3 ms·

I think 20 years with N optional 10 year renewals (where N can be debated[1]). I'd like it to be short enough for the less-profitable works to make archivists

I think 20 years with N optional 10 year renewals (where N can be debated[1]). I'd like it to be short enough for the less-profitable works to make archivists jobs easier, but long enough for authors to be able to profit off of commercial adaptations (e.g. the GoT show appeared 15 years after the book was published). I like #2, but it could be a burden; perhaps only registered works should do it (and registering would be required for renewals). 1: I like 3, which is much shorter than current copyright but significantly longer than you suggest

duskwuff 3y ago
IMO, the optimal solution will be to make some kind of change in copyright law which distinguishes between personal, imaginative, creative works (like a novel or a painting) and corporate, formulaic, functional works (like a word processor or a textbook). Whether the line should be drawn along the personal/corporate axis or the creative/functional one is up for debate.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  There are already some divides for personal/corporate (see e.g. the "Work for hire" rules), and purely functional works are already limited in how copyrightable they can be (see e.g. [1]). Once you get away from purely functional into things like textbooks and word-processors, things get complicated quickly. If I write a word-perfect clone, that's pretty darn functional, yet I probably make lots of creative choices in the process that are hidden from the user. If it's a word processor with its own peculiar interface, there are even user-visible creative choices. Did you perhaps mean aesthetic versus functional? If so, then that's even more of a treacherous area. How many people have Minard's famous chart[2] hanging on their wall for aesthetic reasons? Or what about e.g. Dr. Suess' books. Are those aesthetic, or are they an educational tool? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v._Static_Control_Components,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v..... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minard#/media/File:Minard.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minard#/media/File:Minard.png

duskwuff 3y ago

IMO, the optimal solution will be to make some kind of change in copyright law which distinguishes between personal, imaginative, creative works (like a novel or a painting) and corporate, formulaic, functional works (like a word processor or a textbook). Whether the line should be drawn along the personal/corporate axis or the creative/functional one is up for debate.

aidenn0 3y ago
There are already some divides for personal/corporate (see e.g. the "Work for hire" rules), and purely functional works are already limited in how copyrightable they can be (see e.g. [1]). Once you get away from purely functional into things like textbooks and word-processors, things get complicated quickly. If I write a word-perfect clone, that's pretty darn functional, yet I probably make lots of creative choices in the process that are hidden from the user. If it's a word processor with its own peculiar interface, there are even user-visible creative choices. Did you perhaps mean aesthetic versus functional? If so, then that's even more of a treacherous area. How many people have Minard's famous chart[2] hanging on their wall for aesthetic reasons? Or what about e.g. Dr. Suess' books. Are those aesthetic, or are they an educational tool? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v._Static_Control_Components,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v..... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minard#/media/File:Minard.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minard#/media/File:Minard.png