3 ms·

I think (but could be convinced otherwise) that the term is less important than the restrictions. More liberal definitions of fair use, for example, or clarity

I think (but could be convinced otherwise) that the term is less important than the restrictions. More liberal definitions of fair use, for example, or clarity on when something is a copy or a derivative (like with people getting sued for vaguely similar songs) would be better. The work is always the authors, I'm less concerned about them retaining some kind of claim on it, especially if they're still actively using it, as long as there's sensible limitations on what rights they can block for others.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
I think that makes the situation more complex than needs be by opening people up to more legal liability than necessary. As far as society is concerned, society’s resources (police, courts, etc) should only be given up to the point that the incentive to create works of art exists. At zero copyright length, we can say artists (and media creating/owning businesses) have less than a desirable amount of incentive to create (from society’s perspective). At 100 years, we can easily say there is too much incentive to seek rent and rest on one’s laurels. The most expensive works of art covered by copyright right now are big budget Hollywood movies and tv shows. If these businesses would continue to make them with a 20 year copyright term, then 20 years should be the max. And I might even say they would continue to make them with a 10 year term.
- account42 3y ago
  > At zero copyright length, we can say artists (and media creating/owning businesses) have less than a desirable amount of incentive to create (from society’s perspective). Can we? What is the amount of art that we want to be created? How much more art do we really need every year considering that old art can be infinitely reproduced in the digital age? Remember that the art output without copyright is well above zero since we had art before copyright.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

I think that makes the situation more complex than needs be by opening people up to more legal liability than necessary. As far as society is concerned, society’s resources (police, courts, etc) should only be given up to the point that the incentive to create works of art exists. At zero copyright length, we can say artists (and media creating/owning businesses) have less than a desirable amount of incentive to create (from society’s perspective). At 100 years, we can easily say there is too much incentive to seek rent and rest on one’s laurels. The most expensive works of art covered by copyright right now are big budget Hollywood movies and tv shows. If these businesses would continue to make them with a 20 year copyright term, then 20 years should be the max. And I might even say they would continue to make them with a 10 year term.

account42 3y ago
> At zero copyright length, we can say artists (and media creating/owning businesses) have less than a desirable amount of incentive to create (from society’s perspective). Can we? What is the amount of art that we want to be created? How much more art do we really need every year considering that old art can be infinitely reproduced in the digital age? Remember that the art output without copyright is well above zero since we had art before copyright.