6 ms·

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

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.
  - account42 3y ago
    What if a cooking pot you greated gets used by the KKK? Nobody cares. Or at least people accept that this kind of narcisitic control over what other people do doesn't help society. Why do you think things should be more restrictive with information?
- tomatocracy 3y ago
  Controlling licensing terms on non-abandoned works is evidently pretty important to creators though - think eg the ability to police GPL violations or even what Taylor Swift did by refusing to licence certain rights for use in movies/TV (thereby effectively forcing producers to use the new "Taylor's version" recordings).
  - the8472 3y ago
    It's a pretty big change, so yes, some impact is unavoidable. But the GPL could still operate on the margin of free vs. mandatory fees. If the company doesn't want to go through the headache of paying each open source project it uses some fraction of the profit it makes by using it (and the necessary accounting to figure out what that profit is) then it'd still have to abide by the license.
  - account42 3y ago
    Is that relevant though? The point of copyright is not to fulfil whatever desires creators have but to encourage more creation overall.

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.
- account42 3y ago
  What if a cooking pot you greated gets used by the KKK? Nobody cares. Or at least people accept that this kind of narcisitic control over what other people do doesn't help society. Why do you think things should be more restrictive with information?
tomatocracy 3y ago
Controlling licensing terms on non-abandoned works is evidently pretty important to creators though - think eg the ability to police GPL violations or even what Taylor Swift did by refusing to licence certain rights for use in movies/TV (thereby effectively forcing producers to use the new "Taylor's version" recordings).
- the8472 3y ago
  It's a pretty big change, so yes, some impact is unavoidable. But the GPL could still operate on the margin of free vs. mandatory fees. If the company doesn't want to go through the headache of paying each open source project it uses some fraction of the profit it makes by using it (and the necessary accounting to figure out what that profit is) then it'd still have to abide by the license.
- account42 3y ago
  Is that relevant though? The point of copyright is not to fulfil whatever desires creators have but to encourage more creation overall.