5 ms·

This is where copyright is broken. Because they are perfectly happy with nobody being able to play them, and the only option being "buy new stuff". If copyrigh

This is where copyright is broken. Because they are perfectly happy with nobody being able to play them, and the only option being "buy new stuff". If copyright expired in a more reasonable timeframe or had more reasonable constraints (like you can't copyright something to prevent its use all together) we'd be better off, i think. yet it seems more likely ai generated content will be the next step long term, i just can't imagine copyright ever getting weaker as is.

ncallaway 3y ago
I definitely think automatic copyright should be very short (5-10 years), and then the holder can extend it for 5 years at a time, at a (slow initially) exponentially increasing cost based on total duration (up to a maximum of, say, 60 years). That way, defunct titles fall out of copyright protection automatically, unless someone is there to extend them, and pay the costs associated.
- ronsor 3y ago
  Nintendo would be first in line to pay the renewal fees
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    There are plenty of third party published games for older Nintendo consoles that might be public domain by now though.
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    I’d have the renewal cost for the 55-60 year extension somewhere around the $2B mark. There would be _very_ few pieces of work that would be valuable enough to spend a few billion for 5 years of additional protection. I’d structure the system so that Nintendo could probably afford (but it’s be painful) to blanket buy the 5-10 year extension for every title it publishes. But the 10-15 year extension would probably be an existential bet for the company, and the 15-20 year extension for every title they publish would be enough to bankrupt the company. The fees should be painful enough that you renew specific works that are still economically productive, but impossible to simply renew everything.
- Sakos 3y ago
  Unless the cost is prohibitively high, I don't see how this would change the current situation in any way.
  - carlmr 3y ago
    Make it relative? Make the cost of renewal about 10% of initial 5-year revenue from the title. If you're still selling it a lot and you intend to continue, this should be easy to pay. If not, it's quite expensive.
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    The costs should be prohibitively high, unless the work is still extremely productive. The costs should be tuned so pretty much only Disney would pay the 55-60 year extension for Mickey Mouse related works.
    - xp84 3y ago
      I don’t even think they’d pay for Mickey. Mickey doesn’t really make them that much money anyway, that’s all Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar (and ESPN). They only keep bribing the copyright extensions because it’s super cheap to bribe a few congressmen - and there’s no organized opposition anyway. They wouldn’t pay billions for Mickey though. Come to think of it, the comic books that all the big movies are based on, though, they’re all so old that those are the ones that Disney and whoever owns DC will be thinking of while they’re fighting to make sure such a scheme never happens.
- waboremo 3y ago
  There should be a hard limit, and we got it right the first time. 14 years with an additional 14 years only if the original creator survived past the term. For most people, this means an easy 28 years. These should not extend at all, no payments, no transferring ownership to extend, no attributing copyright to a corporation that "doesn't die", none of that.
  - plopzer 3y ago
    I think I agree with you. Here's an interesting thought, the first Game of Thrones book came out 27 years ago.
- tomatocracy 3y ago
  One problem with this is it would become even more difficult to know whether something is copyrighted or not - which is already not so obvious as eg the saga of whether "Happy Birthday" was still copyrighted or not illustrated. A fixed term from creation of the work has the advantage of simplicity at least. I think a better reform would be simply to limit damages available where a work is not actively being sold/exploited by the current owner to some nominal amount (probably nil for non commercial use) and to repeal the prohibitions on "circumvention".
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    I would be much easier. Every work that is extended would have to be registered, and it’s extension would be public record. There just needs to be a system where it’s easy and free to check the extension status of a work. If it’s older than 5 years, and wasn’t registered or extended, then it’s public domain. If it was registered, then the registration website would tell you the expiration date, and when the next renewal date is. It would be about as hard as checking when a domain expires, which is much easier than the current system. Good luck figuring out who owns the copyright today on a random piece of text published 65 years ago.
  - the8472 3y ago
    We could go a step further and make licensing mandatory. Anyone can use the work, but they have to pay a part of their profit to the originator if they do. As a side-effect this completely legalizes non-profit fan works.
    - xp84 3y ago
      This mandatory bit sounds problematic to me. Imagine how much it would suck if you wrote and performed a song, and it was then turned into an anthem for an ideology you abhor, just by them paying a small fee (or nothing if the KKK or whoever is not a “for-profit” enterprise)
      - the8472 3y ago
        Meh. Patents used in standards have similar mandatory licensing and many standards can be used for things the inventor dislikes. And you can donate the money if you find its source unpalatable.
bitwize 3y ago
> This is where copyright is broken. Because they are perfectly happy with nobody being able to play them, and the only option being "buy new stuff". Copyright is working as designed. In fact it's weaker in the USA than elsewhere, where it plugs into the broader concept of authors' rights. Because a work reflects on its author's reputation, that author has broad latitude in determining whether and how their work gets presented and distributed. If Disney decides that Song of the South needs to go into the Disney Vault forever, they are within their rights to decide that, per the principle of authors' rights, not just the letter of copyright law.
- thatcat 3y ago
  Copyright wasn't designed to be a censorship mechanism for past works that reflect poorly on the brand.
theshrike79 3y ago
Copyright should be dependent on availability. If I can't buy something, it shouldn't have copyright protection any more. Disney and their Vault would change real fast if stuff lost copyright while they hide it. Same for consoles and games, if I can't buy it any more, it's free to emulate and copy.

