5 ms·

> The European Commission has published its biannual list of foreign countries with problematic copyright policies. ... Interestingly, the EU doesn't mention th

> The European Commission has published its biannual list of foreign countries with problematic copyright policies. ... Interestingly, the EU doesn't mention the United States, which is arguably the most significant country yet to implement an effective site-blocking regime. I might argue that the US's insanely long copyright lengths are the actual problematic policy, but that argument tends to fall on deaf ears when corporate bottom lines get involved

Pxtl 3y ago
Sadly because of trade harmonization that "US insanely long copyright lengths" are now everywhere's "insanely long copyright lengths". Imho it should be "50 years or 10 years after death of the author, whichever comes second" with some special mechanism for releasing abandoned works from copyright.
- dageshi 3y ago
  I think europe had longer copyright terms before the US?
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Why should it be that long? Why not 10 or 20 years? What percent of art/media is even sellable or cared about for decades and decades, much less 100+ years?
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    The streaming rights for Friends, South Park or Big Bang Theory seem to still be a big deal, and their first episodes are 29, 26 and 16 years old respectively. Breaking Bad is 15 years old, one year older than Avatar (the James Cameroon one, Last Airbender is 18 years old). And then of course there are classics like Star Trek (TOS is 58 years old, TNG is 36 years old) or Star Wars (Episode IV is 46 years old). 99% of media is forgotten about after 20 years, but the rest makes up for that in profit. Of course for some of them you could argue that having the old stuff freely available would boost the popularity of the newer adaptations, spinoffs, reboots, etc. But I think that's rocking the boat too much to be viable, and some content does genuinely take years or decades to start to be appreciated.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      What is the purpose of copyright? Is it not to offset the nature of easily copying intellectual work with near zero physical marginal costs? Surely, the incentive to create all the content you mentioned is still there with a 10 or 20 year copyright. Some people might earn a few hundred million less, but not sure why it is in society’s interest to offer up the police and courts in upholding copyrights for 120+ years, and then turn around and pay extra for content that would have been made anyway if society only offered 10 or 20 years of copyright. > some content does genuinely take years or decades to start to be appreciated. Seems like an edge case that is not worth the cost.
    - wombatpm 3y ago
      So there needs to some mechanism to extend copyright for certain properties. Some sort of extension fee that’s 1million or 10% of last years revenue whichever is higher. Such a fee would prevent squatting on properties forever, while allowing protection for valuable properties.
    - nitwit005 3y ago
      Copyright law is a restriction on freedom (the freedom to make copies, derivative works, etc), and causes enormous financial costs. The justification given for copyright law is that it will, in essence, promote the arts. No extra TV shows are going to get made because there is a chance that, 20 years down the line, the show is still making money. It's purely a financial gift to the large businesses that own old copyrights, at the expense of everyone else.
  - iggldiggl 3y ago
    Shortening copyright that much might not change the median net present value of a creative work that much, but if there are enough heavy long-term sellers in the top few percent, it might still noticeably impact the average NPV. Though I'm curious how those numbers might actually look like, myself. It might also have some unforeseen consequences on preservation, especially when the version of the work that gets released to the general public is of inferior quality to the master copy the remains hidden in the vaults (either due to limitations of the technology of the day, or because so far it wasn't supposed to have been released and all the public gets are some bootlegs of varying quality or even nothing at all)? Without copyright, one likely major incentive for the continued preservation of those master copies disappears, especially if that master copy is held by some commercial enterprise which must make money in order to survive. (With books that's less of an issue because it's easy to perfectly recover the original text even from a book with mediocre printing quality – with music and video on the other hand you're stuck with the limitations of the original publishing medium forever unless you can go back to the master copy.) So on the one hand, yes, I do agree that life + 70 years is somewhat on the too long side, and all the more so for out-of-print, orphaned or otherwise once-published-but-now-unavailable works. On the other hand I've also been enjoying quite a few CD/digital re-releases of vinyl-era music as well as some releases of tracks that had remained officially unreleased for a few decades, both of which likely wouldn't have happened if those works weren't still in copyright (and therefore of commercial value) at that point.
- mastax 3y ago
  The US was one of the last countries to join the Berne Convention.
- kwhitefoot 3y ago
  We should return to the Act of Anne copyright terms: https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=3389 https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=3389 "The Statute of Anne granted publishers of books legal protection for 14 years with the commencement of the statute. It also granted 21 years of protection for any book already in print. At the expiration of the first 14 year copyright term the copyright re-vested in its author, if he or she were still alive, for a further term of 14 years." There is no good reason for it to be any longer than that and certainly it should expire with the death of the author because the purpose of copyright is (or at least was): " ... for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books; ... " and they can't do that after they have died.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Just straight up 50 years for private person and 25 year for corporations. That is far enough time to exploit anything.
- hyperman1 3y ago
  AFAIK it's even worse. Europe and the USA play some kind of ping pong with extension acts. The original draconian copyright policies came from the EU. Later, the USA aligned, and provided a longer term than Europe. Europe then aligned with the USA, again with a longer term. And so on.
mardifoufs 3y ago
They are shorter or equal to most of Europe. Actually, copyright law is downright lenient in the US when compared to europe. And that's saying something. At least you guys in the US have fair use.

