3 ms·

> There should be a compulsory fee option offered by every copyright registration office for them to provide a license (and possibly reproduce a copy of the wor

> There should be a compulsory fee option offered by every copyright registration office for them to provide a license (and possibly reproduce a copy of the work). So should a AAA title that costs millions to produced be forced to license their game for the same amount as my tic tac toe game? > Reasonable coverage: At least in the US copyright is intended to promote the progress of science and 'useful arts' (skilled 'trades'/work). The scope should be extremely narrow, and maybe even eliminated since _publishing_ is now vastly cheaper than ever before. Publishing has been a relatively small part of the cost of media for awhile. It’s actually producing the content that’s expensive.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
phpisthebest 4y ago
>>So should a AAA title that costs millions to produced be forced to license their game for the same amount as my tic tac toe game? Math and government solved that years ago with a little thing called the percentage... We have applied that in various ways to extract fees (aka taxes) from people for various things in a progressive way. This is not a new or novel problem. Copyright by design is suppose to be commercially protective of work, and if you want the government to protect your commercial works I think a user fee for that service is both ethical and correct. It would be far more ethical to charge a % to protect copyright than it is to seize a % of a person labor and most people have no issues with doing that
- scarface74 4y ago
  So it should be based on what math? The cost of production? Ever heard of “Hollywood accounting”? Mandatory licenses is how streaming music works where you don’t choose your own playlist (Pandora) and public performances like when music is played in public over speakers like at gyms. Music writers and composers (but not voice) falls under mandatory licenses for radio and streaming music > you want the government to protect your commercial works I think a user fee for that service is both ethical and correct Copyright also protects open source licenses. Should they also be charged the same fee?
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    If the RIAA can figure out licensing costs for music than the MPAA can figure it out for movies and whatever EA is part of can figure out video games. Sure some random guy on the internet won't be able to work it out in a few minutes but if that's the crux of your argument you have a shit argument.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      The big difference is that the variability in how much it costs to write a song is much difference between how much it costs to create “Get Out” and how much it costs to create “Avengers: Infinity War”. Also there are multiple licenses for “music”. - if you write a song and it is used as part of a “performance” for radio, streaming services, etc there is a standard mandated licenses. But those mandated licenses don’t apply to movies or cover versions - Radio stations are not required to pay “singers” when they play a song. There is a mandated license for composers and writers. - Services like Spotify and Apple Music where you can create your own playlist have to make individual deals with record labels for the entire performance. But even then, there are standardized licenses for writers and composers. - if you use a “performance” in a tv show or movie. You have to negotiate with all of the writes holders individually - singers, writers and composers. But if you are willing to use a cover version, you only have to deal with the writers and composers .
      - Spivak 4y ago
        Sounds like the industry hashed this out and we ended up with a system that might be a little complicated but is broadly acceptable to people. What do you see the barrier being for movies and video games? And why not have everyone pay it? If you offer free licensing then you pay nothing. Open Source and commercial SaaS will have no fees. If you want people to have to pay for licensing then you set the price by paying some percent of the price you want to set annually. We can even have first 20 years free so small artists don’t get bought out by huge corps.
        scarface74 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

phpisthebest 4y ago

>>So should a AAA title that costs millions to produced be forced to license their game for the same amount as my tic tac toe game? Math and government solved that years ago with a little thing called the percentage... We have applied that in various ways to extract fees (aka taxes) from people for various things in a progressive way. This is not a new or novel problem. Copyright by design is suppose to be commercially protective of work, and if you want the government to protect your commercial works I think a user fee for that service is both ethical and correct. It would be far more ethical to charge a % to protect copyright than it is to seize a % of a person labor and most people have no issues with doing that

scarface74 4y ago
So it should be based on what math? The cost of production? Ever heard of “Hollywood accounting”? Mandatory licenses is how streaming music works where you don’t choose your own playlist (Pandora) and public performances like when music is played in public over speakers like at gyms. Music writers and composers (but not voice) falls under mandatory licenses for radio and streaming music > you want the government to protect your commercial works I think a user fee for that service is both ethical and correct Copyright also protects open source licenses. Should they also be charged the same fee?
- lesuorac 4y ago
  If the RIAA can figure out licensing costs for music than the MPAA can figure it out for movies and whatever EA is part of can figure out video games. Sure some random guy on the internet won't be able to work it out in a few minutes but if that's the crux of your argument you have a shit argument.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    The big difference is that the variability in how much it costs to write a song is much difference between how much it costs to create “Get Out” and how much it costs to create “Avengers: Infinity War”. Also there are multiple licenses for “music”. - if you write a song and it is used as part of a “performance” for radio, streaming services, etc there is a standard mandated licenses. But those mandated licenses don’t apply to movies or cover versions - Radio stations are not required to pay “singers” when they play a song. There is a mandated license for composers and writers. - Services like Spotify and Apple Music where you can create your own playlist have to make individual deals with record labels for the entire performance. But even then, there are standardized licenses for writers and composers. - if you use a “performance” in a tv show or movie. You have to negotiate with all of the writes holders individually - singers, writers and composers. But if you are willing to use a cover version, you only have to deal with the writers and composers .
    - Spivak 4y ago
      Sounds like the industry hashed this out and we ended up with a system that might be a little complicated but is broadly acceptable to people. What do you see the barrier being for movies and video games? And why not have everyone pay it? If you offer free licensing then you pay nothing. Open Source and commercial SaaS will have no fees. If you want people to have to pay for licensing then you set the price by paying some percent of the price you want to set annually. We can even have first 20 years free so small artists don’t get bought out by huge corps.
      - scarface74 4y ago