ncallaway 3y ago

I definitely think automatic copyright should be very short (5-10 years), and then the holder can extend it for 5 years at a time, at a (slow initially) exponentially increasing cost based on total duration (up to a maximum of, say, 60 years). That way, defunct titles fall out of copyright protection automatically, unless someone is there to extend them, and pay the costs associated.

ronsor 3y ago
Nintendo would be first in line to pay the renewal fees
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  There are plenty of third party published games for older Nintendo consoles that might be public domain by now though.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  I’d have the renewal cost for the 55-60 year extension somewhere around the $2B mark. There would be _very_ few pieces of work that would be valuable enough to spend a few billion for 5 years of additional protection. I’d structure the system so that Nintendo could probably afford (but it’s be painful) to blanket buy the 5-10 year extension for every title it publishes. But the 10-15 year extension would probably be an existential bet for the company, and the 15-20 year extension for every title they publish would be enough to bankrupt the company. The fees should be painful enough that you renew specific works that are still economically productive, but impossible to simply renew everything.
Sakos 3y ago
Unless the cost is prohibitively high, I don't see how this would change the current situation in any way.
- carlmr 3y ago
  Make it relative? Make the cost of renewal about 10% of initial 5-year revenue from the title. If you're still selling it a lot and you intend to continue, this should be easy to pay. If not, it's quite expensive.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  The costs should be prohibitively high, unless the work is still extremely productive. The costs should be tuned so pretty much only Disney would pay the 55-60 year extension for Mickey Mouse related works.
  - xp84 3y ago
    I don’t even think they’d pay for Mickey. Mickey doesn’t really make them that much money anyway, that’s all Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar (and ESPN). They only keep bribing the copyright extensions because it’s super cheap to bribe a few congressmen - and there’s no organized opposition anyway. They wouldn’t pay billions for Mickey though. Come to think of it, the comic books that all the big movies are based on, though, they’re all so old that those are the ones that Disney and whoever owns DC will be thinking of while they’re fighting to make sure such a scheme never happens.
waboremo 3y ago
There should be a hard limit, and we got it right the first time. 14 years with an additional 14 years only if the original creator survived past the term. For most people, this means an easy 28 years. These should not extend at all, no payments, no transferring ownership to extend, no attributing copyright to a corporation that "doesn't die", none of that.
- plopzer 3y ago
  I think I agree with you. Here's an interesting thought, the first Game of Thrones book came out 27 years ago.
tomatocracy 3y ago
One problem with this is it would become even more difficult to know whether something is copyrighted or not - which is already not so obvious as eg the saga of whether "Happy Birthday" was still copyrighted or not illustrated. A fixed term from creation of the work has the advantage of simplicity at least. I think a better reform would be simply to limit damages available where a work is not actively being sold/exploited by the current owner to some nominal amount (probably nil for non commercial use) and to repeal the prohibitions on "circumvention".
- ncallaway 3y ago
  I would be much easier. Every work that is extended would have to be registered, and it’s extension would be public record. There just needs to be a system where it’s easy and free to check the extension status of a work. If it’s older than 5 years, and wasn’t registered or extended, then it’s public domain. If it was registered, then the registration website would tell you the expiration date, and when the next renewal date is. It would be about as hard as checking when a domain expires, which is much easier than the current system. Good luck figuring out who owns the copyright today on a random piece of text published 65 years ago.
- the8472 3y ago
  We could go a step further and make licensing mandatory. Anyone can use the work, but they have to pay a part of their profit to the originator if they do. As a side-effect this completely legalizes non-profit fan works.
  - xp84 3y ago
    This mandatory bit sounds problematic to me. Imagine how much it would suck if you wrote and performed a song, and it was then turned into an anthem for an ideology you abhor, just by them paying a small fee (or nothing if the KKK or whoever is not a “for-profit” enterprise)
    - the8472 3y ago
      Meh. Patents used in standards have similar mandatory licensing and many standards can be used for things the inventor dislikes. And you can donate the money if you find its source unpalatable.

bitwize 3y ago

> This is where copyright is broken. Because they are perfectly happy with nobody being able to play them, and the only option being "buy new stuff". Copyright is working as designed. In fact it's weaker in the USA than elsewhere, where it plugs into the broader concept of authors' rights. Because a work reflects on its author's reputation, that author has broad latitude in determining whether and how their work gets presented and distributed. If Disney decides that Song of the South needs to go into the Disney Vault forever, they are within their rights to decide that, per the principle of authors' rights, not just the letter of copyright law.

thatcat 3y ago
Copyright wasn't designed to be a censorship mechanism for past works that reflect poorly on the brand.

theshrike79 3y ago

Copyright should be dependent on availability. If I can't buy something, it shouldn't have copyright protection any more. Disney and their Vault would change real fast if stuff lost copyright while they hide it. Same for consoles and games, if I can't buy it any more, it's free to emulate and copy.