Pxtl 3y ago

Sadly because of trade harmonization that "US insanely long copyright lengths" are now everywhere's "insanely long copyright lengths". Imho it should be "50 years or 10 years after death of the author, whichever comes second" with some special mechanism for releasing abandoned works from copyright.

dageshi 3y ago
I think europe had longer copyright terms before the US?
lotsofpulp 3y ago
Why should it be that long? Why not 10 or 20 years? What percent of art/media is even sellable or cared about for decades and decades, much less 100+ years?
- wongarsu 3y ago
  The streaming rights for Friends, South Park or Big Bang Theory seem to still be a big deal, and their first episodes are 29, 26 and 16 years old respectively. Breaking Bad is 15 years old, one year older than Avatar (the James Cameroon one, Last Airbender is 18 years old). And then of course there are classics like Star Trek (TOS is 58 years old, TNG is 36 years old) or Star Wars (Episode IV is 46 years old). 99% of media is forgotten about after 20 years, but the rest makes up for that in profit. Of course for some of them you could argue that having the old stuff freely available would boost the popularity of the newer adaptations, spinoffs, reboots, etc. But I think that's rocking the boat too much to be viable, and some content does genuinely take years or decades to start to be appreciated.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    What is the purpose of copyright? Is it not to offset the nature of easily copying intellectual work with near zero physical marginal costs? Surely, the incentive to create all the content you mentioned is still there with a 10 or 20 year copyright. Some people might earn a few hundred million less, but not sure why it is in society’s interest to offer up the police and courts in upholding copyrights for 120+ years, and then turn around and pay extra for content that would have been made anyway if society only offered 10 or 20 years of copyright. > some content does genuinely take years or decades to start to be appreciated. Seems like an edge case that is not worth the cost.
  - wombatpm 3y ago
    So there needs to some mechanism to extend copyright for certain properties. Some sort of extension fee that’s 1million or 10% of last years revenue whichever is higher. Such a fee would prevent squatting on properties forever, while allowing protection for valuable properties.
  - nitwit005 3y ago
    Copyright law is a restriction on freedom (the freedom to make copies, derivative works, etc), and causes enormous financial costs. The justification given for copyright law is that it will, in essence, promote the arts. No extra TV shows are going to get made because there is a chance that, 20 years down the line, the show is still making money. It's purely a financial gift to the large businesses that own old copyrights, at the expense of everyone else.
- iggldiggl 3y ago
  Shortening copyright that much might not change the median net present value of a creative work that much, but if there are enough heavy long-term sellers in the top few percent, it might still noticeably impact the average NPV. Though I'm curious how those numbers might actually look like, myself. It might also have some unforeseen consequences on preservation, especially when the version of the work that gets released to the general public is of inferior quality to the master copy the remains hidden in the vaults (either due to limitations of the technology of the day, or because so far it wasn't supposed to have been released and all the public gets are some bootlegs of varying quality or even nothing at all)? Without copyright, one likely major incentive for the continued preservation of those master copies disappears, especially if that master copy is held by some commercial enterprise which must make money in order to survive. (With books that's less of an issue because it's easy to perfectly recover the original text even from a book with mediocre printing quality – with music and video on the other hand you're stuck with the limitations of the original publishing medium forever unless you can go back to the master copy.) So on the one hand, yes, I do agree that life + 70 years is somewhat on the too long side, and all the more so for out-of-print, orphaned or otherwise once-published-but-now-unavailable works. On the other hand I've also been enjoying quite a few CD/digital re-releases of vinyl-era music as well as some releases of tracks that had remained officially unreleased for a few decades, both of which likely wouldn't have happened if those works weren't still in copyright (and therefore of commercial value) at that point.
mastax 3y ago
The US was one of the last countries to join the Berne Convention.
kwhitefoot 3y ago
We should return to the Act of Anne copyright terms: https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=3389 https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=3389 "The Statute of Anne granted publishers of books legal protection for 14 years with the commencement of the statute. It also granted 21 years of protection for any book already in print. At the expiration of the first 14 year copyright term the copyright re-vested in its author, if he or she were still alive, for a further term of 14 years." There is no good reason for it to be any longer than that and certainly it should expire with the death of the author because the purpose of copyright is (or at least was): " ... for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books; ... " and they can't do that after they have died.
Ekaros 3y ago
Just straight up 50 years for private person and 25 year for corporations. That is far enough time to exploit anything.
hyperman1 3y ago
AFAIK it's even worse. Europe and the USA play some kind of ping pong with extension acts. The original draconian copyright policies came from the EU. Later, the USA aligned, and provided a longer term than Europe. Europe then aligned with the USA, again with a longer term. And so on.

mardifoufs 3y ago

They are shorter or equal to most of Europe. Actually, copyright law is downright lenient in the US when compared to europe. And that's saying something. At least you guys in the US have fair use.