyright laws is that they auto,attic ally apply as soon as you've created something. That's a good thing I think people overlook. Even so, I think the author's lifetime plus 70 years is far far too long. I'm pro-copyright for sure but I also think 14 years is more than enough time. If you can't accomplish what you wanted with your work within 14 years then it's time to let someone else build on it. Copyright is all bad. It's just how it's set up and enforced here in the US that sucks.

flipbrad 15y ago
why is that such a good thing? plenty of people don't give a crap whether something they just typed is copyrighted or not. They just don't bother going to find the right creative commons licence. I doubt you want all those rights over your comment, for example. Why should copyright automatically block me from using it? Why should your message, or this one, be the stuff of SOPA? If someone is going to get such a strong and longlasting government-granted monopoly on what I can do with what I see and read online, to the detriment of myself and potential recipients of what I therefore won't effectively communicate to them/share with them, why is it such a bad idea, or unfair, to ask people to claim that protection with a simple (c) mark? the public domain would benefit tremendously, as would everyone who would gain certainty over what they can safely use and what they can't, without having to do rights clearances on something as insignificant as a forum post.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  There's no need to get this technical about it. Its reasonable enough to assume that you're free to copy and use my comment here as you please and that I don't give a damn about that. I doubt anyone will make a fuss over something like that. It's basically fair use and you're example takes it too far amd isn't very realistic. I do agree that people should use a copyright mark if they want to claim their rights but in most cases it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell if something like a blog post or comment author is going to throw a fuss over copyright. And if you happen to get it wrong then they'll ask you to take the infringing work down before any lawsuits come out (in most cases).
- antiterra 15y ago
  Automatic copyrighting is required by treaty, namely the Berne Convention. However, in the US you have to register your copyright before you can sue and damages generally only apply for infringement after the registration. Laches, implied license and fair-use likely cover the remainder your concern.
vilya 15y ago
As a counter-example, there were some great sci fi novels written in the 80s and 90s which I'm only just discovering & I fully believe the author still deserves money for them. How about 14 years from the date at which the author transfers the copyright to another party, or lifetime of the author if they don't transfer it? That said, I totally agree that authors lifetime + 70 years is too long. Take off the extra 70 years & I think you've got a fairer figure.
- icebraining 15y ago
  There's no reason you can't pay the author after the copyright has expired. People have shown multiple times they're willing to pay more than they legally have to.

flipbrad 15y ago

why is that such a good thing? plenty of people don't give a crap whether something they just typed is copyrighted or not. They just don't bother going to find the right creative commons licence. I doubt you want all those rights over your comment, for example. Why should copyright automatically block me from using it? Why should your message, or this one, be the stuff of SOPA? If someone is going to get such a strong and longlasting government-granted monopoly on what I can do with what I see and read online, to the detriment of myself and potential recipients of what I therefore won't effectively communicate to them/share with them, why is it such a bad idea, or unfair, to ask people to claim that protection with a simple (c) mark? the public domain would benefit tremendously, as would everyone who would gain certainty over what they can safely use and what they can't, without having to do rights clearances on something as insignificant as a forum post.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
There's no need to get this technical about it. Its reasonable enough to assume that you're free to copy and use my comment here as you please and that I don't give a damn about that. I doubt anyone will make a fuss over something like that. It's basically fair use and you're example takes it too far amd isn't very realistic. I do agree that people should use a copyright mark if they want to claim their rights but in most cases it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell if something like a blog post or comment author is going to throw a fuss over copyright. And if you happen to get it wrong then they'll ask you to take the infringing work down before any lawsuits come out (in most cases).
antiterra 15y ago
Automatic copyrighting is required by treaty, namely the Berne Convention. However, in the US you have to register your copyright before you can sue and damages generally only apply for infringement after the registration. Laches, implied license and fair-use likely cover the remainder your concern.

vilya 15y ago

As a counter-example, there were some great sci fi novels written in the 80s and 90s which I'm only just discovering & I fully believe the author still deserves money for them. How about 14 years from the date at which the author transfers the copyright to another party, or lifetime of the author if they don't transfer it? That said, I totally agree that authors lifetime + 70 years is too long. Take off the extra 70 years & I think you've got a fairer figure.

icebraining 15y ago
There's no reason you can't pay the author after the copyright has expired. People have shown multiple times they're willing to pay more than they legally have to.