3 ms·

The problem with that is the same as with current copyright law. It's easy for lobbyists to get simple changes like changing "10 years" to "70 years". Or resold

The problem with that is the same as with current copyright law. It's easy for lobbyists to get simple changes like changing "10 years" to "70 years". Or resold once to resold twice, because what's good for the economy one time must certainly be double good if we do it twice. I lean toward making copyright non-transferable. The author keeps it for X years. They are free to license it if someone else can do better at making money from it. The problem with this seems to be group works like movies. Not sure how that would work.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> They are free to license it if someone else can do better at making money from it. An exclusive sublicensable license is effectively identical to transfer, so there's no meabingful difference between licensable and transferrable (especially the status quo “transferrable, but reclaimable after a set period of years irrespective of the nominal terms of transfer”.) > The problem with this seems to be group works like movies. Movies generally don't rely on cooyright transfer, they rely on legal (not merely natural) persons being original copyright holders, and works-for-hire having copyright owned by the hiring party ab initio.