4 ms·
Or even simpler: 5 years and you can extend it twice. That’s it.
by dontlaugh 3y ago
Or even simpler: 5 years and you can extend it twice. That’s it.
- ncallaway 3y agoI would be totally fine with that, but I think it would be...not politically viable. This scheme is basically my compromise that I think could be able to survive in some form. I think your proposal is a better version of copyright, but I think as a starting point for a legislative discussion it probably doesn't get a conversation off the ground
- tptacek 3y agoThat would be a shorter term of copyright than has ever existed in the United States.
- dontlaugh 3y agoWhat one country has done in the past doesn’t have to limit what any country does in the future.
- tptacek 3y agoSure, but at this point why pretend we're discussing a copyright reform? You're effectively asking for abolition.
- dontlaugh 3y ago15 years is much longer than 0, that’s a silly thing to say.
- tptacek 3y agoI think I'm trying to say that you're as likely to get abolition as you are a term of copyright shorter than has ever existed in the US, so why not shoot for the moon?
- mrob 3y agoBecause it's not clear that short copyright terms are harmful. Modern copyright shouldn't make us lose sight of the goal of promoting "the Progress of Science and useful Arts". 15 years is a reasonable starting point for achieving that aim. If it's still too long it could always be further reduced later.
- mitchdoogle 3y agoI don't think so. Vast majority of creative works fall out of favor in the first 15 years of publication, so creators wouldn't be giving up anywhere near as much as if copyright was totally abolished. The situations are not comparable in the slightest.
- tptacek 3y agoThen their creators can released them under a lenient license, or to the public domain. Why do we get to decide for them?
- ncallaway 3y agoI mean, we get to decide for them because copyright is an artificial limitation imposed by law on society to benefit creators. It is a compromise between society and creators that is codified legislatively. We get to decide “for them”, because it’s an agreement between them and us (where the “them” and the “us” are actually both just the body poltic). It’s a mistake to think of copyright as the natural order of things. It is a legislative creation, with the specific purpose of encouraging works entering the public domain, which is why we get to decide.
- watwut 3y agoThere used to be time without copyright at all. And the copyright was tightening rather slowly until it reached that infinite super serious thing it is now.